i see that we have a lot of issues here in new york in the united states yourselves. there's a big money for water. got my 1st name was that for the for, is like, is and comprehensible. i don't, i don't agree with that side of the latest fair. i mean, the gas has a lot of problems here in the country. i think just states, i don't recall israel, or trend being part of united states of america. so i love it. it's fair. and i mean, do you think we can afford to pay for 2 wars at once? i level it so i don't believe it can afford for long without being a problem for us. so i don't believe we should keep doing that. but the bite and administration seems doug in the white house is committed to learning things the hard way. caleb mauppin, archie, new york. well, let's stay with this story because the editor in chief of the gray zone, investigative journalism outlet, much blumenthal, saves the dip in approval ratings. is the price bite in house to pay for his bounce on the israel announced complet. well, benjamin netanyahu was already being challenged by his ministers. his far right

ministers, for example, a marvin vere visit law, smell, attract, who wanted the operations of military operation in gaza to be a revenge attack. so that would exterminate all of a mosse and carry out this revenge fantasy that would and then also would be folded into a regime change operation. nothing yahoo to survive needs to keep these exchanges going. then he has to bind administration, breathing down his neck about extending the ceasefire because joe biden is facing a harsh political price at home for their how getting that and yahoo! as he embarked on a mission to slaughter thousands and thousands of civilians in the gaza strip, something that's very unpopular with the youth wing of the democratic party base in the us guard the democratic party. elector. it is more diverse than the monolithic republican electorate. joe biden is likely to lose michigan the state with the

highest population of arabs and muslims. it's a key swing state. he's down in every single pool to donald trump, as at least an in direct result of his vehement support for israel's extermination is the salt on the gaza strip, which is left over $8000.00 women and children dead. and now he's using the prisoner swap, so that hostage swaps to try to soften his image before his progressive base. that it hasn't, it hasn't worked. and i think fighting to be dead in the water as a result of his support. some more dates for emerging about how efforts to bring it by the end to the ukraine conflict, just a few weeks into the fighting last year. we're rip off. crosstalk builds deeper into all that and it's right at the

the, [000:00:00;00] the hello and welcome to cross talk. we're all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle, nato's ukraine, proxy war and russia. it should have never happened before the conflict. there were options amongst into the complex. there were options to ended, the west refuse to negotiate. now ending this conflict is proving most difficult. the cross talking ukraine. i'm joined by my guess, nichol, i petro in kings. and he is professor of political science at the university of rhode island and in brussels. we cross of gilbert. carol,

he is an independent political analyst, an author at mazda, of an ex pad manager in moscow during the 19 ninety's. i tell him, in cross up roles in the back, that means you can jump anytime you want. and i always appreciate nichol, i recently wrote a very, very interesting article i thought, quite provocative in and, and compelling in many ways titled, what's next, where ukraine of the outlines of a peaceful settlement. can you, if this is hard to do with television, it's better to do an imprint, but can you give us the main con tours of what a peaceful settlement would be? but i think there is a general agreement among the analysts that of this war is not going to be won by your bright green, therefore needs to seek a settlement on the outlines of this settlement were already reached in march and april of 2022 uh and they basically, uh,

boiled down to an exchange of securities for land. um, the issue that remains of guaranteeing the, uh, the rights of russian minority, russian speaking minority in ukraine. and i think that can be done by hearing to the stipulations of the opinion constitution. and should be made a requirement for you admission for you pray, to which rusher, by the way, according to president boynton, has never objected. okay, but you know, gilbert, you know, as, as we are convening here, the wall street journal is running an article titled, you officials fear ukraine, military collapse. so a lot of this talk is kind of academic and no, no offense. the academics like our guest here. but impacts on the ground are, are coming a pace, aren't they here? i mean, the, the, if,

if we see what's going on in the us congress that looks like the g o. p in the house is not in any rush to help out ukraine, which the ukrainians have admitted that they're completely dependent on western aid right now. so talking about a settlement is actually quite germane. go ahead gilbert. to talk about a settlement. is it entirely between washington in washington? yep. the there is the assumption that whenever washington gives a week and a come together. um, let me just gesture of its fingers. moscow will little day and will be pleased to be to be considered as a talking partner. not as crowds, nothing could be further from the truth. the history that we're discussing today has been virtually a daily subject of discussion on the talk shows that russian state television features 5 days, 6 days a week, which are widely watched. and these talk shows have been to my estimation in the past few weeks,

kind of going very much in line. but you can imagine is going on every time the russians in their apartment or, or josh is break. greg, with french, these are, these are the most important and topical questions. can there be a piece and should there be a piece whenever washington says, come hither the consensus that i see there's no way that for once. ok, full twice, but full of speak times rush. it will not be full 3 times. and the notion that uh that that can be a supplement of uh, utilizing the terms of the, of the ukrainian constitution to protect. so the, the rights of minorities for which my daughter has, it's not just russian minorities, gary, i'm a jar nowadays romanian minorities who were all treated to the same uh, a very crew terms. that's the russian speakers i've had experience with the,

with the t you be able to enforce such demands on ukraine, that it did honor this constitution and honor the, the general rules of the 4 of you main practices and use of proper freedom of expression, education and so forth to his russian speaking minority. no way we've been through minutes to it brought us nothing. the you itself is not proper enforcer of these rights of menard's within media. you the right. so just to look at the russian case, a russian speak minorities are trampled on and have been trampled on since before 2004, when the baltic states were admitted. everyone knew within that they, that the states or in strict violation of the rules within the d. u for emission based on the protection of bernardi as well as the gilbert gilbert. yeah, you have to add on add on. i'll throw it to nikolai right now. is it,

we've had this intense ukrainian ization of culture of language. i mean, and, you know, i, i don't know why convention, you know, kind of the band or not bend drive ideology here, but only the last couple of new cycles. there are no russian speakers in ukraine. they don't exist. i mean, how do you deal with a government like that? okay. i mean, and, and it's all fueled on um, by western officials in money. i mean, if the problem is that i want peace as much as anyone else, i really do. but how do you talk to people like that? say, there aren't any russians speakers and ukraine? it's absurd, nikolai. i grooves all the points made. and yet the outcome inevitably is the same. namely, that negotiated settlement will have to be reached. oh, that doesn't mean that one side or the other cool doesn't claim victory. in fact, the victory is most likely to go to russia,

which means that the terms of settlement will be defined largely by russia. but nevertheless, a settlement it'll be and it will be a negotiated settlement with who uh, that's a matter that will no doubt of evolved overtime. whether zalinski is that person looks increasingly. but this is purely speculation that it might not be. we could speculate endlessly about who is replaced by might be it's likely that a success is to zalinski, will do exactly with zelinski, did to pressure and go and, but our friend could do to his predecessor, which was, which is to run out of the beast candidate now at that point, uh uh, russia will still have to negotiate with terms of its settlement, assuming its victorious and there will be, uh, some sort of other patients. and some sort of, um, quid pro, quote,

in order to achieve rushes, security objective that the important thing that is by far the most important thing is go back to gilbert in, in, in brussels, washington rush, you go to the table right now. why? why, okay? because you know what restaurant is not interested in, go shading minutes 3. okay. so, and that's the west is always going to do that. nato's always got to do that by time until they could do it again. go ahead gilbert. first i'd like to ask, what do we mean by russia here, or you can produce an angle. i think my colleague, nikolai will, will find attractive. that is taking a lesson from literature and from, from the arts. the literature that i want to bring in, it's not great classics but russian classics to be precise laptop. so i the warranties i just told, promo the pro largest, maybe a 100 pages long, and it deals with the question, it's very topical today and it has to do with, with the very question you posed, peter, that is,

who runs the show. is it the great man in history, the leaders who are making decisions that doesn't have great consequences for their countries in the world? or are they the, the, the expression, the implemented, the tool my one might say of the national will. and here it says in the, in the west it's assuming that russert means one man coaching mean. busy no, he's a container, we all know that dictators controls everything that a 145000000 people under them too, and so forth. that is a quite for it nonsense, but it's a kind of fairy tale that is the mainstream understanding of how the world works. it doesn't work that way, and russia, as it does anywhere. mr. pushing is did in many respects, it helps formulate russian policy. but he also is an expression of the role of the people and the role of the people today and russian. by that, i mean primarily the,

these are the leads is very much against sitting down to table with anyone coming from from kids. because they, there is the, the, the quick question applies to, to kids who runs the show. i don't think anyone believes that's the last few ones, the show or the solution they would run the show or that would solve it. shouldn't put rent would, would, would run the shoe. busy there is a group, a creek called of neo nazis, and the label isn't important. but there is a clique of people who for who, who are responsible for the quarter to february 2014, who are still calling the shots. and that's the issue for russia. how those people can be removed from power if there is to be a negotiated settlement. but let's take a step back. negotiated supplement, why? well, it is, even on the bill. the article was last friday which, which was discussing

a secret agreement between biting and shows that they would cut back on arms deliveries to ukraine and try to pressure mr. zalinski to that to go to his people and to cool football there. i'm sorry, i'm sorry gilbert, i'm sorry gilbert yet. that's his kabuki feet or i mean a bite and can call. is it lensky right now? we've got a nickel. i call them right now and tell them what to do. i mean, i, i can, you know nothing about ukraine without ukraine? this is all nonsense. it's, it's nonsense. go ahead. nikolai, as we can rely on all leaders, including ukraine, new leaders to struggle for their own personal survival share and their own interests. one of the leading opposition papers now managed outside of ukraine. but why is the red still in ukraine? is argued or pointed out, i should say that there have been a, there's been

a great empower's ation of ukraine. but at the very top's, people have managed very well and, and indeed are making money hand over fist through the system a broad. all right, well the way that i want to go, i want to know what to do with corruption. after our break here, we're gonna have to go to a short break, and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion. then you can stay with all the on the tape. uh, but with get ready to go. was like whoever but i was calling to check to see to see, oh see ya need them to see cheap. let me see washing, who'd be in the, in the most of the,

you have to put us some product in is i'm dudley and institution developed dependent on many countries. they have 1300000000 roman catholics around the world . and as they say in america, follow the money that it can guess most of its money from pro western countries. that lot of the nato countries, spain, italy, england, germany, as well as mexico and the united states. so it is dependent on you think that people sort of cult oh, stickle grants and you've got you have to deal with rich new. i mean the welcome back. across that were all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle. true mind you were discussing. you train the, let's go back to nikolai and kingston. i'm like, let's finish up on this point on corruption because this is something that,

you know, in the very beginning, i warned very, very clearly, this is, you know, you're only making it worse. the corruption in ukraine and it was very bad. and, but prior to the conflict that was, that was a talking point. ukraine's one of the most corrupt countries in the world. and then for about a year, you couldn't say it. and then suddenly could start saying that because they really weren't getting their money is worth meaning the, the tax payers in the west here. um, there's going to be a reckoning with that. i mean, i've often surmise that even if there is a settlement, there's going to be a lot of people being held account or should be held account in ukraine. where does that all that money actually go? well, we'll probably never know for sure, since even the pentagon can't do them, they can't even do an audit plus files here. but i didn't want to get to the, to reiterate the point that there will be negotiations between moscow and

ukraine for any settlement of this war for any ceasefire, for any armistice. any step along the way will require negotiations. and i have little doubt that people will step forward whether they want to or not, whether simply because the field of people above them has been abandoned and everyone else is less than they are, the only ones left to hold the bag. nevertheless, there will be people with whom these negotiations will be undertaken. of course, they will be in a week or position because they will do the extent that they're interested in reaching any accord with russia. they will be abandoned by the west. and as a result, they will have little choice, but to concede to russia's demands my warning, however, drew rushes that we all have something to lose here. okay. it is quite possible

that russia will push too far demand too much for even too quickly into territories that it really does not want in your brain. and therefore opening it so itself up to counter strikes and moves and more military stalemate. so there's danger on all sides to be aware of. that's such a good point in. um, i think you might, i, i'm pretty sure both of you read an article written by john mearsheimer recently. and then he comes to what kind of settlement will it be? well, he believes that like we all do, that russia is going to win, but it will be an ugly piece, which i thought was a very interesting way of describing it. gilbert, i don't, i don't think that a rush. it has maximal as views here, but the but uh, the, the word is already been mentioned on this program. it will solve a lot of problems. finally take seriously rushes, security demands the rest of it. believe it or not, can be a detail, just details, but russia wants it security respected and i think from that point it things could

actually um and reasonably easily. and magnanimously, gilbert of the fort daniel mcdonald, mislaid, they will have 3 people up to us on the crane and on the us side to it. i don't see it. such people exist, but i didn't get a chance to quite finish the remark about the billed article. the they have agreed that if you claim cannot hold up consent and entrance negotiations, then they would be content with the pros and cons. but the idea of approaching conflict has been floated united states repeatedly over the last month or 2 and it so, and it's dealt with is if it's a natural thing to happen because we all know that they are at an impasse and that's no one has won the war, well that observation is strictly one of the of the washington line. it doesn't correspond to reality on the ground and it has the needs that behind it, the concept,

what's words about which is no way to take someone took out rushes own definition of this objectives, not america's definition of what is subject to should be its own definition of objectives are to destroy the ukrainian harm forces and not to cease territory. this is not a territorial war from the russian perspective. and from their perspective, they are winning the wonderful because they are in fact destroying demand power reserves of ukrainian army. so they would be content, i believe, with a frozen conflict, but not the, not at the points that washington thinks, look, take the frozen conflict from the musket perspective would be one in which russia takes a guess, a moves up to the treasure industry and closes the ukraine from the black sea, essentially leaving the country. a handicapped is not a failed states to fall into the hands of d. u,

and to be massively subsidized forever by the u. that would suit russia fine. the main issue, as do you have said repeatedly, is the russian security, and that will depend the on assigned to be straight is simple, depend on the facts on the grounds that's ukraine's borders. a sufficiently far that ukraine's military potential is sufficiently handicapped that the west is perfectly understanding, going to attempt to install the missiles and other other military equipment threatening. the russia will be leach with a response that is devastating, perhaps not just on ukrainian territory, but back in germany or wherever else this equipment is coming from. so russia will look after its own security. it doesn't need a security guaranteed uh from the united states. so you, you to protect itself. well, i mean, well, well, you know, you in security doesn't happen in a vacuum. and this segue is perfectly to where i want it to go. nikolai has the 3 of us. i very rationally and i think, compassionately,

and will all of us want this to come to an end. they stop the killing, but you know, we have um, next year, the 75th anniversary of nato. okay. and they're coming up with, you know, little magical ideas. how that kind of twist and turn and you know, we can slip them in this way. slip them in that way. i mean it's quite grotesque. okay. because we even stilton bird that hit the secretary generally admitted off the counselor by mistake. i don't know that yes, nato expansion was the origins of this conflict, but they're still talking about nato expansion. i mean, what, what, where do these people come from and what do they want to achieve? well, they don't. what has the purpose of expanding nato? ok, okay. there you go. that's their, that's their mission, right? yes. okay, well it's just it surfaces for survival and funding but i think of

a rump ukrainian stage without an outlet to the black sea would leave a territory that is sizable attached to nato. and that wouldn't be real honest just in nature, and that wouldn't be dangerous to russia in perpetuity. it's one of the reasons 119-6016. why prime minister of the novel said we should not annex the lease. yeah. so in, in a memo, to, sorry, nickel is the 2nd because we would not gain anything from it. and one of the wise things i read is that russia has no interest culturally historically. or in terms of security, a 2 x regions that do not want to be part of it or could not reason a reasonable amount of time be pacified and, and,

and with the majority would not be comfortable being part of russia. and i'm afraid that much of western and even now central ukraine falls into the category that territory and its relationship to russia. add to the, the bent to europe that still has to be negotiated. and that is, in fact, the central point that will have to be negotiated in the, in the larger uh, tiny repeat and security arrangement. which should be at this point already. insight as part of our objectives. well, what we just heard from nichol i is possible, but if that's the goal that they want to achieve a well, i got a i, i differ slightly with you. but i think that at the end of the day rush, it has that security interest at heart, that's it's number one issue here. how that is translated into policy and dealing with the neighborhood can go in different directions here. but i mean,

i'm not sure nato is interested in security in europe. the. and now the difference is now, is that russia, is the official enemy, remember they? oh, where does a defensive alliance watches bottom? you know, our enemy hold all that is changed right now. and rush, it has to keep an eye on nato, considering its already expanded during this conflict. go ahead gilbert. the most expensive nature that we've seen since the admission of the bowls exchange has been counter productive for the security of europe. i think that my, i used to correspond very closely with steve collins and he was saying that nato is not a fraternity club of the university. it's the idea of admitting new members should be conditions on one question. will this increase or decrease the security of the existing members? that is passively clear to just if it became a actionable only several years after the fact that the meeting the baltic states

was a big negative for security of the existing members. okay, so is true or for admitting of finland, but as 1200 kilometer long border. this to be defended by a population of 9000000 is absurd, it can only be a detract, detract from the security of europe. now, i don't think the russians would be to put out if the display to them brought into it a rug. uh ukraine. that is some distance from, from where you're creating and borders were. yeah, before oldest this war began in the, the fact that that brussels would be controlling the other was insane. people running ukraine and preventing them from, of triggering a pan. you repeat, and it's not global war. but i think that in itself would be positive, but only after ukraine has been so reduced in size,

as in population. that's and removed at a greater distance from, from russia's borders. stay under those conditions. i think russia could live with a new member ukraine, whether you, whether the national members fall live with me. it's all about the rest because they let me add less than 30 seconds. a nickel i. what can we react to? what we just heard from gilbert 30 seconds, go ahead. i mean, i think that effectively transforms billable into the bumper state. the rush is looking for what i don't need to keep going. i, i, i just think, well, if it closes some problems, body raises others and all of these issues. and really what we need is advance of leaving us. we need to, we need another helsinki process. okay, that's, that's what we need. need right now, rapidly i'm running out of time. i want to remind our viewers. nicolai's a s a is what's next for ukraine, the outlines for

a peaceful settlement. you can find it at anti war dot com. it's all the time we have a one. i think my guess and brussels and kicks and, and of course i want to take our viewers for watching us here at r t c. and next time, remember prospect the,

[000:00:00;00] the, the heat, mo palestinians are released by as well as exchange for 12 people held by her mouth, a human rights lawyer ledges the adf is being seizing more civilians outside of gaul. so, in order to use them as bargaining, ship it taking about a $130.00 more hostages in the west bank. and let's remember, a mazda is not in the west bank indian prime minister and arrange remoted folks to work as westgate from a collapse tunnel office. 17 days. oh correspondents who witnessed the end of the whole deal with all those sent to the hospital. and frieda was the most enrollment