to see the importance of events like this as representatives of china in russia. we have participated in this economic form almost every year. we've noticed that there are more attendees from china this year because this is a good platform for cooperation, right? i'm in the affordable, 2022, a lot of western jumping these korean brands but worked in the russian market for a long time. and the left, not people were accustomed to them. come chinese goods, replace those brands that the russian buyers were. so we use to western goods left, russia and chinese goods enter the market. the therefore, i think that russians will love our companies and we will completely replace the west put in there for you. and your data is running out of options when it comes to agreeing on the proofing and 11th round of sanctions against russia. the strong thing is to find anything left to sign should of the facing restrictions on an unprecedented number of businesses, industries,

and individuals. while we wait for the heads of state to deliberate on wednesday, we bring to this power the video generated by also official intelligence. so it's payment purposes only. oh no, no, no. that's nonsense. we need some fresh ideas. betters stronger and effective. the,

i'm so tired the, the international what do you think starting to say on the international will be back at the top of the hours a the,

[000:00:00;00] the hello and welcome to cross ok. we're all things are considered. i'm peter live out nato's ukraine. proxy war against russia is not going well thus far. too much anticipated counter offensive appears to be going nowhere. and nato itself is deeply divided on the issue of ukraine joining the alliance. the by the ministration must be wondering if it was all worth it. the prospect of nato's war i'm joined by my guess, jack ras, most in san francisco. he's an associate professor of beacon nomics at saint mary's college. as well as author of the scourge of neo liberalism in norton,

we have kyle and so long as the opinion editor at anti war dot com, as well as co host of conflicts of interest. and here in moscow we have annual career go. he is a moscow based american political analyst. all right, gentlemen, crossed off girls and effect. that means you can jump any time you want. and i always appreciate kyle, let me go to you 1st and norton, you know, and looking at this counter offensive in the political logic, if there is even logic behind it, is to put the ukrainians in a position where they can negotiate better. i find this really to be a fools, aaron, because if there's going to be negotiations, the russians would have to be part of that. and i don't see any reason in the world why they would kyle, right? yeah, i in, in, i don't even know if that is the consensus in washington. there was an article on the washington post last month that described the debate in washington around, you know, that the end, the end of the war, whether that counter offensive is successful or not as ambiguous because, you know, there are people who say that if the car successful, it is offensive,

it's successful, then that means, you know, we need to have another one. and so i think the solution is really more wor in saying that all we're going to have negotiations is just something that the american people need to hear because they need to at least believe that one day there's going to be an end date to the spending into the dying, but in washington is right. i really don't think there is at this point in specially sense, as we've seen that this counter offensive is certainly not going to be a rousing success. and it was to be pretty much a failure at this point. well, jack, basically the same question to you because one of the biggest problems with this enterprise to divide ministration is engineered using nato, is that we don't know what the goal is, other than they walk, machine change and russian, which is quite vague and nonsensical. and it has actually nothing to do with ukraine. this is what's really vexing, has nothing to use where you crate and it has everything and how it wants to impact

russia. jack in san francisco. yeah, well i don't think the us uh wants to so much to this. i think the us strategy is what i would call versions get 2 point. oh, if you remember going back to the carter administration, he made new versions k, the and the se advisor, or even according to his memoir of the approach carter in the summer 79. so let's the stabilize have down to stay in the government there. so they call in the, the soviet union, and that's exactly what they did. and for the next 78 years, there was just a drag on, on the larry economy, you know, somebody union economy and upset political stability. that was the strategy us went into it for the long term perspective for, to try to develop, take the russians. and so we're giving you that times the economy. and it was a, to some extent successful. i think the lead cindy. let's see the same strategy.

they say they're going to do the same thing this time, which means that us as in it for the law, they may play games with. so let's negotiate the, if this offensive is not affective. and they got about the 4 to 6 weeks to prove it is or isn't. uh then the us will look for some sort of a pause in the conflict. and it will offer this security agreement that the talk is going on now to, to ukraine. but that's just the pause in the longer term conflict the us wants to keep going. yeah, well, andrew, i mean, well, on the back of what jack just said about the american machinations east of the afghanistan, number one, they ended up falling for the same trap. so i wasn't a success in that sense and i agree with with jack in kyle here. but there's a missing piece. how is this help ukraine? i mean, a pause. what does that mean and,

and you have to have both sides to agree with it. here. i mean, this administration and nato land and they're all talking to themselves in their own bubble. it, it's, it's, it's beyond reality here. the russians are not going to quit until they have security guarantees. that's how they started it. that's why it started, you won't recognize security guarantees a russian demand, and then the conflicts started and that is gonna end when they have that. nobody in washington seemed to understand the andrew. i see. okay. okay. one of the things i think um, we need to remember is that the whole reason why we're in this situation is because russia took the united states off guard by stopping the original american plan to have cubic concord on boss. present to put in narrowly preempted that through his special operation, but he actually not done so with united states was planning to do was have key over concord. don't boss re arm retrain, re equip and so on and so forth. up and so they decided to eventually make a move on crimea. present. approved has opened. we spoken about the scenario

forecast. now the united states seems to have had many major miscalculations because they were planning for a proxy war between a ukraine and russia in crimea. sometime later this decade, they weren't planning for it last year and we can assess that because if the were planning for this, why would and nato secretary general jack installed temporarily declare and mid february of this year, there rush and need or are in a so called race of logistics if this was already on a plan and they plan to have this happen like last year, they wouldn't be racing to arm ukraine. they wouldn't be depleting their stockpiles . they wouldn't be hesitating to give you crane modern equipment as to why and so forth. so we can see that present improve to spoil their plans by pre empting the re conquests of don't boss. and in the long term preventing a larger conflict, they would have taken place in crimea. and the whole purpose of this to build on the whole authorization scheme thesis, which i definitely agree with and fully endorse, is united states wanted to arm ukraine to the point and get,

get it to the point where it could be used as needles. proxy for coercing rush into a series of never ending concessions, all of which would've been aimed at strategically knocking it out of the geo political game. a k also balkanized and get in terms of the worst case scenario, which i don't think it's realistic, but nevertheless says how i do believe the west was planning it so that they can then more effectively contain china and take full control the world. so when we look at it in this broader perspective, we can see that this for this time or offensive isn't even working because they weren't suppose they've even been waging a counter offensive. they were supposed to have waited a couple of years before making their move on crimea, but that was all offset when present, and put in peremptory. the imminent re conquest of don't boss that natal wanted to be i q as in doing so. this post has everything in a larger context of my personal opinion. well, kyle, i mean, you know we've, we've talked about maybe a crime is already been mentioned here. but again, there is this, the west to onset, only one way and it's way rush,

it considers. and part of it's the russian federation and the people that live there feel exactly the same way. so let's say for some magical reason, there is a pause or a ceasefire. i don't think the, the regime in cube is going to take that very seriously. they're going to just use it as a time to bring more arms into it, to support the cab government. and so of obviously the russians will not tolerate that. again, were these that with these western capitals that are in unicorn land go ahead. kyle: yeah, yeah, i think a ceasefire at this point seems unlikely. it doesn't seem like any of the parties involved. really want to go that route at some point. so he's probably will probably be necessary to facilitate todds. there is at least a couple of people in the binding administration who do know that crimea is a red line for russia. and so i think the strategy in the, for the invite and didn't stablish me in washington, is that they think attacking crime. you could push rush it to negotiate and get

back, i guess, but don bass, which, you know, obviously won't happen in that. i think it for russia to see the crime in peninsula and pad, they're going to feel the need to seize more ukrainian territory to be sure that that territory can not be attacked from ukraine. so as uh, the russian formats are lab. ralph has said, i think a few times now the longer ranges that of weapons that the west gives, the kia, right, the more ukranian territory rush, it feels it needs to take. and so i do think that's the case. i think from the, on the why has this perspective to this is working out as is there's a great article in the american conservative by peter van buren for on monday. yeah . and what the van buren lays out is the binding doctrine and to really key points in that is one, know, americans are dying. and to their, essentially privatizing the rebuilding of ukraine and your, i'm a libertarian. so i don't like calling government spending privatization,

but you know, that is essentially what we're seeing here, where it's going to be black rock that does a lot of the investment mates. a lot of the money here. whereas in afghanistan was like the us trying to micro manage these projects. you know, they're just got to try to rebuild ukraine rather than rebuilding the entire government. because, you know, for some reason they don't see a problem with with, but the politics of the website. um, how let me go, let me go to jack before we go to the break here. what ukraine are we talking about? okay. i mean, and we're not going back. student starts in the special military operation. so obviously not the don bass, obviously not crimea, of the other regions that joined russia and ukraine get smaller and smaller. so i don't know what the post war ukraine is, and would it be? it would brush and tolerated being part of nato. all of the major issues are not being addressed jack. yeah, well, i would differ slightly uh, on this discussion of what when this thing uh, really was planted began the there's

a lot of evidence that the us planning to do exactly what it's doing. it goes back to at least the 2016, the rand corporation, right? so monday, sions are, you know, posting its agreement and you gotta remember as soon as by and got him to office. i mean, he didn't waste a minute and the planning began to be implemented. and the us pulled the dramatically out of afghanistan, cleared the table in order to deal with this situation. this plan in ukraine and from the prolong of can stand in august a 21. the pretty much the u. s. was ratcheting up the is preparations and the pushing. those on skin care have to take uh, you know, more aggressive positions. uh so uh, this thing is as long term planning uh, the us and part does not go into these conflicts on this for the moment. and as far

as the nato. uh it agreement, i think if uh the offensive is most successful, the us has to start looking like its interested in resolving looking like uh you know what the lease are a pause increasingly in the us and okay, not about 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 nato's war in ukraine. states the the, the,

the, [000:00:00;00]

the, [000:00:00;00] the, the welcome back to across stock were all things are considered on peter la bell to remind you we're discussing nato's war and you create the . okay, let's go back to andrew here in moscow. gentleman, i'm not going to let this thing go about negotiations. okay? i'm not gonna let it go because i don't understand how it's going to work. andrew, andrew. okay. let's say you can give you the crating and say, okay, well we, we want to cease fire, okay? why would the russians agree to it? because they're not going to, it would, and agreeing to a cease fire is a strategic defeat for russia. why would they do it? and number 2, my friend, why should they believe anything that comes out of a western capital?

and what they have to say when we learned what the, the leaders of a france and germany felt really thought of the minutes agreements and all of that . why should the russians, they say no, we're gonna, we're gonna do what we set out to do and accomplish it, and it will be a faith complete. i don't, i don't buy into this rush. it needs to the go. see, i don't see it. maybe i'm wrong, andrew. okay, so if i had to play devil's advocate in this scenario, i'd say that there are several compelling reasons why russia would at least seriously consider as these for the 1st being that this is obviously aware of logistics, which dolton burke and also setting the same speech our reference in mid february as a war of attrition. so this is going to be a very long and costly slog to achieve rushes. maximo objectives having some that promotion is indeed making piecemeal progress. we saw that the military strategic trends are moving in his favor since the liberation of sol adar in january. and of course, last month's liberation of our to on mosque. but nevertheless, it's going to be

a very far away to achieve the original goals that were set out at the onset of the andrea and i understand you're andrew, andrew, something there at keeping their goal. so why should they change course? i think that all sides were taken off guard by the way in which the situation involved. as i mentioned earlier in my previous response of the west and not expect present improvement to intervene. and they thought if he did, and he wasn't deterred by sanctions, rushes economy would collapse by sanctions. and if anything he would focus on don't boss, not a we bought broad swath of ukraine. i think that from the russian side, or rush off is having some challenges in dealing with this influx of natal equipment and arms and training and especially the intelligence support. i think that neither side is the drums. i'm sorry, again, i'm sorry to interrupt you again, but if there is a pause or a ceasefire that nato equipment and technology will continue to flow into the country. so again, i don't see the, the, the clearly and let it hang on. hang on, let me throw that same question to kyle. you agree with andrew?

go ahead call. i think there's going to probably be limited circumstances through the war, especially if it drains out for years where russia may be open to different cease fires. we saw from syria, you know, we're russia was uh, allied with a side where the syrian government developed the strategy where they would, you know, surrounding area and then establish a deal and slowly paid territory. that way. you know, the, it's a far different situation dealing with the ukrainian government then with, you know, the all kinds of guys in syria. but at the same time we've seen russia do, you know, utilize the strategy before. so we may see some of that, and there may be times throughout the war where, you know, russia logistically needs a little bit of time to move their forces where they want to move them in. so maybe they agree to a cease fire, even that even though they know that ukraine will gain some logistic, a badges as well. but i do think that if russia achieves as goals at that point, they would want to establish

a ceasefire and then use those negotiations to try to get as much of recognition from the world as possible for what they've conquered in ukraine. and hopefully, you know, come to come to some kind of end of the war where, you know, whatever is left of the, you know, ukraine, key of whatever they control is. uh, you know, agrees to some sort of neutrality as well. okay, but the for jack in san francisco, the way it's being played out on this program and all wonderful guest right here, one side has to accept this strategic defeat. that's how it's being played out right now. your thoughts go ahead. yeah, well i don't think the talking about a ceasefire is really the question. what i'm talking about is, by the politically for support of the you know, is allies, if the offensive doesn't, doesn't succeed, is going to try to talk about a security agreement. and russia will sit down and talk, but that doesn't mean is going to be a serious buyer. i mean, there's going to be

a continued military conflict. i believe i just looked at what happened to be a non, but they talked about the for quite some time. was a conflict in terms of what i don't think the rush is going to agree to a ceasefire. i mean, it's too close to the $24.00 election or rush is going to sit it out until it sees what's happening with the reaction into us. and by the nice thing is going to lose . so why should a degree do is say, is why a one year before the election, but it will sit down and talk. i'm a china and others a made a big effort to try to propose a peace agreement. there be no peace by who doesn't want to these, and russia is magdalana except a peace agreement. it's not going to stop when the key of loses it's offensive here i believe. so they will sit down and negotiate and talk about the shape of the table kind of discussions. but that doesn't mean there's going to be a cease fire. ok, but andrew is, you know, we,

we all know that there's the upcoming, that's, i'm it to nato. so i'm, it didn't build this and they're talking about different, you know, they don't, membership is not on the table right now. okay. there is a, you know, i have to wonder what students, dns, people think about that. we did this all for you and what are you doing for us and return? i mean, that's an interesting historical turn that, but that's what the topic of today's program. but i mean, tam is going to have to buy into whatever security arrangement is being discussed when it's not in the room here. um okay, i don't see a lot of the on the altar national as neo nazi types and, and to have been going to want to go along with that. okay. i mean, a, they'll take the money, they'll take the equipment, but they're not gonna take a truncated ukraine. that's, that's not in their dna, andrew. okay, what i think is going to merge out of the upcoming needles. summit is we're going to see more serious discussions about presenting a, a bilateral security guarantees to ukraine. it's unclear whether it will be extended throughout the course of the conflict or afterwards. and the president for

that is the us south korean mutual defense packed that was read shortly after the ar missed this. so there is a possibility for that in my crone has talked about it to go back to the car, all kinds of the but it, but andrew, andrew, andrew, i'm sorry, i mean, using the north korean example is that all the players agreed to that. okay. it is kept the piece for you know, for better or worse. again, my friend, why would brush you agree to that when it's winning incrementally, but it's winning why? why doesn't need to settle it? well, settle until ukraine is neutral and the regime has been changed into that's the in game here. the west. well, all i can say to the west, you can hold my beer, andrew, a real briefly, i believe that both sides have made some strategic advances throughout this conflict on the russian side, russia is about to deploy a tactical nukes simpler bruce. cleaning rod is fortified. it has offensive and

defensive capabilities rusher has successfully field of hypersonic miss house, and it has reportedly opened up a military bridge with iran, although both sides denied over the caspian. on top of that, we also have the fact that russia has proven itself very formidable in the race of logistics. one country against the block of 31. that's quite impressive. russia has achieved assisting our games on the ground and the territory ukraine claims as his own. and the sanctions, i totally failed from the needle side. they could spin any type of are slow down and fighting as a victory by saying that the expand and, you know, they were able to consolidate. and, you know, there's a deployment, a very heavy weaponry in central europe, which violates the nato, russia founding act of 1997. so they can spend that as a success. and they can also talk about the rules based order for the liberals that are, you know, that things, that's something good. but i think that basically both sides can find a way to say that the gods something out of the so far, but never the less. i do expect that both will continue moving so well. i mean, there are quite a bit and terms why i present, hey i, i want to go go back because it's got a call here. i, again, you know,

any kind of compromise, but that andrew is mentioning, it's very logical is very smart guy. i know him well, but russian doesn't want to have to go through the do this again and in 5 years or 10 years time. this is it's going to be done one way or another one side wins. one side loses kyle. well, i mean, i do think that's likely the course, but it's always important to remember that wars unpredictable. you know crazy things get all always happen. young leader, people in leadership positions, you know, go through changes in mind for various reasons. and so i do think it's got to go the way that you're saying, and i do think this nato saw me coming up here is a big deal because ukraine is not going to get the guarantee that once that, once the support ends, it's going to get nato membership, and so i think that tates, a big incentive for kia, have to negotiate off the table if they're not going to get nato membership at the

end of the war. then they're probably going to receive less support from nato once the war ends. and so, from their perspective, that might be a reason to keep this or going. yeah, just a tech, it's really interesting is that, you know, nato can claim, you know, the russians. so i want, i wanted to make sure that you are, ukraine never joined nato, but natal got larger because of finland and sweden, but then either and they token pad itself on the back. we expanded at the expense of ukraine. i mean what, what a pirate victory. that is jack. oh, yeah. well, you know, they, oh no, it can't really move east into ukraine, so they gotta call it by a different name. and that's what the security agreement. ready is all about, but rush you, i don't believe we'll buy it. i mean, they've been burned by minutes. they're not going to be burned the 2nd time and rushes, the engine solution is a year of wide the security agreement. that's not what's going to come out of nato,

but that's a move by nato in that direction, whether they go all the way to that, at some point, will depend upon how much ukraine is defeated on the ground. and that's really what, what the key is here. uh, you know, all the opportunities will change here once it's very clear that, that you crash been defeated as far as you've trained going along with whatever us and nato it says it has no, no alternative, no choice. and you know, the, the nazis uh, you know, in the government and on the ground are going to be very upset. and maybe the us changes leadership there and uses some general. and the sense zalinski is sort of the, a salesman around the world. get him out of the picture. i don't know. uh, but uh, very, very clearly ukraine has no choice here. us is calling the shots. uh and uh, it's gonna have to do whatever the us says, but the us doesn't have a solution to it. i believe because he was doesn't want a solution,

as i said in the beginning, it wants this thing to continue. and all this talk about the security agreement is not the kind of security agreement that russia want. exactly. but it's all part of the, the keeping the alliance together because there's some real big splits occurring now. all right? generally, we have run out of time with so many different threads. we can go and discuss longer, but unfortunately don't have the time here. i want to thank my guest in san francisco, norton and here in moscow. and of course, i want to thank our viewers for watching us here at r t c. next time. and remember cross couples, the, [000:00:00;00]

the take a fresh look around his life. kaleidoscopic isn't just a shifted reality distortion by power to division with no real opinions. fixtures designed to simplify will confuse who really wants a better wills, and is it just because it shows very few fractured images presented as fast? can you see through their illusion going underground can. the party examines how russians bonuses are repelling the crating and expensive on the front line. often look,