[000:00:00;00] ah ah ah hello in welcome, the cross stock were all things considered. i'm futile about like the weather, any talk of a political solution to the ukraine. conflict is in a very deep freeze. washington is against that ukraine does what it's told, and the russian see no pressing need to talk to the west. but this does not mean

ukraine is a frozen conflict far from it. economic pain is just starting to reach a boiling point. ah, discuss these issues and more. i'm joined by my guess, george samuel, 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 cross that goes to the fact that means you can jump any time you want, and i would appreciate it. i start with george in budapest, georgia. you and i actually follow quite closely with the chancellor of germany, but we call sergeant schultz on this program. 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

a year ago, december a year, almost exactly, on what december 17th, i just find 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 post cold war security agreements with russia, because remember, the post security agreement was native 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 the bread. and this happened despite repeated russian warnings, expressions of russia. again, that was coming from boris yeltsin, the person that they lost so much. so it's hard to know what he really is and then even mentions about, well, maybe we can discuss

a deployment 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 and one for united states a want to later and said to be a which was no for the later expansion of united states and later rejected the idea of the later expansion was, well, maybe we can talk about mr. deployments, but already said there was a peripheral issues because you can just move, you'll miss i was in need of the moment. so why do we need to discuss it? so it's very hard to know. it was a 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 and 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. shorts and micro have been largely meaningless during the 10 months. if i could get to your max, if i can continue with shows also says it is part of returning to the us 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, unquote. 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 to wait 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 in 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 close by saying it's, it's not the intention. it's the potentials that matter. and you know, and i know that i are serious, may have some problem with this. you know, they would say tensions matter to how you read them, but i think it gives you a clear sense of a thinking on the russian side. you 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 positions. here we have a general mas gap in the reverse of interest. and the interest bottom line is that

the, the west european us in particular would like to return to a point in history where they were at the peak of their might, which is the post war. busy or the end of $98.00 is $990.00 s one. they were the ones you know, structuring the world according to their needs and interests. and russia in one turn 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 rules of engagement for the rest of the world. and i, fortunately or unfortunately, 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 to that might be a grand deal because it clearly the us is not interested in any great deal. she's at the moment was on their site and they want to explore their, their,

their victory that the scene. they're getting right now to the best. and we've been long talking about the winter is coming. winter is now here. and a both parties expecting that the other one is going to practice sooner. ok, well i mean that's the, that's the, the other side of the coin that i want to talk about is the, the, and then the pain dial, but in georgia, which, which really fascinating is that the cold warren architecture that was created in europe after the 2nd world war, it works ok. it kept the peace. all right? and so again, going back to the shelters, words, i mean, how could someone a series person say this a, well, then what would change, what was the, what would change the post cold war order to get where we are right now? he's my optic about it, because just 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. and your choice of words is very interesting because sergeant schultz has said in the past that any future security arrangement of russia must include a security arrangement in europe. must include russia. must not be directed against russia and then it was, 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 analogy, then is during the cold war, the soviet union has enjoyed respect. and that is that the issue that has been lost and what russia wants to go back to that we were respected 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 red line. so, so beginning that disappear at the end of the cold war. and russia has repeatedly said, you know, we, 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, you know, we talk about all of the various agreements from which the western withdrawn, the united states is growing like the entry, the i and every, all, it was just a reflection of the lack of respect the united states have garage and i think that what triggered you know, the launch of the civil special military operations is that i have to show you need to show respect. otherwise,

we're just not going to have 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 is in as if we, you know, where we're, you know, we're kind of rubbish that you can just dominate. well, you know, it's interesting is that makes, if you go from across the shields even to biden, because, you know, we have a state visit to the united states and 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, getting to the point where it is a fate complete that russia will always be deemed an enemy state because of a stake holder in agreement. you know, then what is their role? i mean, or, or because natal needs an enemy, it only me for it to continue exist, it must expand. so russia is the likely target here, but it, my point is

a lot 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 understanding are not entirely clear what exactly you know the answer to patients in transitioning with to put it in very kind of rude 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 keeping up in rushes, fever, so whatever love whatever schultz or a micron have to say about whether, how russia should be engaged. there's got to be this idea in mind that the,

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 or policy making circles are very skeptical about how serious and 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 in coordination with united states. so you know, they have the okay 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 opposed to that, i mean, the more they get tight security wise, the more they follow how far out economically in that is that is

a tension. and that is really, really good. can you just address that for 30 seconds? i think it's, it's very unfortunate the geopolitics kills economy all over the world with very certain token of it in well, what you can, both of them can continue on the same trajectory, or there's going to be some kind of tension, some kind of break. there are 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 statements. ah ah ah, lisa canter, russian state control narrative. i've started as i phone and ignore some scheme div

us. mm hm. the american house southland sent me equal in 55, will be paid. okay, so mine is to farm speaking with we will van in the european union, the cremeans community up machine estate aunt rush up to date and school r t spoke neck. given our video agency, roughly all band on youtube shampoo comment, which indicative even close to chat with 1950 to you as i saw was returning to peaceful life. but the newspapers didn't report ongoing massacres and the ukrainian ssr, according to intelligence ukranian nationalists and the ukrainian insurgent army,

led by roman shook each, perpetrated these atrocities to here shortly before the bell was blowing warm. but i should yourself store beware if you would be wise to review. i wish to preserve all close. we'll do a manual one avo through the plot of was the head of the n k v. d sabotaged department of the time he was tossed with stopping the atrocities in ukraine for a good reason. general suit applauded was very familiar with the situation he had experienced fighting the nationalists before the war. the movie named lovelyn. he conquered azalea, do it's inevitable. so didn't know creamy, but it was black. bunch rogue and meet the task was tremendously difficult, but pseudo planted was determined to complete it. we had all accounts to settle with the ukrainian nationalist. ah,

welcome back to crossed out. were all things considered on peter? well, this is the home addition to remind you were discussing some real news ah, a to georgia, we to pass your church, which one of the interesting things of the conflict and 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 act, which has nothing to do with inflation. but basically i'm giving preferences to american companies, particularly in the green sector, which was, oh, that was 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 its

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 opposed 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 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 if the united states and ever in the past can very much about the europe, the economy, and your economic security. well, of course, the american government is going to take a, as the priority, who will be american companies,

and the europe's companies are going to fail in getting them market share in the united states. so be it that how the united states has always run its 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 will challenge the united states. i mean, it is saying 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, a lot, even in biotech. so what exactly is you are waiting for? so my own goes to the united states warning, wow, 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've achieved everything we can. so again, again, all the talk about chapter presenting. so you can only 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 built by the europeans. ok. and then this year, inflation reduction, i guess 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 i'm 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 about getting to

the next 5, because that's what's really in the cards right now. and europe's economic crown, this 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, and then that it's still the same time you 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 eliminate europe as an independent actor, either as a european union as a whole, or individual european states that would be totally know subjugated to us national security interest and on 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 trying to break the european so the royalty and kind of use the ukraine conflict as a common denominator for global interests. one perhaps, could argue and say, you know, the elite, running european countries are more, you know, oriented to it's kind of global and global interests. and less concerned about the national priorities. a political price to pay for that. eventually, if 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 soviet invasion, we need the protection of the united states. you know, that the whole issue of soviet union, so really racial gone. and that was the moment, really the europe to thinking because it's own destiny. 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 will say that i said differently. cheap energy keep going, cheap energy. and this is something the united states was absolutely determined to stop what we, what we knew all this when you were in like, you know, you actually studied openly with both of it said when i'm 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 to insist not only on the maintenance of later, but the expansion of later and 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 intensely. it was of the cold war. i mean, we didn't get this, we didn't get anything like this during the cold war. and so the united states is prevail because the united states succeeded in breaking up any possible future partnership between europe and russia. and now europe is seen 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. 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 be connected. state is not russia. then there is and right now the connections between europe and russia are very, very limited in said to get even fewer links. ok, so really the, the, what's impacting europe is american policy american dicked out because, because the, the, the, the contact russia has with europe now is the lease, 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 its 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 process needs the trans atlantic community. so the see that is incredibly, regardless of who's in power, who is an office, he's out here in the oriented towards a greater alliance with 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 russia threat kind of dominating the, 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 we're stuffs and, you know,

running the country now. now they have this beautiful bottom until the form of credit, and then perhaps 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, it's a foreign policy. as well, a consent or, or but, but there is indeed a lot of things that are in russia strategic culture 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's put in, you know, it has rushes national interest. it doesn't really change very much. ok. the only grade leader or? well, no leader that ever betrayed russia's national interest. was me help. got

a bunch. all, all the rest. it is been continuity. george, go ahead. yeah, of course, the biggest going to you it 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. me for, you know, go back to the 19th, it is a popular figure out for a while. and then he became reviled figured by the early 900. 60. is this terrifying monster issue on the table and shaking with western leaders? well, yeah, i mean, you know, if you were trying to somehow, you deploy miss styles in turkey and, you know, you to spy fly. so the soviet union, you know, you're going to get a leader who's going to be angry and was also a tie with celebrated, you know,

used to travel around the west. you visit the 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. i'm a middle aged madrid. it was also all right, now we've got rid of a so i think this is this 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 thank to our viewer for watching us he already see you next time. remember? ah, this is the unit for law. in other words,

the unit predicament of united states is a require, [000:00:00;00] a look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except where such order that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. at the point, obviously is to great trust, rather than fear

a job with artificial intelligence. real summoning with a robot most protective foam existence with ah 1960 the walls had been over to some time. and the country was returning to peaceful life, new factories and plants percentage and that both race. but most soviet citizens were unaware that tom gangs was still killing people in the ukrainian sr. it went unreported in the newspapers and on the radio, there were only room was, according to investigative reports. these crimes were being committed by the o u n, and g u p a,