the calls of still press has been able to get for peace or somebody to the gym. and i just say that 13, this is an update on zillow so i can be really pulling that just kind of how things are looking this wednesday so far for it to show you what we're taking over at the top for new. and the latest developments estimate of the the hello and welcome to cross sides were all things are considered on peter level for the lack of a better term. it is obvious to west has decided to continue and or reconfigure

a new cold war against russia. but this time, without so much ideology, is this new cold war, more dangerous and destabilizing than the 1st, the cross talking the new cold war, i'm joined by my guess. richard software in country right. he is in america is professor at the university of kent as well. as the author of the last piece, how the wes failed to prevent the 2nd cold war. and in budapest we cross did george send me while we? he is a pod counselor at the gaggle which can be found on youtube and the locals are domain cross lock roles of effects. that means you can jump any time you want. and i always appreciated quite a bit of a slight change of pace and format here, george, my partner at the capital a pod cast a is a agreed to co host this program with the professor. and as such of george, you can see it off 1st question richard and i really enjoyed your

book, which is the coolest the piece. and i guess my 1st question would be, you know, that the, the, the onset to the question you was, who did lose the piece, because at the end of the cold war, there really should not be any conflicts. that's all dividing rusher and the west. the one on the logical complex to another territorial complex, the one that we can all make complex. so what happened? how, how come we're in this situation? yeah, absolutely. it's one of the big mysteries of our time. how fast did we manage to squander what was clearly a historic opportunity? and then we took a piece, the sort of piece i have in mind is what kennedy and others would talk about. a type of positive piece that is a piece focused on development on co creation, on allowing institutions working to work above all those based on the united nations. and other words, to use the vast human potential or technological achievements of

a ton of cost in the face. so for ecological and that's a developmental issues, that was a moving forward, what i called a positive piece, instead of which as you suggest, a negative piece became established and of course intensified to the point of a hot war today. so why it's a 65000 google question, i keep going on about that and can i, i don't give too long answer, but i'm gonna have to because like i'll give you my latest thinking on this. how we got the right thing. so i think i would argue that in the postwar years since 1945, we've seen 2 homes of the west develop. on the one side, you have folders, relatively positive elements focused on the west, but nevertheless benign and elements of development. this is up the so called liberal international order based on democracy, human rights, multilateralism,

the united states, up to 1945 embedded. it's a government a, it's dominance in a motor that to the situations including a bubble, the united nations and the next little the up to 1999 was then effectively globalized. and we had this, you know, globalization which has delivered huge public goods. so that's the one side of the west, which is, you know, it's got its own downsides, but it's called is upsides as well. however, a 2nd waste took shape often 1945. this is what i now guys call the political west. this is the militaristic west, this is the one that was condemned by a eisenhower and his farewell speech. the military industrial complex, what some people called the tumor night state focused on fighting communism. basically, some 13 democracy is if they turned out to be a plus style to the only quick question. now critical of united states with all

those crews in guatemala, of, if you have, must have back into your own and so on. this is that political west, so we have these 2 systems at work. and so in 1989, we all believe di certainly did that, that political waste could be pushed back, that security stayed the minute 2 years. and, and of course, it's one of his experiences was nato. so that was the moment. unfortunately, the exact opposite happened. that political west, consolidated, and extended. and of course under the identity of the end of history claimed to be one of what it let's all pick up on that point here. i think one of the biggest problems and i don't think and i don't even think academia didn't talk, talks about it enough. certainly not in media is that there, there are conflicting interpretations on how the cold war came to an end. now on my side of the pond, the perception is that under go to a child,

the soviet union opted out of the cold war. and i suggested an alternative with the west doesn't see that never did see that and called it a victory. and that's one of the reasons why we have this historical mismatch. and with this mismatches added with a lot of military force, a lot of rhetoric and animal, uh, and in many cases of cases where you can't control outcomes. so it's really, we could even add on the historical differences between the 2 sides. yes, and if, but i did, i did what a voice is in united states who accepted that argument of course. but on the whole user side of the main stream, the so called globe the establishment, the national security establishment, such as i never thought back to you. in other words, a claim to victory. what was that was totally spurious when gorbachev put an end to the codle and above all, it was he and of course, all those other people who developed

a new political thinking industry union. they believed that international system established in 1945, the u. n. system could finally come into its own so garbage of never capitulated to the political west to the west in general, to washington or anything like that. no, they said let's let the system work so we can all develop in piece together. so i'm full but unfortunately ended up with a cold, well being continued by other means. so if i could just follow up on that, is this the mistreat, which is why didn't they to then define itself in opposition to russia? why did it exclude rusher from its security framework? i'm of this, the been just absent minded this. i mean there exists the the o s. c e that was a chopper of powers in 1990, everyone talked about the indivisibility of security. everyone talked about the new year of co operation. so what happened to the, why they need to then say, well,

we will bring in all of these states, many of whom we have uh, kind of a historic grievance against russia. but we wouldn't bring in russia. and despite the fact that russia wanted to be a part of some kind of a mutually beneficial security system, they continued to say no to russia. and this is something person important has said repeatedly that i, i set this up suggested many times the grocer should be within nato and was always rebuffed. why didn't they to define itself in opposition to russia? and it wasn't just put to it was a girl because i need both sealants in the 1990s. they will say that so, and of course, most of the russians establishment, including many liberals because quite clearly a, a defense system expanding with the exclusion of the main force against which it had been established in the 1st place course and to lead to united a numerous difficulties intentions. so it was quite clear that we had an

intensifying security dilemma. your question, why did they accept this logic? they yeah, and you said 6. clearly i said there was, i'd say small this book by we have no pets, no place for that show. endless attempts in nearly 1990 is to establish a different type of security architecture, you know, with some institutional innovation, bumping up the confidence and security and co creation yoga all failed because all of them would descend to washington. so you could say easily enough. the aim was to maintain washington's dominance over its allies and globally, and the if that logic, of course that was the next step. and if we have been 90 way is a head of a liberal international order. but as i said, there's 2 faces. i mean, negative price of course was the security side and the people, but perhaps looking too much on the $1.00 side, the benign side, like a jew bins,

jar does where you kind of see the 2 things at the same time i that face. well, i mean, i've hours or 2 faces. so exactly. it was a bland, of course. they did 2 attempts to mitigate it with a home that joined counsel of 1997, the nato, russia council of 20 to 2. but they will have the attempts that will just sticking plaster on the gaping wound. well in but richard, i mean, a kind of goes back. i mean, i, in my introduction, you know, reconfiguring the cold war rush, it had assumed that he had come to an end. and during the 1st cold war, i think it's easy to say it was about ideology. it's not about ideology anymore. so what is it about? why is russ who the enemy there, you know, again, that's a, it's one of those great mysteries. because even worse than that, you also want to, to join the west. but it wanted to join the loop international west, not the political west. so it was this constant confusion between what face of the

west would it try to enter a. and this double face is double bottom to the west. ultimately led to the repudiation of both. so uh yeah, it certainly wanted to join it and the richard of your 2nd, it's a double face. i'm sorry, i'm going to reinterpret that using mine with that sounds like skin. so for any it to me as well, it's that it does have, it's a double face switch. you could say is all the power systems, the couch themselves, in terms of civilizing mission, like 19 century, a bit of imperialism. but at the same time having a male to faced in that development glove. so, and of course us it was done and it makes solar opponents of course, of balance because he never quite know which price is good to be presenting itself the benign face of a, our power based face. of course today we know that they both look glove as being

skilled enough and is just the manual 1st. but at what your costs on both sides and savvy the gloves off. i mean the battle is joined. but if you say what's it all about? it's not try to do a legit. is it? then you could say, is it cultural civilizational values? is it simply the fact ofa, you know, defense of us again many dominance, they cannot allow any alternative. and of course this and that applies to china and then the other guys in power has been politically depend, if they do not accept u. s. dominance, us to get any well. and then richard, the level of, of approaching the break here. so i guess, i guess it's kind of fair to say that we've gone back to 19 century great power politics. the cold war was some kind of interlude as it was one huge difference that we have an international system based on the united nations established in 1945. and this whole body of international law, which is becoming ever more, we're going to be fine. for example, today we,

the international court of justice is in session and dealing with a case lawrence by south africa against israel's. uh, well, i'm gonna have to jump in here. i think the others difference is that there are nuclear weapons right now that's a big into our, a gentleman. i'm going to jump in here. we're going to go to a short break. and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on the new cold war. stay with our team the same just don't need to shape out the application and engagement equals the trails. when so many find themselves will support. we choose to look for common ground,

the the malware, but the welcome ect. across stock where all things are considered on peter will help remind you were discussing the new cold war the

okay, george, the baton is in your hand. go ahead. as well. one question that there's a rise in the 1st one. what to be that was saying in, in the 1st part of the program, which is that, well, the soviet union did not regard that. it had the loss of the cold war. it just basically said that, um, uh, the code was uh over. we're not interested in finding it anymore, but for the west, it looks very different. they. so russia as much weekend as the left for you, you have to raise the question. um, particularly if your a russian was in those fatal decisions that uh, the soviet union to a, from the as 1989 to 1991. when they presume they just simply dissolved the most so pack. they signed off on the united germany within nato. that encouraged the west, the think the we have a very weak adversary and this is

a historical opportunity to take advantage of this very weak atlas or any really the section didn't change too many, many, many years later. but during that time being in the west, the one advantage of a week in russia after another is and it was just withdrawal from the abm treaty bombing your bas lobby. and you know, you can just name them, but the was the, will, the week of the russia suddenly a saw. so do you think that contributed to the, the new, the new cold wars? that's all it is. yes. so at the end of the code, well, we could use a number of symbolic dates. we could talk about 1989 at the end of the cold. well, with all of that positive piece agenda on the, on the table, then we can talk about another signal di, 1991. that is an integration of the soviet union. and of course a continuous state gotcha. emerging out effect, but it much we to i wouldn't total economic collapse and social this integration

which across to nowadays there's a big debate about all of the 19 ninety's, but yes it was much weakened because then we also have a middle level. yeah. 1990 the yeah, eastern yoga which of course these former soviet states. and of course the so for most of your book, states had their own views. and for them, the weakening of the dresser of the soviet union was effect. what was over to new to for them to the k? no freedom which of course was much to be welcome to allow the states, but unfortunately they then and bedded coldwell thinking into these 3 state space now emancipated states which of course then allied to those who say you go for this week. let's go from it because it was and never allowed aggressive to gain much as a few inches of challenger advocate power, as, as peter suggested at a battalion. but, uh, yeah, so that you also then must go was and began to be present at once. it began to

accept it so that it would not be a legacy power, like united kingdom fiance. and of course, the defeated powers of germany and japan. and that came was a bit of a shock to the, to washington for sure. well, that's exactly the point. richard, i mean if, if we're working on the assumption and i think george and i agree with you is that there is a new cold, more new cold war thinking. and russia is the target. so we shouldn't be surprised that in rush, cuz reacting to being targeted in a new cold war. okay, so it, it is a, and that is the preamble to the conflict that we have now in, in ukraine. you with right before rush, i said we have security demands and they were ignored. the, those security demands were a reaction to the new cold war coming from the west. as indeed they must have found itself where they moved was the limits you could say. and of course it was highly provoked. but of course then the question becomes, does it have to do i sort of purification?

did it have a, what was this scope boom from the news? and that's where these huge debates take place today. that yes, we do say that the west mismanage the piece that we ended up having a cold peace for many, many years. but of course then we have these other actors emerging, as i said, the 1990 year. the 1990 act, as you claim is one of them, if you like, the overland voltage republics. all of these with bits of grievances, they could be managed. but unfortunately we've in these countries they were, if you're not in cut, they were encouraged. we know that by the us embassy taken care of and so on to prevent genuine deep and during being shipped between must concave. we all know the famous statement back to speaking to a page and see that with your claim dresser is a said power. in other words, if it to us dominance without it had the remains of secondary power. so these are these that, you know, we now know with 35 years experience, that's fundamental misunderstandings and indeed strategic perceptions which so

different and leg onto this conflict today. enjoy. so, yeah, so or should, i mean, why then, do you think that the nato and the united states continue to ignore all the red lines? i mean, for years and years, russia had been issuing warning officer warning, but it's not going to go on accepting this, a nato expansion indefinitely. i mean, we remember what happened in 2008. and, you know, they repeatedly acknowledged them and was simply on underestimation. of a, a rough as capability. um, why would they think that russia would just simply accept anything that was rammed down the throats? uh, you know, the just think that is forever 1990 and the russia simply is due to week to be able to defy us or yeah, just let need to elaborate what you say. it is. i mean,

they to allowed me to service the key elements, but it was those large of biological security agreements and particularly a visa fee. you can add, which there is so even with nato enlargement is a covers a multitude of sins. if you're like in different formats, including now for example, the u. k. your trade in defense alignment, but you're absolutely right. they today wasn't just washington. it's a political west, suffered from sugars and the belief that the they were on the right side of history, which meant that they were unable to manage the actual genuine history with which i were faced. in other words, tighter duck, sickly, often 198 to 99 to one. though so to effect illusions, which you could help you dominated in the soviet union, historicism the belief that we know the direction of history. and if we could push it along, the path escaped to the forgot to and the soviet union, but it came into the back door into the political west. and of course,

once you have a politics based on illusion and 2 types of illusions in new york on one that united states was going to hit wells dominant power, which you must ensure that no one else can challenge it. and of course, the liberal humanitarian illusion that now the world is god for democracy, and it's our job to push it along, who game change and who was so co colored revolutions. we may well, well boost. i certainly do want to see the world more democratic, more and more. yeah, economically developed, but there's that isn't the exact way to go about it in my view. you know, richard, what um i asked rhetorically. and my introduction is this new cold war, more dangerous than the 1st one. and, you know, one of the differences between the original cold war and the way you conceptualize that is that during the original a cold war, the us and the soviet union very rarely avoided direct confrontation, seems to be different in the new cold war with this proxy war and ukraine is that one of the differences. that's

a huge difference. coldwell has come home to roost in his homeland, you know, they're causing the 1st cold pool. it goes basically fault in the so called fluid world. today, tired talk simply the 3rd world apart from southwest agent goes or color start, and some other places. it's relatively stable, whereas it's your which is the dynamic for you and which of course we're at the beginning effect. we're seeing a huge nato exercise coming up in the next few months. the boil little monkey in the military as a. well, it would take one accident once to a real quick, you know, who knows what's gonna happen. another thing, but why this war is more dangerous? in the old one, it was the other tiffany superficial companies and versus capitalism. we knew what was what this time it's much more pernicious and much more pervasive. it's a cultural get passion, for example, at universities in england, if you start questioning and the sort of things which i've been doing, you know,

you are liable to be condemned, cannot just mention today the uh, my good friend slot, uh, rich, let me go. so from the university of talk to, i've just dentist just heard that he has been detained by the estonian secret, intelligent by that intelligent service, who allegedly, you know, doing work to undermine you, estonian security. i secretly working with a russian intelligence. i fear it is absolute nonsense. i've been sleeping for many years. one of the finest academics in most professional academics. it has been my privilege to know, and today he's detained in jail in estonia. so that is a sort of, well i guess from part of the new coal drawers, you know, yeah it's, it's against bad thing. okay, that's and it's come home. ok, i'm sorry, george, i'm out of turn. go ahead. it is. but the good following on what, what you just said, which is very, very interesting, which is that the difference between the cold war and what we have today, which is the, you know, now the 3rd world is relatively stable. and the,

the center of the conflict is you are a and that does make things very, very dangerous, because that really directly affects russian security. so that's why i wonder, how do you see this war, a new crane resolving. and so, because even let's say from russia is going to be the best case scenario they, they drive out the ukrainian forces from the done by se, uh, take a house um and uh, harko, this building 80 percent of you frame that's going to be left over nato is going to want to scoop it up. so how, how does this play out? what, you know, how do we in this very dangerous compensation? a yes, and a lot of our discussion so far. there's been the be the missing guest, is it? well, i've got to see your opinion on the european powers acting as a responsible leaders. in the old days, you know the coal infect, you and me to and we're all active at the time of the full of the bed and will with

today is a leadership. there's nothing except those which just are cheerleaders to the political west. so where you came, goes i, i, it's a few level conflict one as you suggest within you to in itself some sort of deal. we have to try to establish a european gun mention, because ultimately you to take control of its own security. and of course, as the global element with the united states involved. and of course, you could ask of a 4th level, which is multilateral institutions, united nations, hopefully perhaps with a goal for china bowl, brazil, and an india some of a disposable states in the so called global stuff. so in other words, the solution of the opinion conflict cannot be in ukraine itself. it has to be part of a much larger settlement. so that's an international confidence. but of course that needs goodwill. and i must grade to austin. goodwill is evil in less well, it's the fact, it's very interesting. is it?

uh, 2024. it seems to resemble 1945. when europe was pa straight, it was outside powers that decided things. it's amazing. a history doesn't repeat, but it certainly echoes as all the time we have. i want to thank my guess what kind of barry and in budapest, and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at our dc and next time. remember, across the, the, in the late 18 ninety's, french soldiers led by general people who like arrived in asia with the goal of expanding french control in west africa to the territory of more than shot one or 32 on sunday. i mean, he stuck up some new shows, all the cars do and dick's shown the list to the content of who they on the east,

one of the most horrific campaigns of a trustees to have ever taken place in the history of the continent. liability getting somebody i know the pushing it to download the glass. you followed there. do so they put the actual most likely multiple villages with devastated a numerous members of resistance groups with the headed off for us to get the move of nancy. and i'm going to be a young investigator in search of his own identity and box on a journey through africa. the traces general with a slug drenched roots in an effort to establish how your legacy still echoes throughout the confidence. so my name is sandy and i come from england and i've come ready to find out more about the position of willy and base, grew up in the region, the since 2016,

numerous monuments to soviets, soldiers and poland, ukraine and the baltic states have been destroyed all vandalized fish their stuff, but it must be the within. yeah. unless or even some others could. i ask if i don't think so that's the most to i'm a digit special i'm, we're just bringing the police government denies the rules, so it'd be its own just in the victory of a non system. and is it raising historical memories of world war 2 is the 40 piece from your story. although it did seem the non c regimes, the trustees would remain, thinks in people's consciousness forever. but as long as russell phobia is profitable and brings dividends, you are with endeavor to rewrite the site here says click here, you start to sync up the i'll provide them up so i need to see because it looks like so. i need october 30 at

the top headlines right now. here on oxy 2 children are killed and 3 of those wounded as iran strikes targets in august on it comes to the day after at last the missile by roger terrace, son of most that spies center and syria and iran. the new s and u. k. reportedly conducting new stripes on who the positions and yemen allegedly positing n c ship miss style facilities a booth these folks both and told me to watch exclusively says the suspect or escalation. this may lead to a major disaster by turning the red sea into a military arena that could threaten international navigation which will lead to the expansion of the conflict outside the scope of the red sea type of stuffing

images from causes.