ah ah the joggers archipelago told her 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 could go and met div i to the u. s. government to make a military base and just deported all of douglas and people from their country. so they caught return back on the island. no, never,

but we are fighting. that's why i'm fat. we'll fighting for the right. so i, we do not consider the right to self determination actually applies to the juggle. since i don't the question, no self determination of the legal advice we have received is actually the chickens . we're not and all not a people for me, it's done to move on and see what we can do. a full the tumbler said committee to return back home. there is no support from the united nation. i commission advocate united nish. i don't care about juggling people ah ah hello and welcome to cross stock where all things are considered. i'm 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 boy mileage in washington, he is of the blogger and column is in quebec. we have dmitri last caught us. he is a lawyer and freelance journalist and, and we're thing, we crossed anthony webber. he is an independent political commentator. all right, gentlemen, cross huck rules and 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 the reason the result is a conflict. do 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 that kept the peace in europe during the cold war. so what are they missing? go ahead and boucher. well this, do you are quite correct. this was where it ended, the call ended up preventing the cold war from turning hot. unfortunately, it was red con, from history and to 90 each amid this whole end of history triumphal as that that became the ideology to sure. in washington. and the helsinki process basically became a conveyor belt for the us to brow beat, other countries into doing it, speeding and this doctor and it 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 are told, or else. and we saw what or else meant in 1999. when nato proceeded to attack you, then you with slow via, without any sort of breaking, do you want charter, its own charter, the hell? 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, we are, we are as so with each one of those. obviously none of us would have happened had the west abided by the treaties it's signed by that has really never been the case has it to me treat me. 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 is obviously wrong. but it's really kind of befuddled me and is

that the, does the german chancello that those low security guarantees were in place before nato expanded? i mean it's, there is 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 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 that is that be something that could be possibly entertained now, maybe because we have mixed voices in europe. you know, there's no relationship, no future with russia. then mc, crawl near, 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 which has been caused by what's happened because has been rightly said from the 19 ninety's when the cobra ended. and they were these assurances, but there wouldn't be an expansion of nato, even though they weren't in written format. 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 distrust there because why should the need russia our trust and a peak peak lynn later. but i also have 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, you have to look at what are the former president gorbachev said arden because he was the architects of 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. and of course, there are consequences. good mas bachelor. pamela really hates any russia, which is what's been happening now. but it's as though these agreements we had,

ah, the helsinki, the, this, the structures we have in place to reduce tension. i have been totally ignored, as, as he said. and the voice is for peace, are shut down and a, one of the objectives of nation 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 is it really impressive? nice. i countryside conflicts with russia, ukraine, and it really isn't. so we all have to look at our interest in the countries point of view. there's no strategic tool, other interest in being involved in this conflict. what the boys should, i mean if there are going to be relations and 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 a, it's

a to our way or the highway. i mean, it's really extraordinary. they don't reflect upon how we got here. they don't want to do that and, and we've 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 a good guy. so, you know, this is, this is a bit of self reflection that's 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, we'll go back to the way they were before. well, i've got a good news for them. first of all, russia 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 dmitri, if you decide to point out 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 those 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, me 3, i'm going 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.

ah. then a money with

ah, ah ah welcome back to cross sac where all things are considered. i'm peter a bell to mind. you were 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 with 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, has 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 here. and chelsea go to the american polar tissue, are some dirt for a well, when she said the ukraine war is all about regime change in russia, and it's already a balance. anything else? and it's about our goodness, vested interest rate are too big about change. so that they get the come cher bratia, a place for game and the head because right? and we need to look at what sub presentation said in 2000 about our euro, because he said russia is passive european culture. and i cannot imagine

my own country in isolation from europe and what we often call the civilized. ready worlds, so it is hard for me to visualize nighttime isn't under me. so i don't think russia ever wanted comb brakes or nitrous and under me, bob regal. hinton powers who have been trying to bring about this tongue for it's seeing certain countries in the west and russia, i'm sorry, is interesting if any, not that long ago that the united kingdom members of the role of family was visiting russia and 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 sunday of mo weapons and the bull, our aides to the possibly expensive president said i'm skis are ukraine. i

and the u. k. and some other countries that go blood on their hands because a lot of the weapons which had been supplied to the ukraine, nevada, but i ended up being used to bomb the civilians as well as all the military or casualties as well. 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 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 and night i was doing none of those in the crying and dr. europe as a whole lot and the by say,

i mean south and burn 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 beneficially 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. 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 stop nerves 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, the one big issue is that what we've discussed before is, it's not just historically me m nisha. 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 red content. the soviet union is actually responsible for the war and even the holocaust because that's where things were headed well. now, boy, i don't know if you've noticed, i'm a big fan of the world war series that came up 1974. i think it was, it's been completely erased from youtube. i think this 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 great. 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, nato committed extraordinary trillions of dollars of resources, apparently, an extra of a trillion dollars to the worn out. 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, natal 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, stayed 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 isn't 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 comments 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 had 26 been in afghans. she'd been ride 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 toddler, barry, so that he conveniently left after this times to get enrolled in the crime lab we, we have to process a wider picture here and it's all very sad other people in the event saw controlling what is happening, but we have to do all best 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. yeah, 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 doesn't say 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 grip 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 fix or it's war. and it hasn't been that then 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 here, certainly the west 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 the 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, dmitri, i'll glass 30 seconds. go to you. how is the west going to accept defeat and ukraine? oh, my great fear is that it won't. okay. seemed 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 the, 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, crossed paths with

ah, in 1834 france invaded algeria, and straight away the french started inhabiting it to strengthen their position. the colonists, known as p a. no, ours took the best land from day one, the local population was put into an unequal position and was brutally exploited. this gauze, mazda is content. the people of algeria began their long term fight for independence . in 1954, the banner of freedom was raised by the national liberation front. a guerrilla war against the occupants broke out. the french tried to suppress to rebellion using

cruel measures. old villages were wiped out acts of georgia and executions of civil people, including pregnant women, children and old people took place more than 2000000 people were put into concentration camps. however, these punitive measures didn't help the algerian patriots managed to induce france to start these negotiations. in 1962 evian records were signed, voting algeria on the past towards independence. but this was achieved at a colossal price. algeria by rights is considered to be a country of martyrs. according to the calculations of historians, the french colonists are responsible for the deaths of one and a half 1000000 algerians with

ah, a in power of shooting leaves at least 3 people dead. meantime, members of the kurdish community gather to the cultural center near to where they had to place if we were still in afghanistan, it would have, i think, made much more complicated the support that we've been able to give. and that others have been able to give you credit the u. s. withdrawal from afghanistan and helped to free up the resources to resist russia and ukraine. a conflict that began around 6 months off, the troops were pulled from cobbled. let's tell the u. s. secretary of state respond to criticism.