higher thing conceived the type of questions they were looking for, false line, socio economic, ethnic linguistic lines. but they could exploit the next year during their engineer qu, they wanted to see what, what they could do regarding crime. yet if there was anything they can do, the fact that everyone even then wanted to identify it as russian or even wanted to be a part of russia. this, this has been an inconvenient fact that they've tried to paper over from then all the way until now. so not a lot for now on a busy use day on this, the 1st day of the break to stay with our international because the moment it says people of l and guess with another slice of cross talk action coming your way. ah ah

ah the news hello and welcome to cross talk or all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle almost one year into the conflict. no major western leader is called for talks to bring peace to ukraine and europe. instead, we are witnessing dangerous escalation. the great tank debate is settled. will it be fighter jets next? where does this end? the, the cross

talking escalation. i'm joined by my guess peter cousin, they can washington. he's a professor of history and director of the nuclear studies institute at american university as well as co author with oliver stone of the untold history of the united states. in bangkok we have brian or let take, he is a geo political analyst and a former us marine. and in toronto, we cross the christopher black. he's a member of the canadian piece congress and an international criminal lawyer. i gentleman cross roads and the fact that means you can jump anytime you want. and i always appreciate, i want to go to peter person in washington. i want to read a few headlines here that have come out in the last news cycle. so, number one, nato says, alliance is ready for direct confrontation with russia. the 2nd point russia worn to a full blown war. again, poland says it's ready to send f sixteens to ukraine in coordination with nato. and a headline from the wall street journal. some western backers of ukraine worry, but time might not be on ukraine's side. so peter, i mean, this seems to be

a full steam ahead with escalation here. but we have mix messages from a western capitals and then throw in with the russians. are reacting to, i mean, this is a collision course to where peter a collision course to insanity. may we are. the situation gets more and more dire and desperate by the day. and, you know, where, where is it heading? there is no orfram. the russian official, i speak to why the winner on the battlefield, the ukrainians expect to win on the battlefield. nato is supplying more and more arms and there doesn't seem to be any inclination at all toward diplomacy. in negotiations, settling this name, we know everybody knows that eventually is going to be resolved at the to go sharing table. biden says that milly says that the russians know that to

but nobody seems to have any impetus to get there. so that makes the situation more and more desk. well, peter, peter rabbit, peter, you know, well, because you've been on the program since then, that there is a starting point and it was just december, 17, 2021 diplomatic note to data when the united states. that's a starting point right there in the west, ignored it. ok, that's where the starting point is, but the west dismissed it. that's why this happened here. when we go to christopher in toronto, you know, i, i'm not a professor of international relations or law, but it doesn't make any sense to me that escalation is a form of deterrence. it's just the reverse. go ahead, christopher in toronto. that's. that's right. but the entire position of native since the at least, and be before the mind and coo and 2014 is one of aggression against russia. and that's what they've intended all along. so it doesn't make sense to any rational

person, but it does to those people that neo cons in charge. unwashed in london, who have ambitions to repeat what hitler tried to do by a concrete and destroying and taking apart russia and can the regional conflict and ukraine is their arm, fist against russia. and that's what they're trying to do at the present time of their failing. and the sash to fill. it doesn't make any sense. in rational terms, you have to go back to what they really want. what is their ultimate objective? because his classmates often said many times that war is politics through. busy mean, so they're trying to achieve something, but they risk destroying the world to try and achieve it because they cannot achieve it without a major conflict which leads nuclear war. well, chris, or if i go to brian and band cock, i mean, we all know, i mean, they've told us over and over again. joe biden, on a number of occasions they put in, must go essentially regime change,

or you can get the radicals in the baltic states and poland, that dismemberment of russia. this is what they want. ok, well obviously it's been gotten. do you agree to that? ok, so, and on top of it, you know that, that very sophisticated foreign minister in germany says that europe is at war with russia. so, i mean, what does the russians missing here, ryan? well, i think what christopher just said nato's intention is to dismantle russia and this isn't something that started last year. busy in february, or even all the way back in 2014, the decades of preparation by the us and nato to in circle and contain russia. and i believe the united states in their allies. they realized that the window of opportunity to achieve this as wells in circling and containing china, the window of opportunity is closing. and so they're rushing to try to, to finish this before closes all the way and this dangerous desperation that both

of your other gas, some talked about. this is actually scary and we're watching this and we're watching russia once again on the offensive ukraine, losing ground and not unfortunately, the better russia does on the battlefield. the, the more worried i become regarding what nato will try to do. out of desperation, peter react to that because i am brian is really on onto it here because we all agree that will be settled on the battlefield. i can't see how ukraine can possibly win without nato intervening. and i don't even think nato can, can succeed in ukraine even though they, they are there. it's a co belligerent, unofficial. of course. ok, i mean the, what is, what has happened here is what's, what's really terrifying for all of us is that the west is made this existential, when it, for russia, it is, it's to be or not to be, but the, it's not existential for the west, but they've made it into that, peter. yes,

that's why we think of this is a form of insanity. ah, the dynamic is very, very depressing at the, at this moment. russia is making gains on the battlefield. the spring offensive looks like russia will get 8 more gains before those tanks get there. and even one subs tanks get there. that will not be sufficient to stop the russian offensive. so what does later do next? now they're talking about f sixteens. now they're talking about at attack ems, missiles, i, they, there's a price increase escalation, but there is some pushback. we saw other commas by the president, croatia they see a similar most by the president, bulgaria. yeah. you see or bod and there's and there is growing size of this unity in nato. this idea that for a more fuel on the fire is a good idea by 70 increasing weapon systems,

heavier and heavier weapon systems. there's a lot of opposition to that right now. that does that mean that's going to succeed? we don't know where there's also a couple other things. we have to remember that would bite and came to office, saying number one is going to restore american primacy. but number 2, he's going to go after china and the recent report by the rand corporation about the why the a long war is not in america's interest. i is very important just came out and we see this comments by general mini hand saying within 2 years, united states going to be a war with china. and then you've got mike mccall, the head of the house armed services committee, or foreign affairs committee, saying that he agrees with many hand. so clearly their focus that they intended was not russia. they thought they could hurt russia by going after china. and that's the main priority by didn't surround themselves with 18 pop advisors from the for

new american security. these are all the china hawks. so they would like to figure out a way to finish this one off quickly so they can focus on their primary objective, which is really china taken. now, russia is collateral and, but they're happy to do that. of course, that's been an important part of america strategy for decades in ok. a lot has been made of this ran report. you know, i'm sorry, but i just can't take it too seriously. it's not in america's interest. well, certainly it's not. it's not in anyone's interest. but there are plenty of interest involved in this conflict and ukraine. ok. they don't care about american security . they care about profits. ok? they want to make weapons, they want to export ok. they want to control the european a military market as well. that has nothing to do about virtue when interests here, it's about greed and a power play christopher and toronto. well there's, that's exactly right. and that's been away all the way since they attack yugoslavia,

which was the 1st in my view, the 1st phase of this war against russia. that was to destroy yugoslavia, which they almost failed at doing that. they finally did. i threatened to bomb belgrade carpet bomb belgrade, but that was the 1st phase network. this development of this war has been going on since then, as brian said, and it, yeah, there is no morality, they don't obey any laws. they deny that they're actually taking part in this war is belligerence, but they are, as you say, co belligerence, quite clearly. they try and qualify that by saying there's a look. they have limited neutrality because russia is the aggression aggressive state. they threatened to invoke article 5 of the nato treaty, although russia can view it as already activated because all of dana was fighting against russia. but what would they do if they activated article 5? since they're doing everything else already? they would seem to me a very steep escalation because that would give them the direct take off the mascot

. pretense to the not involved in this war and vote can trump them to let raise the nuclear war threat. and remember, the atlantic council on november stated that the american government, she ignore the russian nuclear deterrent and should start quietly placing luc, clear weapons and weapons of mass destruction in eastern europe to be used against russia. and they should start doing it. then that was back in november. so i think that's what scares me as a does brian at the more russian forces victorious on the battlefield. and more nato is exposed to they will use some pretext or stage something to invoke article 5. well, peter, that doesn't whole threat against trying to, but russia has to be removed. right. we've already seen the destruction of the north stream pipeline. it shows to what lengths they will do to ensure our unity

among a european nato allies. i mean, that's absolutely shut the door on, on germany being any kind of a decision maker inside the alliance. and we saw with the great tank debate, which was a complete fraud in my opinion. it was all about escalation. i gentlemen, i have to jump in here. we're going to go to a short break. and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on escalation, staying with art ah ah 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 caused mass discontent. 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 the rebellion using cruel measures. full villages were wiped out packs 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 the start fees, negotiation. in 1962, evian records were signed,

voting algeria in 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. ah, ah, not another while you, while des evolve vanessa. oh, yeah. oh, he knew it's a fun flight yet. if south. yeah. rush a south with angela. need it.

but then your duck awesome voice. now watch. done the for me at that a bull upright beaten the is emily up bulls, goody. of whom shall i be skilled? hm. she thought, did you say the worth, yella? any bianca? yes, my thought or janine did it again deal fortune buddy up in the bill at about this morning after such been matches? ah. so welcome back to cross stock were all things are considered? i'm peter. let's remind you we're discussing escalation with brian in the block a of the program here. article 5 was mentioned,

and that was one of the questions i sent out by my producer here. and it's something that i've thought a lot about, and even at the very beginning of this conflict, i thought there's a certain inevitability that will, it will be invoked here. because if, if the, if it's more and more heavy weaponry, sophisticated weaponry is a sent to ukraine. which seems to be the intent. huh. that that shows that the west is a co belligerent and all of this. an article 5 is nonsense because it's just the cover . okay. when, if these abram tanks, which i believe will never make it to ukraine, but it say they that if they're being milk could be moved across to polish water. it's, it's fair game for russia destroy them. they're going in there to kill their, their so or so, it's really kind of turned into a, almost a joke. unfortunately, even though it could have catastrophic outcome here. so, i mean, this is something that, you know, nato is going to have to reckon with here. nato is not nearly as strong as it thinks it is. it has 2 major militaries,

the united states and turkey. the rest of it is basically neg, negligible. go ahead, brian. why? this is something that we have to keep in mind as we see all of these weapons plug into ukraine. russian military destroyed the military that ukraine had at the beginning of a special military operation. between that period of time and now nato had sent an equipment from the warsaw pact leftover from the cold war to credit. and that, that was a lot of what we're talking hundreds of times. russia has destroyed that, which is what brings us to today, where they're talking about shipping western named battle times to quote. and these are weapon systems that a lot of people are aware of. take months if not years to incorporate into a, into an army that is not familiar with them. and then when you're talking about something like aircraft, it's even more complex and involved and the timeframe is even longer. so what are

they actually really doing? surely in moscow, they know that these weapons are not going to to be effective, at least not in the hands of ukrainians. so what is nato planning on doing? and this is the real big question. are they going to have nato operators operating this equipment? and i would argue that even then it would not matter. and what they openly intervene and use everything they have in combined arms warfare will not make a difference. and are they going to escalate to that point? and between yourself and your 2 other guests, it seems to suggest that they are incrementally moving in that direction. this, this is incredibly dangerous. yeah, peter, i mean, i think it was, is boris johnson a few days ago? the disgrace boris johnson? i should say. i mean, he was, he's basically touting this line coming out of the atlantic council while the russians have a news, tactical nuclear weapons to this point. so they probably won't. i mean, what kind of buffoon says something like that in a situation that we've,

we faced right now peter the new york times the full and say that to me that the january 18th article in the new york times say that us leaders are increasingly open to a ukrainian invasion of crimea, and with the some, based on the assumption that the, with all the red lines that nato has crossed already of russia's and russia has not responded significantly. and they're not going to respond to anything. and that the threats of use of nuclear weapons are simply a bluff lapse. very, very, very dangerous. has any, does anyone on my panel and our viewers want to see that tested? i mean, this is absurd. this is absolutely absurd. keep going, peter. it's absurd. that the whole strategy is really very, very dangerous. the idea of trying to defeat russia inflict this defeat, are russia. president kennedy said in his american university commencement address

in june of 63, said to put a nuclear power in a position of suffering, a humiliating defeat. i or use of nuclear weapons, is either a failure of policy or a collective death wish for the human race. and that's the position where ultimately in, if the west succeeds in what is trying to do right now, which is why i'm looking for any off rab to get to the go. she had a table as quickly as possible, rather than prolong, wasn't let. i'm sorry, i'm sorry, i'm sorry peter, but this to tell this zelinski regime to go and surrender than it's about do this, is that, i mean that's what's gonna happen eventually. why don't we do it now? ok and save hundreds of billions of dollars and save lives. ok, this is absurd. what the west is doing, popping up one of the most corrupt regimes in the world. ok. and,

and you want to keep giving them money and giving them hope. ok, that's ridiculous here. christopher, i can go to you, you know, you know, boris johnson new york time, you know, with nuclear weapons. haven't been used yet. but because russia with, you know, you can keep pressing the red lines. let's go back to last year in february, prior to that, the russia said, you know, we have our demands for pan european security. we send them to you on december 17th . ok. and they said, if you don't respond in the way that we want or a leaf enter negotiations, there will be military technical re reaction. there was the special military operation. so i can't understand what, where these people are coming from. russians don't bluff. they act christopher. well, that's right, and we may see a reaction as in john how much report of his analysis of the david ignatius ed and the washington post a couple of days ago and an interview,

a blinking in which blink and proposed so a deal with russia and that op ed in which she suggested russia could retain the don bass of the air. is it seized partition ukraine, and then have a rump ukraine, and it wouldn't be part of nato, but it's is seen, i think, by russia is another attempt to buy time to rebuild the creating and rebuild nato. it may be that if, if article 5 is in vote, it may not go to the nuclear weapon that nuclear weapons use. immediately, it could be that they would then use article 5 to mobilize the west. as being suggested, europe in states to increase the draft, mobilize the population like to have an ukraine, and they could try and mobilize nato and spend a couple of years rebuilding the nato forces while the harassing. whether when christopher beck, chris, chris, really got brian here. i mean that this is something i said from the very,

very beginning, there has to be a resolution. russia is part of the your, your ation land space. it must have insecurity guaranteed. and until that happens, they're not going to say, oh, take a cease fire. and let you crane we build and lead you become absorbed into net. russia will not allow it. it's not going to do this again. no way know how it will get the resolution it wants. it will get it unilaterally if necessary. brian absolutely. as you point that out, so they, they tested russia, russia, acted militarily ukraine. they have already tested the waters attacking crimea, hitting the bridge across the curt straight, and how they brush or react, they began dismantling ukraine's power grid. and there are many other options that russia has available to it to escalate even further. so this is something that the west is aware of, that they're aware that russia is in a situation,

this is existential. for moscow. they know that they're been tending that o, russia isn't going to to react because they want to continue pushing as, as far as they can. we just look at other instances of the us and nato, whether it was officially under the banner of nato or not. in afghanistan, iraq, libya, syria, they eventually laptop canister after 20 years. this, this shows how stubborn they are and how much further past any, any point of reason or logic or rationality. they're willing to go in pursuit of advancing their geopolitical objectives. and so we have to ask how far they going to push. and you find that seems to be the end point. yeah, i mean when, when you have a gemini, you don't let it, you don't want it to go away and you get a really do everything in your power to grasp it. because american hegemony is weakening around the world de dollarization and all of these other things here.

peter, you know, the, we, they always talk about an offer and, you know, give the russians and off ramp here. but why you did the west, particularly united states never sees that it needs an off ram, does it now, but i'm not in full agreement with other guests. we'll figure out why we have you on peter. we want to know if we need any and we need different opinions. that's why you're here. i'm saying that agreement that nato's a paper tiger. and that, that, this situation is so much in russia's military advantage. right now, russia has some initiatives. the russian military is not performed well and the i, we don't, i don't want to see nato being tested. i don't want to see article 5 be invoked. i don't want to see world war 3. because the possibility of escalation to full scale nuclear war is very, very palpable. and so i,

i think we have to stop talking about this kind of bravado and look at realistically at what we're facing now, which is a potential for real gridlock where does the bravado come from? where is it coming from? who started all of this? i mean, i who had forest resilient asian in ukraine in 2014, who i believe if you will never or the never go back at peter's. yeah, sorry, peter. but who didn't enforce men's. okay. who lied and was deceitful about that? who militarized ukraine? i mean, talk about bravado really and, and it got through and you, and i've talked about that for a long time, and i will agree on that. however, most of us did not think that potent was going to invade. i had said i would wrap the world for months that it's going to happen. they don't bluff. ok, keep going, peter finish out there. he saying that i'm saying that that the west has created

a best situation where nato expanded to rush his doorstep. and i did certainly did not do anything to impose the minced to agreement and then put in a responded. but that was still the wrong thing for russia to do. the invasion was not in any way just to, well, that's what i mean. that's our way agreeable. we don't agree on that. i think it's agree on that too. i think. and quite as an international lawyer had, there was quite justified our article, 51, it was legal and just all right, we're gonna go, we're going to go into another, another program that i don't have time for. right now. i want to thank my guests and watch it in bangkok and in toronto, and when i think our viewers were watching us here, darky, see you next time? remember, cross. ah ah ah

ah, yes. now you need yes. if it's deploy bucky near to nancy in the globe, kim's the new book is that probably the national shifting radiates. young showcase is under nathaniel. that sounds good. it's a, it's a boiler. weighs a w ah with

what am in my chair. it's laura doesn't want that much better than i'm putting up a minute. oh, whole ah, local authority say brushing fruit salve in circles. the ukrainian health city of r kimball's can be done yet griff. up like it comes just a day after rushes, military cut off a major supply route for the sports, then all to a head on the program. this our, the i m. f predicts the russian economy will grow in 2023 by western countries, claiming sanctions imposed on moscow will bring the nation to with the claims from a walter top adviser to former british pm.