on today announced that he's going to distance himself from twitter because it's now become divisive and it's not a fair and balanced approach. actually, it's much more fair and balanced. now both sides are allowed to be hard, not just the, the left wing propaganda that apparently all john preferred. i think when we get transparency, which is what you're seeing, i think come from you must and twitter now exposing everything that was done. i think as we see more of that, i'm clear to people that if they want a fair, transparent opportunity to debate the issues and policy implications and, and their own opinions, twitter will be the place to do it. once people kind of start adapting to the new era of actual fairness and balance, well, let me pull you up on this thing today. the boss is ala muff tomorrow. if someone else so on that doesn't have the same scruples, the same cycle scruples as a low muff, then what happens? yeah, it's like any other corporate into the thanks can swaying based upon the leadership

they're in place and you have a lot of companies in the united states that have been pursuing this woke agenda, the green at all cost agenda and it is hurting them and their bottom line, i just look at the media in the u. s. you've seen the nbc abc, cbs, nbc, v. major media conglomerates lose eyeballs, lose viewership, lose profits, to the point that they're laying off thousands of people because they are not profitable because they have not actually been a journalist in terms of, of having any credibility. you're seeing the new york times and others completely ignore the twitter revel. revelations, they're chilling their own industry. it is literally the example of killing the golden goose, and companies will pay a price if they don't do things the right way. whether it's a media company or whether it's a corporate entity that's doing bad business and how they produce any product and sell their, their merchandise. indeed very well said very well. so steve was amount of time

place building to so thank you so much for joining me. here on the bill again soon . thanks again. just right. we are wrapping up this news. our now pizza, the val is on close. next will be right on the top of the hour with more international news. we hope you'll join us then. ah ah ah

ah hello and welcome to cross stock were all things are considered on people about what is the possibility of a negotiated end of the conflict in ukraine? there are some indications. nato has shifted its position from total victory on the battlefield to the need of negotiations. at this point, this is on clear. the biggest barrier of course, is the lack of trust. ah, discuss these issues and more. i'm joined by my guest, glen these and in our slow, he's a professor at the university of south eastern norway as well as author of the book, great power politics in the 4th industrial revolution. and here in moscow, we have to meet re bobbitt. she is a political analyst and editor, and he knows me internet media project are generally across our roles. in fact,

that means you can jump in time you want and i always appreciated. ok, so i was going in oslo. glenn, you know, with the over the last week, couple of weeks here with getting a lot of mixed signals out of nato to the point it seems to me looking at their discourse, is that it's turning into a modicum of panic. i'm worrying about escalation and the them were the need for negotiation on the rhetoric that ukraine is, winning seems to be fading away. so read the tea leaves for me. what do you, where we are, where are we right now? go ahead. well, in any conflict it's, it's not easy, but it's possible to foresee when each party will be inclined towards negotiating. so for example, when both sides believe they can win this little chance of negotiation. obviously, nano has been quite optimistic that they could, they could win, which is why

a lot of the rhetoric has been very, very wallace calling aggressive. so russia will be defeated on the battlefield as forest. johnson said, you know, bad piece will not be accepted. and so essentially, nothing short of a full victory would be acceptable. some even talked about it taking back crimea and you know, so it was very extreme. but now of course, we said the winds have changed to some extent that the great army are suffered, vary greatly on the battlefield. now, much of the manpower and the equipment has been exhausted. the ability to supply them is also reduced significantly out. ready the weapon store just across the are now being depleted. also the economic impact on this is causing much concern, especially in europe. and as a result, you'll see the political will and to continue this war, also declining. so, so there is a possibility to and that this more willingness now to negotiate. and this is what

we're seeing in the rhetoric. however, and without this however, it's worth noting that only a few weeks ago you have the newspapers like the washington post, arguing that because the public's becoming more aware or where it's important to give the image that we are trying to push in a piece. so it's never really clear because and, and then the more you have such a huge amount to focus on information warfare. so it is quite possible that this is simply, you know, to give an image stuff. you know, we're not preparing yet another are both can be true at the same time. also. ok. that is true because the west is not one uniform voice even within each country. there are like competing voices, even in the united states in washington. some want the quick end to this now, before the wind now start to, you know, blowing most of those direction or, you know, must go standard. you have great victories. while they're see this us, you know, an opportunity to lead russia in the long run. you know,

deem it very interesting, talks about quite frequently with media and public organizations about what's going on in ukraine any. may, he made it clear that it could be, this could be a long effort. he's not hiding the fact. ok. but at the same time saying everything is on course. i think one of the things that the, that makes it very difficult to conceptualize this conflict is that the 2 different sides have very different goals. rush, his goal is to d. miller to rise ukraine. that's very different than victory or regime change. it's the militarization and that is as plan is already explained to us that's happening and at a pace to do the kremlin seems to be comfortable with. so the diff there's because there are different perception. let me go to this in different perceptions here. is that in this adds to the region and what ending this conflict would be? go ahead. oh,

the west likes to talk about russia. it's plants. it's august. they say that the special meeting, reparation will start every $24.00 course and did not foresee that that would be the one that would be this long. protracted bias may be the question is, what does the west work? i mean even less clear about it. just take the last week, how many contradictory messages and there are no quite sure that the west is not speaking with one voice. there is a very bad voice the. let me give you an example. president margaret just said that russia security concerns should be conceived as the negotiations that we will have at some point when you grade. well, basically can speak from the position of course. and you know, so many people west,

all does mark rule. and no one defended. well, it's clear that rock roll the keep agreed. he speaks with the main way. says, today he says, which is tomorrow he calls russia and you with buyer. so basically it's, he's not theory. so are look like our years to think he's a peacemaker. you know? but i mean, at this point here, sorry, but why would someone like vladimir putin take mc groans, telephone call, but what could he possibly say? i mean, well, because, because the point is, let me go to glen here because it's, it's washington that matter. it's not berlin, it's not paris, it's not london, it's washington. ok. and i want to talk about the interview with weakness. merkel gave to the media. that'll back up my faces here. so i mean, you know, glenn, who, why should anybody in the kremlin pick up the phone? i mean, what, what are these people saying? what have they said for the last 10 months that would be meaningful? well, i guess we can draw experience from in december and january and those claims are

most go didn't really care much what you have to say. didn't really care what the secretary general installed. mary had to say the name on call them on worth taking was the one from washington because that end of the day, that's where the decisions will be made. so. so in my mcdonald, well, he often placed there all of the grades in the great liter capable of doing this, you know, huge and new years ago. but he said all of this for many years and decided to rush as a part of europe. you know, it has to be included in this for 30 years now. so i wouldn't, i think when it really came down to it and russia ask ok the symptoms, converting into actual security guarantees for us. nothing ever came from a chrome. so, and it's again, it's not saying it's just,

he's only weak but also send it to our son. doesn't have the support from the americans, not necessarily from the rest of the europeans either. so and france isn't that powerful? they can't swing in the whole list. they don't, they don't speak for europe, so it is, it's a positive sign, or at least we're talking about how to negotiate because for so long now, negotiations wasn't not to worry when you shouldn't say well, so the appeasement. so in the fact that, you know, you have people like you on the u. s. r, which is more music channel really, who suggested now is the time to negotiate. i don't think we can get more out of this war than the older have and, and also, and of course, you know, stolen by because i think to a large extent he speaks on behalf of washington as well. and he also had a very aggressive rhetoric suggesting the only accepted piece was full victory on the nato ukraine inside the now course is arguing that the diplomacy has to be

the less. i'm glad you brought it up because i have a quote from him and throw to demeria and now this is stilton berman last new cycle here, but we have to but we have to pay a much higher price if our freedom in peace are threatened through pollutant winning in ukraine, again, this is that this is a symmetrical here. what is he talking of? freedom in peace rush is talking about security in that's when that's what these negotiation should be about or deed huh. we can just go back to december 17th of last year as a starting point. ok, we didn't have to go through all of this. if, if what nato in washington had taken russia's security demands seriously deem. when we do my mil warwell, you know these freedom with slavery and has gone rolling job recently paid transgendered, the guy who rate you. so it's all absurd. and you know,

some of the roger micro phones who called you saying that he's a negotiate and then sense artillery pieces hope to do your grade. was the r o e r t to basically what i want to say is that this was the males in the west. is it always just to remind you is prevail, the january? well, no rush made the suggestions and what and what from the west project for the office like we are a peaceful defense alliance. we have no reason to worry. yes, we've had reason bar orchard. it's the same story with the other suggestion. so just recently, there were signals from the, from the united states that they were not quite happy with you, that they were not happy with the model. and then today, or, you know,

the last week we actually get messages from the science and political, quote, american officials, the one that people say in the united states. good reason why it's great to strike at the targets jeep and cyber using goals so that you will, what is all was the last or reveal is that and they all, it was the lowest, it was immediately this is a very dangerous situation. was we all know where it will stop? well, when would make yours is that if, if it's going to be a, a test of escalation, russia can out escalate nato 6 ways to sunday. i mean, it's not, it can't work. okay. and when, but that is the dilemma when nato is doing, is it has a political agenda and it has a military one and they're not necessarily aligned. go ahead one. well, yeah, and i would also add that part of the reason that divides nato and russia is

a fundamental difference view in terms of what creates security. so for nato, they tend to subscribe to the concept of liberal hedge money in which you know, the world is divided between democracy and authoritarians. in other words, good between good and evil. so the more power decide of good huss. that is nato very sunny, a russia, the more peace you will have, which is why, you know, they, the cost race is always all we need to negotiate from positional strength. in other words, dictate because this is hybrid piece, where the good guys have all the power. and now this is a very different from how it rushes used to world, which focuses more on the secure, to the level that you have competing centers of power. and they have to find ways of harmonizing their security interest. obviously, if you think there was divided between good and evil, then harmonizing or finding a common piece with russia. it's very well that us when we used to word appeasement . because any time even there antithetical you can't do that. ok, a mean it, it is a purpose perversion of its own logic. if i gentlemen are 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 estate with article ah ah, a wrong went on just a to see how it is becoming african and engagement equals the trail. when suddenly find themselves world support. we choose to look for common ground. ah, welcome back to cross stock. were all things are considered on payroll? well, this is the home addition to remind you were discussing some real mints. ah,

go back to the dealer here in moscow. a demon in america gave a very curious interview in the last couple of days. and i think it can be interpreted in a number of different ways in which obviously she was criticized by basically um, pulling the veil back in saying that meant the mens process was, was really not real. and it was buying time for ukraine and for nato to build up your cranes on defensive and offensive capacities here. i'm not really sure. i, i necessarily believe her rendition f post fact and like this because i think she's trying to justify her policy. esentially failed, but if you look at it from the russian side, well then obviously these people were not serious. the germans weren't serious. the

french weren't serious. and why would they be serious now if they want negotiations? i think merkel really damage any kind of the glimmer of hope that there could be talks in the immediate future. go ahead name or oh, well it was all is a mystery for me why we rush it. so there to excuse are there is that miss in russia that somehow she was good. she was just pretending to be bad. now just look at facts. ok, look at dd. if you don't believe use makers, you know, merkel meets young portage in november in billings. yahoo! always use use, right, absolutely. legal rights to, oh, the sign in all the association agreement with when they, you repeat that one last or for say, we expect the war, we expect that war and then they rebellion. it stops in which 30 policemen were

killed. and congress made as they want to, we are orange and from medical supports it's, you know, i think don't shoot down there. and then, you know, they bring a government down, all the people voted for you and wanted to defend their own in the east of the target. but he's down for basically what is the east? so she, she rules the military action or the great government that they get defeated their retreating and then she start, she, yes, bar and dime game actually started because they didn't see the new territory. she just said the defeat, but they continued to bought the near for 8 years after that because they didn't retain far enough. so i think the reason why so many people in the world that you see is because it gave us my theory is that the president has to be. she asked,

you follow some of the people, you know, but that doesn't mean our breast site should, should be as good for me because he's he was trying to see piece, wake up, save the crew. she was a why she was a very was be kind of what she best enormous responsibility or the crash or the relations with the russian in the last 16 years is absolutely agree with you completely, glenn. but this brings up this credibility issue here. i mean, i mean i like to once, why wouldn't your interlock at your line to again, i mean, we don't even have a basic playing field right now to even start starting talks to start talks. if you know what i mean, that was, and it's an amazing revelation. i'm coming from a anglo miracle. like i said, i think she could be playing a monday morning, co quarterback. now. ok, and then i think there is an element about there. but for,

for the russians, the element of trust is about 0 right now. that's why i sent on this program repeatedly. this conflict will come to an end. when russia says it's over. ok, and it achieves it's goal because it's not going to get a cheap those goals to negotiation is going to get those goals. those goals unilaterally, through the use of force. glenn, water in the mar, referring to is a huge lack of trust which is necessary to have that trust if you're going to have an actual negotiation and a compromise in a political settlement. obviously, the mutual trust is quite broken on both sides. so for when they look across and especially the nation of the annexation of this new for region start, this was a huge bridge. of course, russia christmas arguing is, has his own reasons to be doubtful. i mean, why, why, why would they trust this now? and it's worth going back, how far agreements have been broken because one would assign something. now the

reason why from russia's perspective, this war now is because it was never honored to minsk agreement to somebody hosted for 7 years. this is been not just my medical course, ankle is largely accepted. also the american side has been attached and know the reason why we had them in sc agreement. this may cause a war broke out. why do the war broke out? because after the western governments helps support this regime change in camp. and in fact, if you remember, during the regime change that we have the, there was also an agreement was supposed to be unity government to germany. being one of the guarantee guarantors for having you to government, which and then abandoned the following day, instead gave all the legitimacy the could to the new government to power into school. and then again, if you can go so far back to it because it always since the end of the cold war has just been broken agreements, one after another. keep in mind that in, you know, in $1090.00, we signed the agreements and $94.00 that we're going to have a common year without dividing less. then we broke it by expanding nato and,

and then even the year signed agreements with russia in 2005 saying this and we're not going to, it's going to engage with common age group countries like ukraine. we're going to harmonize it, not one that will not want to integrate at the expense of the other. well, obviously you broke out, that's why we end up in the mind on the school. so it's just been, is one break. i reach agreement after another. so, and the problem is, is there a difficult place to where sit here in the west, nobody's willing to put themselves into shoes of russia to understand how kind of we, we with the trade all the agreements. we have with them a year after. because then you become a put in a rush apologist or nice and you know, wash the council. so it is a very difficult the ability to see it on the sign is very much diminished, which means there's a foundation for trust. there's no recognition of mutual interest, and if there is no recognition of mutual interest, you tend to fall into this narrative, some good versus evil. and again, there's no,

there's no foundation for compromise or trust them. you know, it's very interesting. i really like how glen just phrased it there, because the, when i call the global majority, we play the global south and it's a really our, the global majority. they actually do not see it the way in the west. does they actually a far more sympathetic to rushes interpret and dealing with the west, because the global south has had issues dealing with the west over the centuries. so there's a lot more sympathy there on the part of the global south when it comes to russia's interpretation to this conflict. where is the western press? see, we can achieve the opposite result. you know, now sweden and finland want to join nato and the name of those you guys more than ever. well, there was also another result from the erection. now china wants to buy oil from

saudi arabia for chinese. see ok. now india wants to buy one pro ration right now. everyone is talking about the way through the goal asked the universe, so exchange cars, which is a huge threat states. russia didn't want the charlotte while it was the state, the broad one itself by this work, sanction because everyone in the east is it okay. they basically grows 3 heart of the russian money. they can do it tomorrow. the last they can do with the primary, you know, if they don't like or well enough, you can, you is already threatening them with all cutting off of all kinds exam. so they don't sell the whole story and there are many sequences. but that is absolutely right. there was a breach on their side, they have their own narrative. they said, oh, rush, you know, respect the chart of europe,

which we basically signed with more biofuel blankets. i'm sorry, it was a wish for think you get all this chart one euro. it was i found the arm against mobile. go ok. we're all for united. the problem was how do we get it? so they, they have their own narrative beach and agreements, and it is very well developed to these group. the problem is that if the west continues to rehabilitate a i guess the dependent last week if they continue to be committed, it is that you were kind of excusing them for any kind of orbit they can add up very bad was there will be no negotiation at all, i remember how president, king per polo, you know, when he was in power and the, and boy was very rational, really. he may there, courageous. he came for also and there was a crowd standing next to there. i think. what is your story just delivered a loud yet in full time for star on you?

yeah, here it's pulling here. it's not russia. did you want to call them? by the next? the next, the move of some of the people in east of you or they don't want to go, she sure. and if you want to be in your home or do you wish they position, you are never going well. and they are one kind of permanent, the, exactly, glenn, because then these people that do not want to have negotiations, defacto, do not want to have a, any kind of mutual agreed upon security arrangement in europe. that is that, that is them the worst possible outcome. i mean it, if it's all, it's all or nothing my way or the highway, then we're not going to see the security in europe. no, then this is on the the main problem we have, but they are being, are quite divided on this issue though. i mean i mentioned that you know, natal,

so united. no, but i think that was initially because of the shock and concerned and you know, taken by surprise, us russia and they did, but i think the longer this goes on you're going to, you're going to see more, more, more divisions also within, within europe. but of course, this dimensions can, can also then obstruct any and peaceful negotiations. but again, i think at the end of day or some of the european eastern europeans things, i don't think it matters as much what, what washing wants. i it, it is quite possible, a compromise can be reached. i mean, the, even so if a, me speculate, perhaps after, you know, russia with, at some point even be willing to negotiate, you know, giving updates. well, it's called newly acquired territories on the western bank on the river. i mean, it started the western bank on that, but it's not good. but again,

it's not certain. and again, i mean, the main challenge for russia now is what, what in the piece agreement look like? because he would have to, like the americans would, wouldn't allow for, for example, recognizing any in your corner territory. but for russia, it would be the final piece because i suggested if, if you did not get any guarantees on this piece, equipment will just be a temporary cease fire. you know, is it a big topic for a future? they should know about the time we have that i want to think, my guess and how slow and here in moscow. and i want to thank our viewers for watching us here. are the see next time, remember roles ah ah, [000:00:00;00]

a with ah, a hillary here. every crew like this one daily, get a list of dog crews. they're operating here every day, all out of the full revolver flash point on the bus from lines observing the combat operations of a russian on 3 unit or 6 in the service as well as weighted his is the breakaway province of wiley. peace agreements are report to be