ah, discuss these issues any more. i'm joined by my guest, george semi while we 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 to talk . he's director of the center for advanced american studies at moscow state institute of international relations reginald across across the fact that means you can jump any time you want. and i would appreciate it. when i start, i was george in budapest, georgia. you and i actually follow quite closely with the chancellor of germany, but we call sergeant schultz on this program. what he has to say from time to time . it's actually quite interesting, if not to the point of bizarre. he said that piece in europe depends on revival of post cold war security agreements with russia. well, why didn't he think of was a year ago, december a year? yeah, almost exactly. on december 17th, i just thought it really remarkable that

a major european leader would say such a thing because yeah, that's the problem. that's how we got here. george. yes, exactly. and it's very hard to see what exactly he means by the post cold war security agreements. with russia, because, or remember the post code to your new agreement was nato expansion. and it began immediately to leave the solution also back in the demise of the soviet union. i mean, they didn't even post for grant. and this happened despite repeated russian warnings, expressions of russia, and that was coming from boris yeltsin, the person that they love so much. so it's hard to know what he really is and then even mentions about, well, maybe we can discuss mr. deployments in we will deploy miss styles in great, well, that's a completely pointless exercise because this was something that the united states

talked about last december when the president presented it is to security. i want for united states and want to later. and it said to be a, which was no for the expansion of united states, and they, they rejected the idea of where the major expansion was. well, maybe we can talk about mr. deployments but already said those are peripheral issues because you can just move, you'll miss i was in the at the moment. so why do we need to discuss it? so it's very hard to know. it was a crown echo this theme of shows as well. the other day, well we got to talk about that as in what, what do you planning on? and then the same micron then also said the other day is, well hey, what we need to set up a special tribunal to put russian aggression on trial. so these are completely

meaningless. shots and micro have been largely meaningless during the 10 months. if i can take a massive i can continue with also said, what is part of returning to the post cold war security agreements. he also said this, which is again, really quite mystifying, given the events that we have. russia must make concessions acceptance quote, that there is no aggression coming from nato. read it again. there is no aggression coming from nato. i mean, is this a serious person here? because the problem is nato. ok, it's not, you know, you don't wish it way to say like wave a magic wand say, but it's ok. it's not evil, it won't hurt you. ok, again, this is a like a fancy that coming from a major european leader in the middle of a conflict. europe is really quite mystifying and actually quite terrifying. go

ahead. well, i think at some point in history back a few months ago, who responded to a similar quote by saying it's not the intentions, it's channels that matter a, you know, and i know that i are serious, may have some problem with this. you know, they would say the intentions mattered to and how you read them. but i think it gives you a clear sense of the thinking on the russian side work. they're short, have to say, i also want to refer to one bigger issue to say that both. usually a problem in any conflict in any major military escalation is when parties have a divergence of physicians. joe will have a gentleman gap in the, in the reverse of interest. and the interest bottom line is that the west european, the us in particular, it would like to return to a point in history where they were at the peak of their might, which is the post cold war. busy were end of 98 and 990 s when they were the ones

structuring the world according to their needs and interests. and russia in wants to return to its own point of its might, which is the end of the world war 2. when you know they, the russia, u. s. and u. k. dictated the rural southern regional for the rest of the world. unfortunately, or fortunately, i don't know, none of the either claims can be realised in today's world. i would say that and but, you know, that's, and i think russia in a way, has given up on those expectations that there might be a grand deal because it clearly the us is not interested in any way. be able to see that the moment was on their site and they want to explore their, their, their victory, the v. c. here are getting right now to the best. and, you know, we've been long talking about the winter's coming. winter is now here. and a both parties extracting that the other one is going to practice sooner. okay,

well, i mean, that's the, that's the, the other side of the coin that i want to talk about is the, the, the, the pain dial. but in georgia, what's which really fascinating is that the cold warren architecture that was created in europe after the 2nd world war. it worked ok. it kept the peace. all right. and so again, going back to the shelters, words, i mean, how could someone's a series person say this a? well then, what would change, what was the, what would change the post cold war order to get to where we are right now, he's myopic about it, because as you said, a soon as the warsaw pact came to an end, there was massive expansion of nato. and we all have to be clear here is this was a security agreement that only excluded russia, but was against russia. and that's why the security order in europe has collapsed

george. yes, that's exactly right then because your choice of words is very interesting because sergeant schultz said in the past that any future security arrangement of russia must include a security arrangement in europe, must include russia and must not be directed against russia. and then of course, he said something completely different the next day. i mean at least a song realization of that fact. but if we go back to the historical analogies, then yes, during the cold war, the soviet union had enjoyed respect. and that is that the issue that has been lost and what russia wants to go back to that we are, we will respect that as a great power whose interest needed to be taken a council. you know, people didn't like communism. they didn't like the soviet union, none the less, you know, you didn't mess in the soviet union. you have to just, you, except that he had interest and you didn't across any read line. so we can

disappear at the end of the cold war. and russia has repeatedly said, you know, we, you know, we want to return to that. you show us the respect that is due to us as a great, a refuse to russia time and time again. i mean, we talk about all of the various met agreements from which the west is withdrawn. the united states is the drone, like the abm treaty, the i am, after all, it was just a reflection of the lack of respect the united states have russia. i think that what triggered you know, the launch of the civil special military operations is roughly i have to show you need to show us respect. otherwise, we're just not going to have any, any peace or security in europe. because ultimately, when we're not going to just tolerate you surrounding us with hostile states and just sort of boxing as in, as if we, you know, we're, we're, we're, we're, we're,

we're kind of rubbish, the power that you can just dominate. well, you know, it's interesting is that makes, if you go from across the field, so even to biden, because we, you know, we have a state visit to the united states, you get it from these people that they can still, they still believe that they can unilaterally impose a security arrangement on europe without the participation of russia. isn't that kind of the, in the getting to the point where it is a faith, complete that russia will always be deemed an enemy state because of a stake holder in an agreement. you know, then what is their role? i mean, or, or because natal needs an enemy, it only for it to continue. existence must expand. so russia is the likely target here. but my point is they are less interested in security at the end of the day. and rushes primary issue is security. go ahead ma'am, right?

indeed. and i want to pick up where you left off in saying that the very rationale behind the beginning of the special military operation. i know people have a lot of understandings are not entirely clear what exactly you know, a transitioning, what to put it in very a kind of ru terms, russia the what it did to produce favorable security outcomes for itself and it's near rod when and then the security outcomes in the last few years, we're not cheap enough in russia's favor. so whatever love, whatever, or shoulds, or micron, have to say about whether, how would russia should be engaged? there's got to be this idea in mind that the security outcomes for russia should be engaged in their st calculation and thinking. and here i think a lot of people in moscow have all including in foreign policy domain and then for

policy making circles are very skeptical about how serious is independent of policy makers. my credentials are at the end of the day. so whatever they're saying, maybe just the signal that they're chown channeling for coordination with united states or you know, they have the ok from us to, to test to the grounds and see how russia will respond. i know that you mentioned it before. we go to the break here. i mean it's in, there is a, a disparity here going on here. and then there seems me that the, under the guidance of washington, there's quite uniform security, the definition of security for the west here. but it just supposed to that, i mean, the more they get tight security wise more they fall out, fall out economically. and that is, that is a tension that is really, really going to address that for 30 seconds. i think it's, it's very unfortunate that geopolitics kills economy all over the world these days

. and. ready creating conflict, this is a very certain token of it. yeah. in, in. well, what you can, both of them can continue on the same trajectory and then there's going to be some kind of tension, some kind of break your heart gentlemen. i'm going to jump in here, we're going to go to a short break. and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on some real new stables. ah, ah, the balkan conflicts been simmering for some time or so that she was a sub scott, a. l. damian's demanded the cause of a subs changed car license plates. in other words, they recognized cost of either if you for the wrong with grade refuse because of a is serbia. so discriminating against serve is a slap in the face. a report from the,

for your post for your off your bill that i think you know there for that with me and see mom or i should only go to know me only there's will be in president alexander boutique, hasn't ruled down the possibility that the west is waiting for the right moment to strike the republic with awe with a

ah ah, welcome back to crossed out. were all things are considered on peter well, this is the home edition to remind you we're discussing. so real there's, ah, i mean it's going to georgia would address your church, which one of the interesting things of the conflict in ukraine is presented to the world. and i think it was, it had already started, but ukraine is a pivot point. is it, it goes across a administrations in the united states. we've talked a lot about trump in his trade policies,

but now when we look at them with buying with inflation reduction, which has nothing to do with inflation. but basically giving preferences to american companies, particularly in the green sector, which was always supposed to be your job. ok, when of course, the leader in the world is china. what we have now is that the u. s. is turning us back on 3040 years of globalization and wanting to have its own globalization. because now they will have multiple globalization that are b, a just oppose and opposed to each other. an american one with the other europeans, as their underlings to be able to exploit. and then of course, we have the east, we have china and it's, it's growing globalization here. and that doesn't bode well for security, george. and it's actually very amusing to listen

to the european complaints as in the united states and ever in the past can very much about the european economy and your economic security. well, of course, the american government is going to take up as their priority, who will be american companies, and if europe's companies are going to fail in getting them market share in the united states. so be it the, that's how the united states has always run. it's economy, i mean it's, it's always been a protectionist power. the real question, why hasn't europe done anything to protect its interest? is why i mean, the whole resume, dasher of the european union have been all to be able to build up the cutting edge industries that would challenge the united states. i mean, if this for years and then you look around, is it well in what area?

it is, you're a producing cutting edge industry, starting computers, not in software, not in the internet, not in social media. so you know, not even in biotech. so what exactly is, is you're waiting for. so my wrong goes to the united states warning, well, you know, maybe we're going to do some subsidizing in the future. we haven't done it in the past, and then buying a few little tweaks to the inflation reduction act. and it comes back and says, victory is ours. we want, we achieve everything we can. so again, again, all the talk about chapter presenting some sort of economic challenge to the united states and to china. it mass, you know, the, the, the, to this point, i mean the, the, the, the americans have done really quite well. i mean, the, the, the economic pain that has been as a result of western sanctions on russia,

the brunt of it has been filled by the europeans. ok. and then this year, inflation reduction, and that's almost like insult to injury. not only do the europeans have to pick up the, the pain tab if i can put it that way. now going to pick up the economic one. and i think you know, the media to underestimate what, what's happening in europe. they talk about getting to this winter, how about getting through the next 5? because that's what's really in the cards right now. and europe, economic roundness, productivity will only continue to decline. so i don't see. and in the longer term, i don't see what the price of europe for the america it is. when it's interpretation of globalization, it's going to become a place to become poor and poor. and then that it's still the same time i have to pay for their security. i mean, it seems like a mixture of all worst possible outcomes. go ahead, max. well, in the them, in also, in this sense, you get your, that is likely to be

a lot more dependent on the united states in terms of, you eliminates europe as an independent or either a european union as a whole, or individual european states. that would be totally no subjugated to us national security interest. and one policy concerns in this kind of global struggle against china. you know, to shut down the european market for the chinese you know, goods and technology and all that. and i guess that's the idea kind of behind to trying to break the european. so the royalty and i kind of use the ukraine conflict as a common denominator for global interests. one perhaps, could argue and say, you know, the lead running european countries are more, you know, oriented to it's kind of global and global interests and less concerned about the

national priorities that may be a political price to pay for that. eventually you can do that in definitely jump in there, george, because i agree with math. i mean they're, they're ideologically captured. but idea how g in politics. they don't, they're not always good bedfellows. go ahead. no, that's right. and this has been the european problems. since the end of the cold war, it had a chance in 1990 the sanctions. a cold war is over. now we have to pursue our own interests. you know, we can just, you know, go on, you know, the, you know, the, that frame a is so really invasion. we need the protection of the united states. you know, that's it. the whole issue of the soviet union. so really racial gum. and that was the moment, really, the europe, 2 thirds of its own destiny. and obviously it's destiny. lay with some sort of an

economic partnership with russia. i mean, i was, it was obvious that that was where everything was differently cheap energy keep going, keep energy. and this is something the united states was absolutely determined to stop what we, what we knew all this when you with both of it said, we're not going to allow any power to dominate any continent in the world. you know, it's always going to be the united states that will prevail in europe and asia. and that's where the united states and united states and continue doing, says not only on the maintenance of later, but the expansion of later expansion of nato. that meant essentially moving the dividing line in the cold war, a 1000 miles east of a partnership with russia. you're actually intensified the conflict with russia. i mean, it is a lot more intense. so it was of the cold war. i mean,

it didn't get anything like this, you're the goal. and so united states is prevail because the united states succeeded in breaking up any possible future partnership between europe and russia . and now europe is in a very weak position and unable to challenge the united states as any serious economic. i am unable to challenge china. think of any kind of economic rival you know, makes it. it's really interesting. if you look at western media, mainstream media, there's always, and it's something i'm a child of the cold or something i was brought up. i'm sure george will say the same thing. it the how you manage the russian thread, either it's soviet or it's today who's russia, russian, all of the, all the non. but if the, if you, if you look at, in a more sober way, the biggest threat to europe is that it's, it's not russia. there and right now the connections between europe and russia

are very, very limited and said to get even fewer links. ok. so really the, the, what's impacting europe is american policy. american dig out because because of the, the, the, the, the contact russia has with europe now is the least, it's been in my lifetime. and i think probably a lot longer than that. go ahead. well, the united states has spent a lot of time and effort on grooming presence in europe, in western europe after the world war 2 of in eastern europe after the call of the berlin wall. and then the break up of the soviet union. and the processor needs the trans atlantic community. so the see that is incredibly, regardless of who's in power, who's in office. he's out here in the were he entered towards greater alliance with the united states. so it's not easy, of course to out even not even the us presence, but the very thinking that the u. s. is ultimately the force of russia is the force of evil. and you know, occasionally, i mean, it's pretty clear, i guess,

the pattern line, you know, kind of a roller coaster and now we see the russian threat kind of dominating the narrative . i wonder what the, you know, there might be some intellectual or it's not existential crisis. in terms of thinking of what to do with russia when, and if it stops and, you know, running the country now they have this beautiful bottom until the president. then perhaps they'll be the talks about, you know, hopes for russia being liberal. then they will run against the harsh reality. there's a lot of things that russia's been doing is not just a foreign policy as well, a consent or, or but, but there is indeed a lot of things that are in russia strategic, cultural historically. and yeah,

i mean, is that you bring up a very good point, george. i mean, i always on the, to the point of humorous if it weren't so dangerous, is that all, everything is personified. it's, you know, it's yelton, you know, you personify and then then it can, you know, it has a rush is national interest. it doesn't really change very much. ok. the only grade leader or, well, no leader that ever betrayed russia. national interest was me help. got a bunch. all all the rest. it is been continuity. george go ahead. yeah, that's right. of course the biggest going to you is that yes, the west celebrates on a regular basis, some new leader. and then it becomes disenchanted with the new leader because the new leader insist on pursuing national interest. i mean, we're going to go back to the 19th. it is a popular figure for a while. and then he became revile, figured by the early 960 this terrifying monster banning issue on the table and

shaking with the leaders. well yeah, i mean, you know, if you were trying to somehow you deploy a you to spice life. so the soviet union, you know, you're going to get a leader who's going to be angry and was also a time when it will celebrate that, you know, used to travel around the west. you visit the prophet, texas. no, you know, yes, t with the queen. you know, was a popular figure, but again, when was put in stop the insisting on russian national interest suddenly became a revival figure. mom, a middle aged madrid. it was also all right, now we've got rid of a so i think this is personification of politics, which is absolutely did and, and has nothing to do with security. i want to thank my guests in moscow and in

budapest, and thanks to our bureau for watching us here at ortiz. see you next time, remember? ah, ah well, course it was their land to begin with and then it was part of their original reservation . and it was somewhere in the 1920s that they lost oak flat, but it's always been considered sacred to that a. but altogether within this resolution copper project area, there are approximately $800.00 archaeological sites that would be destroyed for oh wow. wow, that is right in the heart of where meaning we're culture,

where you know would be the same if you fire bomb the bad thing. i hope that this country recognizes native american ceremonies, cerebral ceremonial, grounds sacred sites. because that's where our hardy sat. we belong to mother earth. we do not own mother earth. we belong to ah

1950 the u. s. s. i was returning to peaceful life, but the newspapers didn't report ongoing massacres and the ukrainian ssr, according to intelligence ukrainian nationalists and the ukranian insurgent army, led by romans forgive each perpetrated these atrocities for huge hold. but that was what i should be self both knew why it would be wise to review. i pushed please. of course we'll do immune novels to the plot of it was the head of the n. k v. d. sabotage, department of the time he was tossed with stopping the atrocities in ukraine for a good reason. general suit. blunt was very familiar with the situation. he had experienced fighting the nationalists before the war with named lovelyn t a z a do it. no good amy. but it was lach,

a drug and the task was tremendously difficult, but to the plant it was determined to completed. we had personal accounts to settle with the ukranian nationalist. our headlines are not c. international. 10 civilians are killed and $24.00 more wounded off the kid with a shell. city in washes la gant republic. local officials say a u. s. the fly dog resistant was used in the attack. a french president called on nato to provide security guarantees to russia in order to sold the ukraine conflict, which is exactly what moscow wanted from the west to ahead of the military operation. of questions ruling conservative party has been accused of insulting the countries health workers. now thought the claiming a strike later this month would help.