to move on and see what they tend to a full the tell the said committee to return back home. there is no support from the nomination type mission, african united miss. i don't care about chug or send people ah ah hello and welcome to cross stock were all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle . russia in 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 a blogger, and calm 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 security has been quite lost. and 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 speak the in, that is the be 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 eas, 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 browbeat 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 men to 1999. when nato proceeded to attack, that was flavio, without any sort of, you know, break into, you went charter, its own charter to hell. think you charter all imaginable charters, it was privy to and it, 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 as 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, it will 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 and is that the does determine 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 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 are which has been caused by what's happened because has been rightly said 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 toes early, 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 p, glyn nato. but i yourself to look at the situation office, see any country needs to have some security. and the united states wanted security when 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 miss bachelor. pamela really hates 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 a, one of the objects is a gracious 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 really isn't. so we all have to look at our interest in our countries points, again, there's no strategic tool, other interest in being involved in this conflict or the voice. 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 that they don't reflect upon how we got here. they don't want to do that 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 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 collected, 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 said, sorry, is at home at 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 not going to lose. and secondly, nothing is ever going to be like, as it was before, no matter the outcome of this current conflict, which is that's not how these things work. yeah, and dmitri, if russia 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 1993 study of the russian academy of sciences,

suffered some estimated 27000000 losses in the 1st world war the 2nd world. 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 had 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 under 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 engine dimitry. i'm going to jump in here. we're going to go to a hard break gentleman and after that hard break, we'll continue our discussion on security guarantees. stay with our team. oh oh, oh oh

i ah, ah. busy ah ah ah

ah ah ah ah, welcome act across stock where all things are considered. i'm peter, let's remind you we're discussing security guarantees with

let's go back to anthony and we're thing that, 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 a 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 and europe has to be rectified. and given the voices that we're hearing in europe, and in obviously, washington in london, we have all very long way to go. maybe a generational issue. go ahead anthony. yes, that's very free. but we got to recognize what the real agenda is here. and i told him he got on to the american color tissue, our sunday hot for a well, when she said the ukraine wool is all about regime change in russia, and it's already about anything else. and it's about our godless vested interests that play a big about change so that they get the comfort bratia ah,

plays the game and the hid, macabre sway. i know we need to look at what sub present pacing said in to 1000 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 lee civilized. ready worlds so it is hard for me to visualize nathan as an enemy. so i don't think russia ever wanted a comb breaks or nature as an enemy, but we go hidden powers who have been trying to bring about this conflicts between 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 suddenly of mo weapons and the bull, our aids to the bottomless patch, live person. so then skis, are you crying? i and the u. k and certain other countries that go blood on their hands because a lot of the weapons which had been supplied to the ukraine, nevada, but ended up being to bomb the civilians as well as all li, military for casualties as well as he rightly said. we've got a problem, but the, the went straight major in the rest of the year as well. he's not on debate. so the public does though, actually know the truth. that was his guy on that. but a little bit of a was sad 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. well, in 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 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, the one big issue is that what we've discussed before is that 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 were to 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 them. 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 okay. i find it in 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 reputation perspective. but nato's in this, in this sort of existential crisis because it staked its credibility on total victory and 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 certainly an extra of a trillion dollars to the war and f dana stand and over 20 year period was unable to work with 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 is abused. shamelessly effectively destroyed libya, which was at that point in time. up until that point of time, the most prosperous state in africa, needle 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 natal 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 an elite wore 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 comment about the record of naive. so which should be one failure. in fact, the one instance where they could have succeeded and his son, i totally didn't grade, but we tried 26 with in afghans shaban ride city caisson standards for women and so on. i said they because they did a deal with the taliban. no, never lost a major battle with the tyler so that he conveniently left afghanistan to get enrolled in the crime lab. we, we have to process a wider picture and it's all very sad other people in the event. so controlling what is happening, ah, but we have to do our 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 appeased. men, munich, gay. yeah, that's all you hear. it's all you hear. and then, 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's pretty good. and so you guys about the deal with the taliban? good, very piece. so is all going? well, i've got, you know, the bunch. i'm glad that afghanistan was brought up here because the ukraine is the new gripped. ok because afghanistan was a 20 year griff. now this is a new grift. yeah. well, it is the, the problem, the problem with with this is that obviously it's much bigger grid for the weapons manufacturers. except that they hoped that, you know, there was banks would actually get the job done in 3 to 6 months. they're the ones who are hoping for short, victoria, 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 warfare. and also, i guess there was a typical western expedition war, something that happened far away that didn't really impact anybody at home. busy 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 the, 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 was 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 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 glass, 30 seconds, go to you. how is the west going to accept defeat and ukraine? well, 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 going 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, and i, yeah, well, you know, 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 at archy, see you next time. remember crossed paths with with a bunch of look at those. just trouble to it. pretty much what ship when you much with her mother is a close discuss it with the way it will, the will mostly for us with the one you

with a device and with a your body it goes right into your mouth and causes information. so dad has a new virus on the chrome since early this field, one,

it's starving. so blinking, spreading around when we finally is that the virus mostly just that you know, that's the, your upper respite track. it doesn't go into your problem. so that's why the symptom is a, usually it does not cause it to be a disease. so this is something that we would love to put in with a so much compromise needs with . mm mm a

ah .