equipment from the west, he also sharply criticized the rejection of a sci fi proposal by ukraine during the orthodox christmas. now, of course, they discuss the so called grania what to the game mediated by turkey. and it was aimed unlocking the black support and allowing the shipment of grain and russian fertilizers. now the 2 leaders have been very critical of that. they will saying that most of the shipments have failed to reach the poorest countries. again, importantly, they spoke about turkish cb and relations, and there been some major developments here as the 2 countries look towards our approach more now that have been ongoing talks on the stone process, which also involve russian and iranian representatives. but they're looking at bringing the 2 sides closer together. saving president bus last out has previously been very critical of turkey, principal of what he calls terrorist organizations and opposition groups in the

countries northern italy province. and he is austin all turkey out anchor to end. what he describes as an occupation, now this new reproach, one between the 2 companies, has been mediated by russia. and i hope that this will develop even further with discussions, face to face discussions between the, the countries to foreign ministers and eventually the countries to president. so this is a major development in turkey, 7 relations and president putin and president, one also reaffirm the commitment to the deepening and development of bilateral relations. they spoke in particular around the energy sector. now of course, this is in light of russia wanting turkey to become a regional energy hub and it comes as many european union countries and others have play sanctions on moscow, on sanctions, on russian gas. so a very wide ranging discussion between the 2 leaders. so thanks for joining us. there were not the international. we'll be back in 30 minutes with very,

ah a ah ah, ah, ah. hello and welcome to crosstalk. were all things are considered on peter lavelle for almost a year? it was not allowed to challenge the west. ukraine is winning narrative. that is beginning to change. a military math will always trump the most sophisticated and well funded propaganda. wasting another $100000000000.00 will not change the

outcome. ah, to discuss these issues and more, i'm joined by my guest, glen deason, in our slow, he's a professor at the university of southeastern norway, as well as arthur of the book, great power politics in the 4th industrial revolution. and in budapest we have george samuel l. e. he's a podcast or at the goggle, which can be val, on youtube, an locals, or a gentleman, crossed up rules that affect, that means you can jump any time you want. and i always appreciate it. i like start out with glen in our slow or slow. i think you'd both that aware all of us would agree the robert gates and kind of lisa rice essentially speak for the foreign policy blob of the united states. they came, they co authored an article which it was title time is not on ukraine side, which i think all of us would agree, but for very different reasons. basically, both of them with their very i would say flaw,

foreign policy pass when it comes to military adventures are essentially saying the united states has to escalate with more money, more troops, more material. how do you take that? because you can say you can take the exact opposite position. it's not, they're not winning. maybe we need to read it and reassess this policy. but they're not glad. well, yeah, it is an interesting article because again, time is not on ukraine side. is another way of saying ukraine is losing and, and also that's what they are outlining in their article. so, militarily there sought to have suffered heavy losses and infrastructure destroys, especially in lived electric grants. and, you know, the quantum is in shambles. it's gonna be hard to recover, love this because a lot of ukrainians and know that the country accept deal for the men are not allowed to leave. and you know, it's, it's an interesting admission that the war is still going on because it's completely funded by nato countries. now,

this is not my words. this are there worse. they're saying this is the only reason there are that have been kept alive. now continue this or only because of now this is interesting because it be because it creates a dilemma of narratives because on one hand we're told to you credit winning is winning. you know, anyone or disagrees, are russian propaganda. and this is a way of encouraging to send more weapons to get them to the goals. but this is a, this is a same objective but a different started like ukraine is losing, losing, we need more weapons. but the objective is obviously the same. it's more a more weapons but overall did that the fundamentals of the article, i find that weakness and this is that they get us. he said it's no reassessment. the only solution is more war despite is not going forward. and i don't think they think that ukraine can win either. again, it is a war of attrition. i think that the purpose of this is to weaken russia, so the longer to keep them or going and again throw more ukrainians at this and,

you know, destroyed the country more and, you know, it doesn't matter. we're not fighting at a lung for ukraine is we're fighting out of hatred for the russian. so i think it has to be some acceptance that the us create that a lot of the situate situation for this war. and again, of course, many see i directors and youth leaders to come this credit situation and then deals blocked all puffs to peace ever since 2015. and now they keep insisting that military victory is the only solution, even though they kind of realize that this is something impossible. and there's a warrant for this is a proxy war. and this is again what we're fighting. and i, i just resent i did that, we're doing any of this for ukrainian discuss, this is not if you want to help your cranium, we would have given russia security guarantees which wouldn't have created the situation again, something about american liter, see, i, director, assemble are you in the past as well. so it's very, the whole situations are side. and i think this article by jason rice exposes this

. yeah, georgia in the article referring to your grade. the economy is in shambles, and the country is entirely reliant on foreign aid. but nato is not a cope illiterate in this conflict. i mean, how much longer can you keep up this fiction. ok, i mean is glen, is that here without the resources, intelligence and etc. money, ukraine with sign some kind of terms of termination of this conflict. george, yes, a question about that. the article is, of course, very interesting because as you say, the premises are a little different, but the conclusion is exactly the same. so most articles are ukraine's winning. so let's send in even more and better weapons so they can achieve victory. you crease losing. so we must send in more and better weapons in order to ensure ukrainian vectors. but what's unusual about this article is that even raises the state

because the analogy of russia and hitler is made explicit in the article because, well, this is the same as america it before. one and america will go to and $911.00, which is that america was delaying entry into a conflict. and then they got much worse as a result of this delay. so if you follow the logic and then you say, well, if the stakes are so high, and if for ukraine, he's losing, and ukraine really has no hope of winning. then what's the next step? the next step is that america has to get involved directly because it will be like saying that, well, i, poland is doing a great job against hitler. let's keep assisting poland so that we can stay out of this war. because if the movies and poland, the more likely to win against nazi germany, nobody would have made that argument. but that's the logic of what gates and right

to saying. and there was still in this rather dangerous situation, that as long as the united states keeps escalating, as long as the united states each saying that this is a existential matter for the west, which of course it isn't. then there really is still a danger that they will get it in a very big way and lead to a very serious military confrontation with russia. glen george said something is very important here in the west says this is actually an existential threat. it isn't. but the policy that they can sit, continue to pursue, in fact, creates those conditions where it's existential, because it's all or nothing is you, you quite correctly pointed out, you know, for, for the last 8 years, the, the west, under the auspices of nato, has been driving towards this conflict, quite, you know, intensely deliberately, we know this from england merkel. we know this from, for francois, along and other,

a proportion called their former ukranian president. so the more they, they up, the stakes to actually it does become more existential lease from a reputational point of view. the humiliation of losing this conflict, which is completely unnecessary. they, ukraine has no strategic value to, to nato as it stands right now. and certainly not to the united states. well, that's what's interesting in this conflict. now, because us, we see that there is there worse that the ukraine is being torn completely apart. and the only rational argument is, you know, let's find a negotiation and, and the human suffering. and, and the sense now the argument coming forward is snowy. we can't do this because it's much greater than the ukranian, so it's a fight for freedom of the world. so, so effectively, we're making this a need to war in rhetoric walls, and that's the same. i'm saying this is nothing to do about nato, but this is,

this is how it conflicts and built up over all this time. and i think it's interesting because undermines this narrative that we are helping you credit this was ever about helping you create, i mean, people can irrespective of whether people think about the rush us military action. i think i would encourage people to think about whether or not we are helping you can keep in mind that we are the ones are pushed neighbor expansion for you know, as in 2008. and despite only in a small minority of cranium wanting it, but we're saying we're helping ukranian despite burns, arguing that this would cost civil war in the russian intervention. but still we're saying we're helping, you know, we toppled the government in 2014 to install and the russian government didn't have majority support of wilson constitutional. but to say, oh, we were helping ukraine. so we support the cracked on russia speakers, the political opposition, the media, and we said, well, this also help ukraine. and again, finally, when do you crying in 2900 voted for landscape piece platform to men,

ties with don, boss and russia. we were able to pressure him to reverse it. why, why did we undermine their democracy again, or what we're helping ukraine. and then again, with charging the frame that ignore that means peace agreement was going to settle this for 7 years. and instead we arm them and train the army, was all we were helping them. and this, and the worst of all 3 months before russia and they did in december of 2001, the former head of russian analysis. ca, you gave an in rated for europe. we argue that the risk for russia locks on the risk of not demanding is becoming greater than the risks of inventing. why will is said, because to us is now immersing itself so heavily in ukraine. training is army is it's a funding if, but also the u. s also modernizing the ports in your current to ship american worships. so they rush us forward. this was going and he warned, well actually time is not on rush. a side note, we're forcing them to intervene now because they can't win this more later. but again, we keep calling it is helping your current and just not to hammer on the when it

did take and take a swing at that george, because i you and i talk very often i've always been very, very bewildering to me that you have in glenn just did a wonderful introduction here. i mean, it, 1st of all the, well, after the cool in 2014, that was scanned support from nato membership among ukrainians and consistently they say, neutrality is kind of the best for us. all right? but you have these, the leads that have been installed in the people that follow them constantly backing western or fulfilling western demands. and you and i been watching this ever since the very beginning and just been bewildered about how does this really further ukraine's interests and the interests of the ukrainian people. you and i've said it from the very, very beginning. and i still can't understand maybe future historians will be able to explain it why these lead to it because they're getting negative returns. unless you take into account, maybe their personal wealth that they have accumulated. i don't know, george,

this is an excellent question and the future historians will indeed wonder about this. and ultimately, the answer has to be something involving nato, the rationale from nato, the logic of nato, and the need for constant nato expansion. because if, when things back when victor amaco, which won that election in 2010, he did it on the platform of saying neutrality, you crane, and ukraine will not join any military alliances and no copays change the constitution. i mean, the basic isn't that you grain will be a neutral country. you want to election on that because then he was overthrown. you know, thanks to leave assistance of nato member states. and one of the 1st acts of the new regime that came to 5, there's also the code was to change the constitution. and then the constitution now state that, you know, your brain will be a member of nato, that it's

a constitution. so what was this really about? well, they, there was absolutely determined to expand and to around russia with a literal of nato state. so essentially, to minimize russia influence in the world and, and russia's potential to be a great power when you, when they were doing. i mean, that was the goal of nato expansion. it wasn't just the supper club or everybody can join. and you know, we'll have a good time. it was, it was done in order to get in the book. right. i guess, i guess the only other thing we need to know is that how many ukrainians are they were willing to die to for this plan to come to fruition. ok. and having a essentially a failed state in the center of europe. gentlemen, i'm going to jump in, we're going to go to a short break. and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on some real new stake with our tea. ah,

for for only one main thing is important. naziism. internationally speaking, that is that nations, but that's allowed to do anything, all the mazda races, and then you have the mind, the nations who are the slaves, americans, brock, obama, and others have had a concept of american exceptionalism. and international law exist as long as it serves american interest. if it doesn't, it doesn't exist. turning those russians into this danger is boy man that wants to take over the world. that was a conscious strategy and wolf out of it on your own. i not leashed off to exhibit in tablet block. nato said it's ours. we move east and the

reason us, hey jim, it is so dangerous, is it deny the sovereignty of all the countries? the exceptionalism that american uses and its international war planning is one of the greatest threats to the populations of different nations. if nato disbanded shareholders in united states and elsewhere in lodge obs companies would lose millions and millions or is business and business is good and that is the reality of what we're facing, which is fashion with

ah, welcome back to cross stop where all things are considered i'm peter lavelle. this is the home edition to remind you were discussing some real news. ah . okay, england also. so you know, i said in my introduction, you know, the, you know, the, the narrative value pain is winning. people are beginning to realize. it's a lot more complicated than that in problematic. but what i think is very interesting is that, you know, when these articles come out with kind of lisa rice and robert gates and all that, people in the kremlin read these articles, do they tend to forget that kind of thing? and i tend to think now in my, my thinking is changed obviously,

since the start of this part of the conflict almost a year ago, is that there was a, a piece process that the turks head volunteered. we know that in march of last year, it seemed to get a lot of traction. i actually had a lot of hope that maybe there could be some kind of resolution to the conflict, but then it was a put to, it was in the through the good services of boris johnson than the prime minister of the you can put that to and to and, and my question, do you, glenn, is that that is a one and only opportunity and it's not going to return because we have, we had the countries that were part of the mens process. they didn't keep their word, they lied. and then you have a possibility of ending the conflict early again, the nato country comes in and says, no. so i don't see why the russians would have any interest whatsoever. and negotiating anything with any of these people they have to they,

they've made it very clear that they will, the end of this conflict will when russia feels that security has been guaranteed irrespective of other players in europe, your thoughts? no, i think i agree. i think that the russian trust in a lot of this piece agreements now as in last, keep in mind that after when, when the rise was going on in 2000, 1314 against the college and europe and negotiate and unity government which they wanted. and then as soon as there was toppled right out there they, they abandoned this. and then of course your, this is leading to a conflict you having and uminski agreement and, and again, it's not just the us us a new case in pushing hardest to sabotage this all the french and the germans were trying to hold it. but as soon as you pointed out to what we learned with introducing medical and alumnus both the french and germans apparently have no intentions on the at least a claim that no intention of doing this. so i think

a lot of i think that they, they do realize what the americans strategy has been. i mean because. ready for the americans, what like, we will play this movie before in 2004. i remember you had the western back this orange revolution in ukraine to stone out the russian government. but then you had, you know, democracy in ukraine, essentially resisting this. and keep in mind that in 2009 later we helped install, you shouldn't go yet. it's 2.7 percent approval rating, also least popular leader in the world. and that's when they voted in the corporate and he, he went for this and the tragedy. and what is interesting that would ask people to read a report by nato in 2011 world war and that are, we have no problem, they call it the article, they published ross post or into the problem. now is, we have a government which doesn't want, which isn't the antibiotic pro nato and even the public. we can hardly find any pulse which give more than 20 percent that ukraine is wanting to join at all. how can we change this? and again, the americans have been,

have play just different time. they worked very hard to 1st topple the government. and once it was done to changed institutions within so again immersing themselves heavily in ukraine. stumping out anything rational. sure language while putting in russia american weapons and that you know not to go on, but it does remind me a little bit about the 1870 franco proxy works. when you know, it's argue that, that, that's bismark, he provoked or, you know, trip the french into moving because my doing so, you know, you would have this in unity with him. and this is what brought germany together. and finally 1821. and i'm not going away to this, but my, my, my, my point is encouraging a conflict between the russians and ukrainians. is a good strategy for nato, because for the next decade now, you know, nationalism will be heavily anti russian. so my point is, has been very from beginning, there's strong interest in the united states encourages conflict,

and that's reflected in all other axis all along. i think that is such a very seminal point, george, because, you know, all 3 of us have studied eastern european and russian history quite intensely. and if someone were to say to me, 10 years ago that the, the americans would eventually get the russians in the m the ukrainians to fight a very bloody entrenched door. i wouldn't be very surprised because you know, that is that with that kind of cultural bond has been very long standing it even for most people in russia, they don't really think of what is the difference between us and ukraine. the only only recently is that happened, okay, and i would say a good part of the ukrainians, but the speak russian, russian heritage, they didn't think about it until the orange revolution was being forced. you must make a choice. you must make a choice and alter ukrainian history. the point is you really don't have to make a choice, and the americans were able to pull it up. it's amazing, george. yeah,

i think it's even predates the orange revolution. i think it goes back to the 1990 . when in the big, the beginning of the nato expansion movement in, and i just said they sold the prize was ukraine. i mean, it was, there was though that's surprised. we need to get ukraine into later because that's really going to give to russia. and along with this was the soft, which is to promote your brain and nationalism, the brain, the language, brain, and culture. everything just suggest that he had really nothing to do with roger. and they tried to do that with bella ross as well. i mean, i was, you know, that's part of the story. israeli told the princess george star, i was very actively involved in the early ninety's in bella was promoting the bella, rosalie, and language and culture of the separate most of the zone. so from the united states perspective, i think russia and ukraine, why thing a want to say this is great. this is, this is one of them because it's,

this is very painful of on the one hand, but it's also, militarily, you know, great russia is being debilitated. and if we're not losing any lives, sell, doing digital ukraine. so doing it, this is, this has been, the argument comes up in the gates right article that we were talking about. and the saying, well, eventually have ukraine, you know, is, is willing to do the fighting when they so, you know, you know, what, a wonderful stroke of luck that we have a country that is willing to doing the native heavy lifting forest. so it's been a very cynical policy and of course, there's no real pretense any longer that it has anything to do with ukraine. it is all about, you know, trying to weaken, debilitate and ultimately destroy russia. going ever since the, the,

the co back in february of 2014, i've been observing and saying very, very publicly to the grain of a lot of people. is it more nato gets itself involved in ukraine, the more quote unquote helped ukraine. the smaller impor in depopulated. the place becomes buff. yeah, well, this is the price we were paying again, this goes why not better paying? which goes against all the ideas we're helping them because that's what i find so grotesque that i think we've been exploiting using them and again stress and again we've been quite open about this. i mean is some people dismiss at esco spirits. if you look through the american thing, time reports over the past few years like around corporation and they're open the state. this is a great opportunity that we can just pump in weapons and kind of bleed the russians for their lives. and their treasury can escalate as much as will up or down and, and then we can exhaust them and then off the russia and they did. you have people

like senator lindsey graham saying, all the structure of this war is great. we the u. s. has promised to give all the weapons they need and so let's give prompts to send older young men to the front in the war of attrition work in the week. and russia like for in perpetuity and the same with senator don crenshaw, he called it a great opportunities. we can, we can key other things without sacrificing a single us life. i mean, it's amazing. and then they have all this other american, the politicians and the scholar saying, listen group and reaching this consensus that this is best of a strategy of making ukraine into a new are gone, is done for russia to week. and russia look at, at no point, does anyone explain why making you current into enough gone is done, which is the destruction of the whole country is in your class interest. i mean that i don't know how to see this. and p. p people, they shift americans. so either you have to before the russian nation or you believe we're helping ukraine and then you create this fake puller position. but

it's important for people to be able to think of it independently. and are you what are our motivation in this hour? because in any conflict, you want to give people the role they have the victim, you have the bill and then you have the hero coming in my simple point, nato is not the hero here in the u. s. it has not been a hero. i think there's have been cynical way we're helping ukraine just like we're helping the curbs. you know we, we use them as our frontline fighters and when we're done with them, we're throw them away. that is a proxy worse work in george something you and i've talked about at great length, is that, you know, over the last on 2 new cycles, there's been rushes done to bill stated, even more of ukraine's infrastructure. i mean, at what point can it can a modern military fight, even if it's nato armed and trained? if there's no infrastructure in the country, this is, this is really great. really? mean we're, we're doing with facing a failed state again, a failed state in the center of your last 30 seconds. go to you, george. go ahead and it's

a fail safe that somebody's gonna have to pick up the time eventually to bankroll and of course is going to be the europeans because the united states isn't going to fork over any money never has in the past. and so what the russians have hopeful for decades, which is that they're going to get some sensible policy from france and germany and europe. the say no, no, we want stability in europe. that hasn't materialize. and that's really will be the lesson of this war, which is the complete failure, an absence of europe from any kind of strategic spacecraft. yeah, the, the absence of europe, but, you know, george is considering, however you want to find a failed state. there's going to be millions and millions of ukrainians that will not return to their home country. ok. and they are going to have an immigration migration problem in the center of europe for a very long time to come with very virulent ukrainian nationalism which added together. very bad news gentlemen, that's all the time we have. i want to thank my guess and i'll slow and budapest

want to thank you for watching us here in our to see you next time. remember across cycles. ah ah, for jack's occupations, but he's responsible for a missile strike on a residential building. internet patrol officer at the landscape, advisor blame for that, the explosion of the results of ukraine's and everything. meanwhile, the probation presidents have quick defined nato's ongoing support for care, according to washington's proxy war against russia. the case that went out new legislation to suppress protests in the country. the vice chair and communist party lamps with play one to crush.