ah, ah, [000:00:00;00] ah, hello and welcome to cross stock where all things are considered on peter level. what is the possibility of a negotiated end to 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 unclear. the biggest barrier of course is the lack of trust.

ah, discuss these issues and more. i'm joined by my guess, glen these and in our slow, he's a professor at the university of southeastern norway as well as author of the book, great power politics in the 4th industrial revolution. and here in moscow, we have to meet 3, bob and she is a political analyst and editor, and he knows me internet media project or gentleman 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 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, and both sides believe they can win this little chance of negotiation. obviously, nano has been quite optimistic that they could, that they could win, which is why a lot of the rhetoric has been mary, mary wallace called 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 green army suffered vary greatly on the battlefield. now, how much of the amount power and equipment has been exhausted? the ability to supply them is also reduced significantly or so the weapon store

just across to are now being depleted. also the economic impact on this is causing much concern, especially in europe. and as a result, you will 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've seen 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 ship a piece. so it's never really clear because in the, in the no 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 that, you know, we're not preparing yet another order. 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 a quick end to this. now, before the wind, now start to, you know, blowing most of those direction or, you know, must go stand. you have great victories. while they're see this us, you know, an opportunity to bleed russia in the long run. you know, demon, it's 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 sites 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, because there's different perception, me going to deal on this in different perceptions here. is that in this add to the beach and what ending this conflict, it would be, go ahead. well, the west likes to talk about russia not feeding its plants. it's all this, they say that there was a special meeting. reparation will start every plenty for what course did not proceed. that would be the battle. 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 groan just said that russia security concerns should be conceived as the negotiations that we will have at some point when you grade. well, basically kind of speak from the position of course, and you know, so many people left out of my role and no one defended you. well, it's clear that rock roll the hypocrite. he speaks in many ways. today he says, that's what you, tomorrow he calls russia and you were by. so basically it's serious or look like our viewers to think he's a peacemaker. you know? but i mean at this point here, sorry, but why would someone like. 6 mere prudent take microns 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 thesis 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. murray had to say that the main on call them on worth taking was to one from washing because that end of the day, that's where the decisions will be made. so. so in my market on this, well, he often placed there all of the great, you know, the great leader capable of doing this, you know, hitch a brand new years ago. but he said all of this for many years and

decided to rush as a part of europe, you know, has to be included with this for 30 years now. so i wouldn't, i think when it really came down to it and russia asked ok the sentiments, convert them into actual security guarantees for us. nothing ever came from a problem. so, and again, it's not saying suggesting he's only weak but also into 2 or send us the support from the americans, not necessarily from the rest of their p and c there. so in france, isn't that powerful? they can't swing into whole with, they don't, they don't to speak for europe. so it is 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 with the appeasement. so is the fact that, you know, you have people like on the us side, 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 them and also, and of course, you know, still tomorrow 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 acceptance piece was full victory on the natal ukraine inside. and now course is arguing that the diplomacy has to be in this. i'm glad you brought it up because i have a quote from him and throw it to demon right now, this is spelled number and then last new cycle here. but we have to, but we have to pay a much higher price if our freedom and peace are threatened, true winning in ukraine. again, this is, this is a symmetrical here. what is he talking about? freedom in peace. russia is talking about security and that's what, that's what these negotiation should be about. or d ma, we can just go back to the december 17th of last year as a starting point. ok,

we didn't have to go through all of this. it was a nato in washington, had taken russia security demands seriously beemer, where we do my mil warwell, you know, what is these freedom of slavery? and as john roland jo, recent paid for jeff, the guy who rate you either one. so it's all absurd. and you know, some interesting roger micro phone who called you saying that he's in goshen then france. artillery pieces hope to do your grades. was the r o u r t. basically what i want to say is that these, you will avoid the males in the west. is it always prevail? i mean, just to remind you it's prevail, the johnny russia 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 watching the same story with the other suggestion. so just recently there were signals from the, from the united states. so 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 over all the time. so please go to american officials every one of you. so same thing. and i just gave reason why it's great to strike at the target's jeep inside russia using goals. so the evil waste is always the last one, they always reveal it and they almost all who are the lowest needed trees. and i, and this is a very dangerous situation because we all know where it will go. you know, even when would make 8 years, is that if it's going to be a test of escalation,

russia can escalate nato 6 ways to sunday. i mean it's, it's not, it can't work. ok in that blend, that, that is the dilemma because when nato is doing it has a political agenda and it has a military one and they're not necessarily aligned, go ahead one. when i was trying to reach another line, nato and russia 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, the side of good us, that it's, and they don't use any russia, the more p c will have, which is why, you know, the customer is always all we need to negotiate from positional strengths. in other words, because this is how to create peace when the good guys have all the power. this is very different from how russia used to world, which focuses more on the security of 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 that's when we used to word appeasement. because any time even there antithetical you can't do that. ok, i mean it a perversion of its own logic. if i 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 estate with our oh ah, ah, it is, it is a fact that the minister process has failed. and i can't make any judgment about who has been responsible for the failure of the news process. but if them is the process and the subsequent the implementation, it was successful then it would probably not be in

a position like that. but once that them is process has failed. and ones that it has been perceived as a kind of a tech perception by the russian side. then it probably should try to find a remedy to anybody and it's already having to take them his courses. and the solution should not be a kind of community, a solution. and we need dialogue. 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 to conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. the point obviously is to create trust rather than fear a would like to take on various jobs with artificial intelligence,

real summoning with a robot, most protective phone existence with a welcome back to cross stock where all things are considered. i'm carol bell. this is the home addition to remind you. we're discussing some real names. ah, go back to the la here in moscow. that demon the mom, anglo merkel 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 a year 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 damaged any kind of the glimmer of hope that there could be talks in the immediate future. go ahead name or. oh, well, it was always a mystery for me why we rush. so there to excuse for mircle. i mean there, there is that miss in russia that somehow she was good. she was just pretended to

be bad. now just look at facts. ok, look at dd. if you don't believe use papers, you know, merkel meets yeah. reportage 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 to say we expect the war. we expect that war and then their rebellion in stocks in which 30 policemen were killed and congress made as they want to kill . we are orange and from merkel supports it. you know, i think don't shoot down there. and then, you know, they, you bring a government down, all the people voted for your voice and want that to defend their own in the east of the target. but if you sounds for basic, the other one is so she, she approve the minutes reaction. all the great and got the best. they get defeated

their retreating and then she started. yes, by and dime game actually started because they didn't see the new terry. she just said the defeat, but they continued bought them for a year after that because they didn't retain far enough. so i think the reason why so many people in the world i do see is because we can gauge. my theory is that the president has to be, she asked, you call a some people, you know, but that doesn't mean our breath. the site should, should be as before because he's he was trying to save fees. we can save the crew. she was a why she was a very was kind of what she best enormous response to be 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 richard high to you 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 am 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 you negotiation is going to get those goals. those goals unilaterally, through the use of force, let 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 forth. they looked at russia and especially after the nation 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 design something. now the reason why, from russia's perspective, this war now is because there was never honored to minsk agreement to sabotage to for 7 years. this is 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 who, 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,

there was also an agreement was supposed to be unity government to germans, being one of the guarantee guarantors for having you to government, which and then abandon 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 is just been broken agreements one after another. keep in mind that in, you know, in 1090, we signed the agreements and i did for them. we're going to have a common europe without dividing less. then we broke it by expanding nato and, and then even the ears signed agreements with russia in 2005 saying this. and when i was going to, if you're going to engage with common a group countries like ukraine, we're going to harmonize. it's not one that one of them on the integrate of expensive the other. well obviously you broke that that's why we end up in the might on the schools 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 is willing to put themselves into shoes of russia to understand how kind of we, we would trade all the agreements we had with them a year after. because then you become a put in a rush apologist or nice and you know, wash the council so. so it is a very difficult the ability to see the other side 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 interest. i really like how gland is phrased it there because of the, what 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 the west does. they actually are far more sympathetic to rushes interpret ation 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 to stay all we can achieve the opposite result. you know, now sweden and finland wanted to join nato. and the name to you guys more than ever . well, there was also another result from direction. and now china wants to buy oil from saudi arabia for chinese. see ok. now india wants to buy well pro ration right now. everyone is talking about the way from the goal asked the universe, so exchange cars, which is a huge threat the states, russia didn't want that. charlotte was, it was the stage, the broader itself by this work, sanction, because everyone in the east isn't it. okay. they basically grows the heart of the russian money. they can do it tomorrow. the last they can do it,

agree they don't like all we can do is already threatening him with all cutting off of all kinds. exactly. exactly. so that they don't sell the whole story as you know, there are many many, absolutely right. there was a breach on their side. they have their own narrative. they say, oh rush, you know, respect the chart of europe, which we basically signed with more biofuel banquets and sorry it was. i think you get all this job. it was like something are in the gauge, mobile, honda or k, you know, we're all for you and i had the problem was how do we get it? so they, they have their own narrative about 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 resubmit it, it is that you were kind of excusing them for any kind of gross orbit. they can and are very bad, was there will be no negotiation at all. i remember how all president can pull up, you know, when he was in power. and the, and boy was very directional. really. he made 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 scott on you here, it's pull up here. it's not russia. 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 holes or negotiations or they position, you are never one or 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, the main problem we have, but they are being, are quite divided on this issue though. i mean, the mom mentioned you know, natal, so united. no, but i think that was initially because of the shock am concerned and you know, taken by surprise, us russia and they did, but i think the longer this goes on you're going to so you're going to see more, more, more divisions also within, within europe. but of course, this dimensions can, can also them obstructs any and peaceful negotiations. but again, i think at the end of day there was a european eastern europeans think. 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, i even saw it on me spilling, perhaps that, you know, russia with, at some point even be willing to negotiate, you know, giving updates as well as cold, 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 peace 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 it, if you did not get any guarantees, that is this piece agreement will just be a temporary cease fire. in other words, i think we ought to recognize a big topic for a future edition of contact. that's not 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 oh if it's is a fact that the means process has failed. and i can't make any judgment about who has been responsible for the failure of denise process. but if them is the process and the subsequent the implementation, it was successful then it would probably not be in a position like that. okay. but once that the misqueso has failed and wants that as being perceived as a kind of the tech perception or by the russian side. then it probably should try to find a remedy a to anybody and to rehabilitate them. his crosses a, the solution should not be a kind of community,

a solution. we need dialogue. only 41 percent of you as adults have enough savings to cover a $1000.00 emergency. we have record numbers of americans who are on the verge of having their cars repossess more than a 137000000 americans are facing financial hardship because of medical debt. in america. we do have a welfare system in place to help people who are struggling financially, but it's a conditional system. you have to prove to the government that you truly need help . the simplest way, like explain a basic income, is that it's like social security for the rest of us. a basic income would be a monthly payments that would go to everyone. does a $1000.00 a month, no strings attached. i have out. i will. i mean, i don't know how i just won't go crazy. the reason that i am

a fan of guaranteed income because it is this idea that everybody is deserve it. and just by virtue of your being here a yes, another revelation from the so called put files of stuff that lives apparently push to brian the u. s. president at the time, double truck. just like an internal company monitor saying that wouldn't violate policy. a ukraine sees is athens of senior orthodox clerics in the country and across town declared by president the russian orthodox church.