but it's interesting that they're using the term russian oligarchy to it, to refer to these russian private business individuals because they call them private business people that some americans might be a little bit more outbreaks. the same way that lindsey graham and others will be leading the streams and hows about rates if russia and china and india and other foreign countries were taking private u. s. business assets from individuals. because those countries disagree with the practices and policies of the u. s. government, and i don't know what we're going to get in terms of our return on investment. as the president to lensky tries to term it for the billions, the 100000000 or so. but it didn't, you crate. there will be no return on investment for american taxpayers. it will not be repaid. steve, gil, taken us to the end of this news block, but stay close because another fresh lice of cross talk action is coming your way and moment. notch ortiz debate on discussion. show next, and i'm back at the top at all. this story is affecting your world today.

ah, ah, ah, ah, in lieu the joggers archipelago. homer, the jo, san diego garcia, the largest island in the archipelago is now the location of a very large u. s. military base, you get given med,

div i to the u. s. government to make a military base and just deported all of the juggle send people from their country . so they call it return back on the island. no, but we are fighting. that's why i'm real fighting for the right. so i, we do not consider that the right to self determination actually applies to the trickle. since i don't the question of self determination, the legal advice we've received is actually the trickle. since we're not at all, not a people for me, it's time to move on and see what we can do. a full the child said community to return back home. there is no support from the united nation. i commission, i forget united michigan don't care about chug restaurant people ah,

ah hello and welcome to cross stock were all things are considered. i am peter lavelle, russian. the west survived the cold war because both recognized and practice the concept of indivisibility of security. one country should not attempt to attain security at the expense of another country. this is exactly what the west has done against russia to the point of claiming russia has no right to any security guarantees. ah cross sucking security guarantees. i'm joined by my guess. the boyish of mileage in washington, he is a blogger, and column is in quebec. we have dmitri last caught us. he is a lawyer and freelance journalist and in worth and we crossed anthony webber. he is

an independent political commentator. all right, gentlemen, cross huck rules in effect, that means you can jump in any time you want and i always appreciated a boy, let me go to you 1st in the imperial city. um, this idea of indivisibility of, of security has been quite lost ever since the end of the cold war, because it was the hallmark of the helsinki process. and nato is just thrown that into the wind. and i would say that speed, and that is to be the result is a conflict we have in ukraine though, no one in the west seems to want to use that logic, but it was the west and the soviet union that came up with that logic. they kept the peace in europe during the cold war. so what are they missing? go ahead in the bushes. well, dis, do, you are quite corrected. this was what entered the call ended up preventing the cold war from turning hot. unfortunately, it was red conte from history to 9 des, amid this whole end of history triumphal as that that became the ideology you were in washington. and the helsinki process basically became

a conveyor belt for the us to browbeat other countries into doing its bidding. and this doctrine that wasn't quite so clearly formulated, but they basically said that the only sovereign truly sovereign country in the world is us. and everybody else has to do what they're told or else. and we saw what or else meant in 1999. when nato proceeded to attack. that was flavio, without any sort of breaking you, went charter, its own charter to health. think you charter all imaginable charters? it was privy to and it did that was just basically ok. we did it because we wanted to and what are you going to do about it? and you know, 23 years later we are where we are. so it's one of those obviously none of us would have happened had the west abided by the treaties that it's signed by that has really never been the case. has it well to meet tree. i mean, it was

a few days ago that the german chancellor came out and said that, you know, there has to be new security guarantees for europe after the conflict ends in ukraine, which russia, obviously in his mind, will lose which he's obviously wrong. but it's really kind of befuddled me. is that the, does the german chancellor that those low security guarantees were in place before nato expanded? i mean it's, there's this sense of, of forgetting history. it's really extraordinary how the german chancellor could say something like that. your thoughts, dimitri? well, we have an overwhelming tendency in the west to have a shorter non existent historical memory. and we tend to choose the date of the starting point for history. that is most convenient to the narrative of the u. s. hedge them on the united states government. and the fact of the matter is that it has been eminently well established by the historical record. in fact, that beyond reasonable dispute, not only that europe signed onto the,

know the notion of indivisible security and recognize that the insecurity of one state affects all others within the european region. something we're seeing today and very vivid and painful and a very, very painful way. but it's also absolutely clear from a historical perspective that the leaders of the soviet union and russia received assurances that there would be no expansion eastward of nato. and there were repeated warnings from luminaries across the, the west, including george kennan, including henry kissinger, including even william burns, the current director of the ca, that across the political spectrum and russia, there was at antipathy, entirely understandable, and typically towards nato expansion. that there had been assurances given that the breaking of those assurances would have potentially catastrophic consequences for europe and the west relationships with russia. and we simply conveniently forgot all of that. because the ice days decided that its status as the world sole

superpower was at risk, and that it needed to take measures to weaken russia and then beyond that to weaken what it seems to regard as its prime competitor, china. well, you, anthony, almost exactly one year ago, russia sent to nato in to washington to notes ultimatums, whatever you want to call them about, you know, it's, you know, basically they're up against the wall and you have to listen to it because the security architecture is collapsed or the is that be something that could be possibly entertained? now i me because because we have mixed voices in europe, you know, there's no relationship, no future with russia than macaroni or any got criticized for it said there has to be security guarantees. your thoughts, anthony? well, the problem is, sir, there's a huge amounts of distrust are which has been caused by what's happened because has been rightly said are from the 90 ninety's when the cobra ended. and they were these assurances,

but there wouldn't be an expansion of nice or even though they weren't in written format, ah, but the problem is since the end of the cold pool, ah, they totally massively expanded it, especially since the town of the century are. so it's been a complete our sense of distress there, because why should our the need russia, our trust and a peak, p, glynn nato. but i yourself to look at the situation office, see any country needs to have some security. and the united states wanted security where we had the cuban missile. ready crisis and you have to look at what are the former president gorbachev said, and because he was the architects with our agreements between the old soviet union and the laser. and he said a, you may not humiliate

a country and expect prayer, where to be no consequences, articles, there are consequences, good mismatch, they pima really heights the russia, which is what's been happening now. but it's as though these agreements we had, ah, the helsinki, the, the, the structures we have in place to reduce tension. i have been totally ignored, as, as he said. and the voices for peace are shut down. and are one of the objects is of nation, or nato is c supposed to be to protect freedom. but there's a freedom in the, in the west at the moment about our free and open debate each. well, this whole issue, and there's a really impressive di countryside, conflicts with russia, ukraine, and it clearly isn't. so we all have to look at our interest in the countries

points, again, there's no strategic tool, other interest in being involved in this conflicts or the voice. i mean, if there are going to be relations that you're going to, it's going to have to be mutual. that's not a message. it's coming out of european capitals. it's, it's our way or the highway. i mean, it's really extraordinary that they don't reflect upon how we got here. they don't want to do that and it, and it has been pointed out, they choose their dates. ok, right, well that the thing about europe and capital is, is that i see a lot of rhetoric coming out of there, but not a lot of agency. essentially, micron and sholtes and others talk a big game. but they do what they're told at the end of the day. now, they're being told that by, you know, i choose to believe that it's not joe biden, because that would be even more humiliating than the alternative. but the problem with the collective west is twofold. one, they can't under that they wouldn't recognize their own interests if they,

you know, literally fell in their lap. that's one and 2, they're not agreement capable. there is a very clumsy but wonderful. rushing the ologist them. that literally translates it's not agreement capable. these are to people you cannot make deals with because, and this is something that collective wes, it's forgotten and i'll put it in terms of pop culture terms that everybody could understand. if, if your method of dealing with people is to say i'm altering the deal, pray i do not alter it further. you are a villain in this story, not the good guy. so, you know, this is, this is a bit of self reflection that needed to be done in the west, and i don't see it an effect anywhere. i think microns passing thought about giving security guarantees to russia, which is about a year too late. is the closest it's come to it and he's been viciously attacked over that. and yet, you know, he's been centuries at home and band, any sort of criticism as, as you know, russian propaganda saying what sholtes in germany and they entertain these

fantasies that you know, once russia will lose things, will go back to the way they were before. well, i've got a good news for them. first of all, russia not going to lose. and secondly, nothing is ever going to be like, as it was before, no matter what the outcome of this current conflict, which is that's not how these things work in dmitri in fresh is not granted security guarantees, it will create its own. that's what the west doesn't understand. dmitri. again, i want to come back to the point we meet at the outset about the historical amnesia from which we seem to suffer in the last. we forget that the soviet union, according to the 1993 study of the russian academy of sciences, suffered some estimated 27000000 losses in the 1st world war, the 2nd one. and that included approximately $9000000.00 military deaths. of course, the, these horrific casualties were inflicted upon the soviet union in the 2nd world war

by an aggressive nazi regime emanating from germany. and i think, well, dmitri demetrius appoint collective west minus the u. k. at the time. it's really interesting. ok, because you have the entire european land mass. ok. joining nazi germany keep going . i'm sorry to interrupt. well, obviously this is a historical trauma of tremendous proportions. i mean these losses that the soviet union sustained were vastly in excess of bows of the axis powers. the united kingdom, the united states and canada combined. and yet we seem not to understand that this historical trauma affects the perspective on of the russian people and the russian government with respect to security, particularly on the western border. and in lesson until we come to grips without reality, we are going to be at risk of interminable conflict, military conflict with potentially disastrous consequences because of the risk of

nuclear. a nuclear i didn't dimitria, i'm gonna have to jump in here. we're going to go to a hard break gentlemen, and after that hard break, we'll continue our discussion on security guarantees. stay with our team. a money with

with . welcome back across stock. we're all things are considered. i'm peter. let's remind you. we're discussing security guarantees. ah, let's go back to anthony where things are, you know, it's interesting that in the mainstream it's her bowden to talk about what we're talking about on this program here. and one of the things it's not talked about is that the european security architecture would not only excluded russia, but was excluded russian was against russia. and this is something that if we're going to have peace in europe passed to be rectified. and given the voices that we're hearing in europe and in obviously, washington in london, we have

a very long way to go. maybe a generational issue. go ahead anthony. yes, us, that's very true. but we got to recognize what the real agenda is and toasty go to the american courts issue our subject for a well, when she said the ukraine war is all about regime change in russia, and it's already about anything else. and it's about our god bless, vested interest rate are too big about change so that they get the come cher bratia are place for getting a bus right under our we need to look at what sub presentation said in 2000 and about our euro. because he said russia is part of european culture and i cannot imagine my own country in isolation from europe and what we often call lee civilized. ready worlds,

so it is hard for me to visualize nighttime is and i me, so i don't think russia ever wanted comb breaks or nature as an enemy, but we go hidden powers who have been trying to bring about this conference between certain countries in the west and russia i'm is in south sea gives money not that long ago, but, ah, the united kingdom members of the role of family were visiting russia and are improving relations between the u. k roster. and now we have a situation where the former prime minister of the united kingdom brought us johnson is actively war mongering, encouraging the suddenly of mo weapons on the bull, our aides, to the bottomless patch live. president said, i'm steve for ukraine. i and the u. k. uncertain mother countries, her girl blood on their hands because

a lot of the weapons which had been supplied to the ukraine that ended up being used to bomb the civilians as well as all the military or casualties as well. but as he rightly said, we've got a problem, but the, the windstream major in the west of the u. k as well. he's not on debate. so the public does though, actually know the trade that was, is going on on that, but a sort of bit of a, a sad thing because nate, i was supposed to have an objective of securing peace, promising co operation and guarding freedom a night. i was doing none of those came the crying, and dr. europe as a whole lot and the by her mean stealth and birth makes it very existential. a, i know we must win. russia must be defeated. well, what happens or in the reverse happens, the boy ship, i mean, how,

how does nato survive? this, which i'm rubbing my hands with glee because it's a failed alliance. it, when it's being proven. well nato's mission, according to its 1st secretary general, who was a british peer, unlike suttonberg, who is an absolute nbc said that the mission of the alliance was to keep the americans in the russians out in the germans down. and it has been doing that. and it has been definitely doing that ever since. the problem is that you cannot have european security without russia. you cannot have, you know, europe with, with germany suppressed. and obviously, american tutelage is turning out to be not really a blessing of liberty that everybody thought it would be. nato is a fail alliance. if, if there is any justice in the world, it needs to be dissolved. yeah, it has manifestly served the opposite purpose of its official one. again, lord, his mace definition worked out much better in that respect. but again,

not to the interest of the people involved. i would argue that starts in his infinite stupidity and i'm sorry, i don't have any respect for this man. he basically admitted that nato is a party to the conflict. he's actually insisting. right? so, you know, if you, if you're not involved in the war, how can you win or lose? and if you are involved in more than welcome to the consequences, one big issue is that what we've discussed before is it's not just historically me amnesia. it is, it is a very deliberate destruction of historical memory to the point where most people in the west have this vision of world war 2, as seen on the silver screen and spielberg movies where the soviet union doesn't even exist. right? and unfortunately, i've, i've been saying for the past few years before this calamity happened upon us that, you know, give him another half a generation and they will have read conduct. the soviet union is actually

responsible for the war and even the holocaust because that's where things were headed. well, no, boy, i don't know if you've noticed. i'm a big fan of the world war series that came out in 1974. i think it was, it's been completely erased from youtube. i think there's one episode, and if wiped it because of what exactly what you said, because it would, it would make, well, well, keep the memory of the war. authentic memory. dmitri, i mean what, where nato is drawn a line in the sand. i mean, how does it survive when it loses in ukraine? it won't, it's gradually. ok, i find it and thinkable that nato will survive in any meaningful form. perhaps some rump of nato, confined to a core of states in western europe, might survive this disaster from a reputational perspective. but nato's in this, in this sort of existential crisis because it staked its credibility on total victory in ukraine, which from a practical perspective is achievable. and you know,

quite apart from that nato's credibility, in any rational world would have taken a massive hit. well before the commencement of the special military operation in february, because for example, natal committed, you know, extraordinary trillions of dollars of resources. apparently the nexus of a trillion dollars to the war. and the dentist in an over 20 year period was unable to the taliban, who were armed with soviet era small arms. nato in the name of human rights. and the doctrine of the responsibility protect doctrine which its abuse shamelessly effectively destroyed libya, which was at that point in time. up until that point of time, the most prosperous state in africa, nato bombarded serbia and even to this very day, that problem hasn't been resolved. it's festering and there could be war in kosovo . so when you look across the spectrum of nato intervention, what you see is one failed state in one disaster after another. and on top of that, you have nato demanding clamoring stilton berg and others,

that every nato members spend 2 percent of its g d, p on the military. whether there is a legitimate need for them to do so. and whether, even though there are pressing domestic issues, that every member of nato has to confront, including poverty and an environmental and be environmental crisis currently confront, you know, anthony, and one of the things is very curious in this propaganda rich environment. that this is a lead to war it because if you look at polling, if you dig down, most people are interested in domestic issues here. but this isn't an elite agenda . yes, it definitely is a registered problems about the record of nights which should be one failure. in fact, of the one instance where they could have succeeded to get his son. i totally didn't grade different but which i 26 with in afghans. she'd been right. city

caisson standards for women and so on. i said they because they did a deal with the taliban, never lost a major battle with the tyler barry so that he conveniently left after this time to get enrolled in the crime lab. we have also sort of wider picture and it's all very sad. other people in the event saw controlling what is happening. but we have to see a all pass to are in all respects of countries feel involved in the crime should encourage our governments to exit from those policies certain. oh, but that would be appeasement, munich. a. yeah, that's all you hear. it's all you hear and you know, you know, all of you, the people that say that don't even know what it means. ok, it's a slogan. it's simply a slogan it. and so that's about the deal with the taliban. good,

very piece. so hold on. well, i've got, you know, they're bunch, i'm glad that afghanistan was brought up here because the ukraine is the new griffith. ok, because afghanistan was a 20 year griff, now this is a new grift. it is the, the problem, the problem with this is that obviously it's much bigger drift for the weapons manufacturers. except that they hoped that, you know, there will be, banks would actually get the job done in 3 to 6 months. they're the ones who are hoping for short, victorious war and it hasn't been that the now they're facing the cold hard reality that their production rates cannot possibly compete with water in warfare. and also of gaston was a typical western expedition war. something that happened far away that didn't really impact anybody at home, aside from those poor souls who came back with p t s. d. this is having immediate consequences not just for, not just for europe, which is obviously directly impacted with the,

with the energy collapse. but even in the us, because, you know, dividing government tried blaming the gas prices on, on the conflict. so here's for the 1st time in god knows how many years, certainly the wes, living memory, a conflict that's actually hitting home. however indirectly. and the population doesn't like it. and guess what the population doesn't get. it doesn't get a vote. it doesn't matter how hard they're they're put upon because nobody cares what they think. it's let them eat cake all the way down. and it's too absolutely destroying any sort of delusion that might be persisting in the west about some sort of, you know, government talk to people in democracy. let me jump in here. demetrius the last 30 seconds. go to you. how is the west going to accept defeat and ukraine? well, my great fear is that it won't. ok, i seem to. yeah, yeah, that speed is full speed ahead. they don't know how to deescalate. right now we're talking about sending patriot missiles to ukraine. every single reaction to

a russian intervention in this theater of war is one of escalation. and i think at some point we, we as a people are gonna have to take matters into our own hands, get out into the streets and demand that our governments finally engage in a process of negotiation. and yet, yeah, a little bit of democracy wouldn't be a bad thing right now gentlemen, you know, exactly. yeah. i, yeah. well, you know that that's, that one of the biggest casualties is, is democracy in listening to what people have to say. gentlemen, fascinating discussion. as all the time we have many thanks them i guess in washington, quebec, and wording. and thanks to our viewers for watching us here. darky. see you next time. remember, cross ah,

the joggers archipelago told me that she goes to san diego garcia, the largest island in the archipelago, is now the location of a very large u. s. military base. you get given med, give our i, to the u. s. government to make a military base and just deported or the people from their country. so big caught return back on the island. no, no, but we are fighting. that's why i'm fact we'll fighting for the right. so i, we do not consider that the right to self determination actually applies to the trickle. since i don't the question though, self determination of the legal advice we've received is actually that should go,

since we're not at all, not a people for me, it's time to move on and see what we can do for the congress said committee to return back home there is no support from the united nation. i commission, african united michelle. don't care about chug or send people a headline stories this hour. another twist in the dispute between russia, the new over a natural gas supply cells moscow responding to the wes price account by designating its own value for the come on, it's a little bit sometimes our colleagues and partner surprised me with their unprofessional decisions. now they don't know how to get out of this position and are trying to regulate gas prices as well, with incredible for they just must have delays or rep, southern major gas storage facility in the north african nation of morocco.