ah, ah mm mm mm mm welcome to wells apart. an old russian joke has a past him is believed that things cannot possibly get worse while an optimist is confident that they surely can. just a few days ago, the cold war was considered a major existential threat to humanity, but nowadays, it looks like a period of deaf diplomacy and successful conflict management. does the situation in ukraine or for any holds? would these kind of pessimism well to discuss that i'm now joined by matthew crossman director for condemning transformation and professor of national security

at buoy state university. dr. crossman is great to talk to thank you very much for a time and congratulations on such a amazing background. thank you very much. i appreciate being here. now i, you and your colleagues have proposed the term, the cold hawk warrants to denote both the similarities and the differences between the american soviet confrontation of the 20th century and the current animosity between russia and the west. then we still don't know the limits of the current quite meyer, but generally speaking, is it more alas, manage about as far as you are concerned compared to the previous round? i think it's actually more manageable, but what i think many people in the west would maybe be surprised to hear me say in and or maybe rather shocked to hear me say that the more manageable art is actually

because of some of the frames. i believe russia has actually shown during this entire conflict over the last year in ukraine restraint, that is where they had opportunity to elevate or escalate the conflict. make it far worse, make it far more transnational and have not done that and continually made decisions to not do that. despite having evidence in their face that might make them prone to think they should. i should be very valid. that's valuable. we're not capitalizing on that right now in the west, but the fact that it does exist waiting to be noticed, recognized is at least a little bit of pessimistic. and he said. a you are not capitalizing on that in the west, but i think the belief in russia and i was a yesterday i covering one of the major and speeches. and i spoke to his press secretary and he also said that the west is used to taking russia restraint. as a witness, and i think many must guy now blaming president put in for being it's not to song

then to tolerant until understanding q, reluctant to use force. and i've heard many people, including his strong support, are saying that he'd been so restrained to warn you, crane would never have happened. what to think about that. i think we have to sort of go back to the beginning in that sense some of the conflict itself in the thing that's been very amorphous. i think maybe both to russian people in american people . what were the actual and goals of the incursion into ukraine? if it really was meant to be this sort of classic kinetic traditional war with the objective being to occupy and take over a country in totality. then that criticism you just mentioned on the russian side, i think is accurate. and decisions were not made and actions were not taken to accomplish that goal. but that makes me feel that that means that that was never the goal in the incursion into crime. that they were more subtle and more nuanced objectives and interests that russia was trying to obtain and acquire. and largely

from the attention of the, of the west. the fact that those have not been accomplished. those have not been acquired, doesn't mean they've given up the hope to really get them done. and like that's, that's where i fall is falling on the that the objective is not to occupy ukraine. the objective is not to own ukraine. we here in the west, i see i read it yesterday. coming up on that with the anniversary of the conflict that is objective of course was to reestablish the soviet union starting with ukraine. i hate this comment. i've been railing against this comment for, i think, 15 years. and because the evidence doesn't show that russia has always maintained that neutrality for your crane would be the best option ever. first and foremost, for russia, because that would give russia a vested interest in keeping your crane sovereign and independent and give russia space to breathe it when it's on for says and native forces. but obviously,

as we know and actually put in sad that there yesterday, and he has major speech that up until the very last moment we try to deal with that peacefully with sand, our peace proposals and you know, the requirements and for security guarantees from nita and the united states to divide an administration and we were flatly refused. do you think the american people here in that side of the story that there was an extensive piece making effort then after and by many diplomats to prevent what is happening right now. but that, that americans and didn't want to engage for that. no, and i think part of the, there's a lot in what you just said is, and there's some details offical questions that i love discussing. but unfortunately, it's extra and it's incredibly hard to find people in the west willing to have these philosophical discussions. i don't think the problem is all the books behind me. i don't think it's that the americans are ignorant of certain aspects of

russian history. russian culture, russian diplomatic strategy, i think rather unfortunately, there, and i've written about this for a long, long time is that we have we're, we're still stuck in what i've always called this cold war pathology. right. in that, it behooves us us mean united states to see russia in a particular light to make sure it stays constrained within a particular relationship. and that relationship doesn't establish any new boundaries, any new, any new definitions. and i think russia in the 21st century has taken several opportunities to try to see if there would be interested in the west to create new boundaries to create a new relationship. and as you mentioned, time and time and time again, it would get flatly rejected because we have sort of pushed russia into this corner, ideologically attitude, way to say you're the adversary. you're the we may not be in a formal bipolar ideological cold war anymore. but we're not going to allow

a new relationship to develop with you. well, can i get to argue with you here, because you're written yourself that thing and a crucial difference between the cold war period and the current have hotter replayed, replay of that period is the fact that during the cold war, the adversaries that were fighting were engage in the proxy battle, the actual confrontation, the kinetic confrontation were far away from that borders. and that was, you know, those were accepted rules of the game. but if you look at the situation in ukraine and the militarization accelerated militarization of your brain, prior to the start of the russian reparation if they look on the situation at around taiwan and china when the united states is pushing ever more crumply inside china. don't you think that means the united states who actually change those very rules that they, you referred to and you know, that cold, warm and talented because the cold woman talent has seen from moscow right now was

actually a pretty safe brain work compared to what we have on our hands right now, there's a bit of yes or no for in that for me, in that it's, i've actually even argued that there's a heart cynic within me. when i look at the ukraine conflict over the last year. and i almost see aspects of the leadership, especially within military leadership on both sides, meaning russia and america, just ignoring the ukrainian what i've called actually in different arguments. so ukrainian proxy war is there's almost the comfort level in what's been going on in ukraine for american russia. because it's like this is on my left, not the way that i mean, i don't see any conference here in russian because we are losing our soldiers and our society is bleeding on yours even. i mean, on the game carrying the same losses. keep in mind there's always a difference between what people on the street may feel and what the leadership now . and my point is that it's far more direct and visceral for us than it is for you

. at this point. no, without doubt, i'm talking from that strategic perspective though. for example, i think at least in the beginning before things started to go very, very ugly on the russian side. in this conflict. the acceptance. so click because i could never get around the idea of why is russia sort of allowing for allowing all of these weapon systems all of this lethal laid into ukraine plus advisors to help you train train with the so i can answer that day very easily for you having a last name boy, because ukraine. yes, it's a silver in country and it's independent country. but most of us russians have family there and an idea of authorizing and military operation there. well, for a long time, wasn't comprehensible. i'm sure even to put in some south. sure, he is the commander in chief, but declaring and military operation or a war on ukraine is that, you know, i think is the biggest sin of his political career. and i mean that in the moral

sense he was boosted, committed, but because he's, after all the president. but i'm sure this is the last thing he ever wanted to do. i think i think i think there can be both of this. i can, he can feel that emotionally, but there's also to me without a doubt, especially within the halls of dc within wash and to see there was a recognition in the importance of this conflict that russia hadn't felt from the western quite some time. instead of constantly being reject it possibly being dismissed, constantly being shoved to the side as an also ran or not as important anymore chinese replacing you as the top priority. there's a, there's a certain level of recognition in this ugliness. that is actually, maybe i shouldn't use the word comfortable, but there's a, there's an acknowledgment being this and now you notice us and there isn't even. ringback about the american and the american nurses as long it's full display. we don't care about when you think about us. seriously. i mean,

you may have this background of books and, but we actually read them in the russians. and justin, you know, proud of themselves as the americans are. and then we, i mean, at this point, i think we have nothing to be ashamed of or to think that american recognition in that sound because the, the wisdom of american foreign policy and what has american down to the world is not something that we seek. no, i, i understand that completely in is in a sort of misinterpreting what i'm saying in the sense that it's not about seeking the acknowledgement because i feel good if the americans recognize me. but rather if it's the understanding that good or bad, oftentimes bad in a unique polar or aspiring to be unique pull a system america cause a lot of the shots by the crook. and you have to get acknowledgement from that uni pull power in order to get onto the stage. well,

and that was an aspect of this is the only, i mean, no one i can deny. and i've had this fight with americans for the last year. constantly us, most americans on the street, they'll say, when did this begin? well, they'll say a year ago when russia invaded ukraine, and for them that really is part, that's point a. and it's so far away from b point a. the best part of this problem that we're on addressing the true root causes and foundations where these conflicts emerged from. and why can i ask you one more question and i think you have, you are on to something when it comes to the american perception of themselves as well as being a unipolar power, which i don't think corresponds to reality to the present a reality anymore. but you written that in dealing with russia sensibilities in ukraine. the americans have forgotten about their own monroe doctrine. and i wonder if it's indeed a lapse of memory or whether it is actually

a pretty conscious commitment or lagging an allegiance to elijah brace. we'd li can, you know, we only can bully what's allowed to the gods is not allowed to the cattle, isn't the american? isn't that what the americans have tried to tell us why i think i did a word that always comes into my mind. often when we, when we talk about these issues is there is absolutely aspects of this that sort of smack of sort of a reckless hubris on the part of the americans. and in the sense that i don't, i don't consider again to be ignorant. i think i see purposeful intent behind many maneuvers which always sort of contract confound me. sometimes something i intend to write about, but haven't yet, is i worry a little bit about what i've called the fetish, the fetish of versailles. and i'm a little concerned, for example, like, what's our goal, right? we talked about what are the goals of russia in, in,

in this incursion with this conflict? what is the west trying to accomplish? is it piece by any means necessary? is it piece with all options on the table, which is what i think it should be or? and this is what i'm worried about is it piece only with punishment. because that's what the americans right now, i think, are really obsessed by. and they think they have their own people behind this endeavor, but dr. crossed and very quickly, it's even part of the equation here because many people in moscow believe that the americans are making a bad on a prolong conflict. they want to indeed no just plan isn't but undermined. strategic gotten to me by, you know, essentially outsourcing all the human losses to the ukrainians and your politically . it's not that you know, bad of a deal. do you, do they actually want peace? well they, this is one of those really ugly fudgy. things and philosophy were like there's, there's a fund ability about piece and how each side defines it. i think the americans will

absolutely say with a straight face to you. we absolutely want piece by piece on our terms and how we find it. we defined that piece. i'm not sure how many russians would think that piece at all. one thing we can definitely agree upon is that we need to take a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a moment. thank you. ah ah, [000:00:00;00]

a a ah hm. mm hm. welcome back to. well, the part is that matthew crossed and director of academic transformation and professor national security. i believe state university across and we are recording this interview just days after russia formally announced a suspension of the new star tricky which when it was signed back in

2010 wasn't attend by both moscow in washington to use that old cold war era. framework of our reduction talks and try to adapted to present day realities. defined that this one of the last agreements remaining agreements between our country is now formally put on hold. what does it tell you about the nature of the historic moment and the state of relationship in our countries? to be honest with you, i find the time and the here in the west, people are obsessed by this a suspension of the start treaty. and they're taking it to extremes, as far as what it is, what it symbolizes, in terms of russian intentions. meaning, ah, is this the smoking gun we've been looking for as far as russia are wanting to start world war 3? and i've never been other admit, my own personal bias up front. i've never been a huge proponent of thinking that the start treaty is, is

a huge accomplishment in real terms because the fact is both sides. it's a strategic reduction of nuclear arms that are held and a promise not to do any more nuclear tests, a band on nuclear testing. all right, so if you suspend yourself temporarily with while intimating you could return under certain conditions in the start treaty later. and it's direct, the aster biden does this quote unquote secret does it give, which i do want to talk a little bit about and where he pledges another half a $1000000000.00 and lethal aid to ukraine. if you ask me and this is the problem i have here in the west, people are only focusing on the announcement came after that of suspending the start treaty. look at how bad that guy is when i'm like, but what prompted it? what prompted as a symbolic gesture to say, if you're only escalating this conflict, i have to do something even larger in your mind in your historical map to make you realize how important this is to us. but it also said that they at longer are the

ranges of weapons that are being supplied to, to ukraine by the west that the further into the ukranian territory. or actually this further rush of they'll have to sort of strike back. and the question i want to ask you is, he didn't draw the line beyond which russia will not be able, or will, you know, i hold it out from striking but that, wondering a russian rab lines do you think russia was attentive to try and beyond q crane or perhaps even beyond europe, because i mean, if you look at the russia strategic options, there's not much last and we still have to fly. i'm in the minority in this, i'm a bit alone out here in the united states. when i say the following. i don't think russia will do that simply because i don't actually believe. i believe there have been obvious opportunities over the last 12 months where russia could have been extremely reckless. that's not to say in war. there isn't recklessness on both

sides all the time. but there was an absolutely opportunities where you, what you're talking about could have taken place and the russian federation passed on that opportunity to be that reckless to me that was conscious to me that was voluntary. that was intentional. so going beyond, i think the red line discussion is really important, but not necessarily in the way you mentioned. like i think it was the failure of the west to ever take russian red line. seriously. that sort of propelled us into this problem to begin. and i absolutely agree with you, but then the problem is that as you mentioned during the visit to cave bite and once again announced that you know, additional military ha, crane. and we are now hearing, i mean, this is also happening on the, on the back of linux security conference, which produced some extremely belligerent statements, like the one coming from the british prime minister, who said that, you know, you guys should not be concerned about sending weapons to green because those

weapons were intended for russia. anyways, russia was our enemy. and you know, for many, many years before this operation, when you hear something like that, and i agree with you that russian doesn't want to war and it's pretty clear that pollutant is a pretty responsible leader. but that comes a point when, if the other side is not how, by any theory, you need to bring that fear to its land so that the officials will be somehow brought back to reality. it will, there is always this fundamental problem and i've had again, it's very difficult right now because of the current state of russian studies in america. and the current state of russian expertise in washington dc is extremely sort of sort of suffering to me from tunnel vision and extremely narrow minded in terms of what possibilities exist and, and i, and therefore we miss purposely in my opinion, we miss the opportunities that are presented to us to show there's a that the of the other side,

the russian federation side is willing to work with us. we always portray it as their recalcitrant, their stubborn, they won't move, they won't budge, we're working with them. but it's not true when we look at this whole nato stuff. so, you know, lack of a better term. estonia is in nato. latvia is in nato lithuania, as nato. poland is, and nato hungry is and nato, all of these things russia didn't like. but it didn't do anything, it let it go and all long they said, but just listen, remember you crane has to be a no go to please believe us. when we tell you the current ukraine is a no go. and we just simply sort of shamelessly flirted with the fact that, well, we don't really intend to put ukraine in nato. we'll listen to you enough for that, but to flirt with them and make them think they might get invited. so that then they don't want to pay well, and it's not just flirting, sending weapons and training soldiers and also worrying lots of money in into

propaganda and turning, the ukrainian population are very, very lindley, antagonistic to rush. i mean, it's a, it's a very purposeful effort to create a hostile stayed on the russian. what a state that had that used to have before they saw operation. i think the 2nd largest army in, in europe, after the turkish army. well, i'll give you a little bit of personal history. what way back when i say 998. when i was beginning my doctoral studies, i was part of a group on the outside looking in, but there was, at that time, there was a very strong group in western europe that talked about when, because that was when we were really discussing nato expansion in its infancy and they talked about, let's start with russian. let's find a way to get russia in the nato. and then we'll work our way back towards western europe and include, because their 1st is in nato. it won't mind all the other she's being and they don't either. and then we'll have this massive defense or treaty organization,

there on the continent, going from western europe all the way to east asia, for lack of a better term. and it ultimately failed. and i'll never forget this because i was so into the idea at the time being young and inexperienced. but it was odd that it was obvious that on the right, on the western side, they really didn't know. why should we exist if russia is part of our organization? mr. crossed and dr. crossed and i think it's not only you were young and inexperienced present. putting himself in one of his interviews said that you ask that question. i think can just to president clinton and he didn't receive an answer and he's been suspecting for many, many, many years coming to 2022 that on the west. so it's not just a matter of, you know, a historic prejudice or, you know, like, you know, putting american shadow on to russia and keeping it as an evil finger for, you know,

geopolitical or political reasons. i think the in the here here in moscow is that the west really wants to your song while this troy russia, with a lack of a better german. in fact, they're pretty direct that they, american officials now are pretty direct about the need to make russia software a strategic how do you understand that was the am game from the american side? as far as you're concerned? i've, i've written about this actually for a long time, and it was well before the invasion, the conflict in ukraine because, so i've seen this friend all, it's far extend to ukraine. it isn't just about ukraine. it existed before that. and unfortunately, i've never been given direct, i've never been given any caught countering evidence. so the, i get that to american decision makers, american power brokers, the, the best position to america for russia is you can exist. we'll let you exist our

terms. yeah. you can be part of the global community, but only on bended knee, right? you have to be below. because that's that, that's what makes the world safer in that mentality and trying to show opportunities to create new relationships. when there are significant power brokers who think that way as been a very frustrating journey of about 25 years. well in your call is frustrating. but i mean on moral and ethical grounds and it's not like people are concerned with morals is name. but still, i mean, isn't it deeply offensive to you as a human being because i mean, if you treat any country like that, that they can only exist in the bully. i subscribe to your terms, isn't that i generally xena for make isn't that re says be the national security intelligence guy. we learned very quickly in our world. we often have to depart from those discussions just because otherwise we'll drive ourselves and same

because we often deal with issues that are not very moral and not very just in the end to me. the problem is we give examples of, of the relationship that we could and should have with the russian federation. because russia only needs to look at neighbors and say, well, do you agree with everything? yeah, nice states, do you agree with everything that saudi arabia does know? do you agree with everything that china does? no. do you actively working, cooperate with them across a whole house, across interest? yes, you do. well, why can't you do that with us? we're not going to agree with everything. some things will be actually very adversary to each other out. but there's a number of issues that we agree on. and we should be able to establish, establish alliances and cooperative behavior. we have a time and time and time again. we've passed on that opportunity. now one of the things we used to agree on i, i'm not sure we still agree on that. is the golden rule. treat others as you want to be treated as unless americans learn and there are for, you know,

humbling and humiliation that they want to visit upon other countries. that's just my opinion, but they have to live in a woman's point how quick. it's just, again, we have to try to on the, on the american side, we have to be at least aware of things that look, you know, devoutly hypocritical. when you have secretary of state blink. and just the other day when china was promising, maybe we'll consider giving leave the late to russian. if you blink and came out and said, this is reckless, this is dangerous. this is horrible for china to talk this way. while for the last year, he's been doing that very thing and you grant, if that, if we, if we're not aware of what that looks like to 2 other sides, we're always going to be creating more problems and we can solve. couldn't agree with that more that we still have to call it quits right now, and thank you very much. thank you again. i thank you for watching hope to see her

again on worlds apart. ah with mm ah hi, i'm rick sanchez and i'm here to play with you. whatever you do, you do not watch my your shelf seriously. why watch something that so different my little opinion that you won't get anywhere else work of it. please do have the state department, the cia weapons makers, multi 1000000000 dollar corporations. choose your fax for you. go ahead. i change and whatever you do. don't watch my show, stay main street because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is

called direct impact, but again, you probably don't wanna watch it because it might just change dwayne thing the me the israeli settlers reportedly wade the palestinian town of hawaii settings buildings in carlos fire, allegedly killing one person and leaving 98 wounded clashes reportedly rubbed between palestinians and it's raining forces in jerusalem the bulk stuff, the and those to intimidation. maya the presidential parliamentary elections in africa, the largest nation, nigeria, also this freedom of peace is only possible if the germans decide