[000:00:00;00] the hello and welcome to the cross stoker. all things are considered on peter a little by all accounts, joe biden is intending to end his presidency with the bang literally. and by doing so, he aims to saddle donald trump with his foreign policy pedro called ukraine projects, many in the truck or they seem to have no problem with this, the cross section trunk and ukraine. i'm joined by my guess, john laughlin in payers. he's a university lecturer in history and political philosophy in plymouth. we have patrick henderson. he is the editor and founder of 21st century, one therapy and elizabeth. we cross alexandra guerrero. he is an international legal analyst, the gentleman crosstalk rules and effects and music and jumping time you want,

and i always appreciate it. well, it start out with john, you know, general with the last few days there's been a lot of inside baseball about, you know, what time is going to do with ukraine. and we have these uh, under wide variety wide spectrum of opinions coming from people that presumably will find, find themselves in trumps, official or bit in january. but let me ask you, let me, let's ask some very broad, simple questions. and most people in the main stream don't even get to here to the united states and the u. k. through nato. and their prox, or ukraine, are sending missiles into the heart of russia. well, does russian have the right to retaliate against the u. k. in the united states. well, the question of right i think is the relevance to provide the question of whether israel has the right to exist when international relations, what counts is not right? but might. and here we are, russia has the might and the right, i would say,

go ahead. uh, well, yes, uh well i, i don't disagree. i'm not saying it doesn't have the right. i'm just saying that that is not a useful tool for analysis and stature relations because uh, rules are waged exactly when there is a disagreement about right. and ultimately is might that decides smoke? we're all here sitting in different parts of europe. your in moscow, i'm in paris and the other commentators around the world. we don't know, lots of biden or whoever is running the united states is going to do. we call it know that? no, any because we're not close and don't have access to the internal decision making but also because the people themselves don't know because in a whole situation, everything depends on the decisions of the opposite side. now all we can say, i think as commentators is we know the general line. so we know that the americans

are programmed for violence and more violence. i, i think that's being clear now for 20 authors. he is, they didn't really have any of the tools in their toolbox than that. russia, by contrast, does, of course it has violence that is disposal. but it also has a a receipt which as far as i can tell, is very calculating and very rational and news that it mustn't push things too far for police knows the risk of pushing things too far. so yes, on the one hand, i think that's a biden is playing a totally new listing game. it does what they seemed like at 1st a few days ago when, when he announced this thing. he noticed these missiles being sent into russia, they listed because the goal was simply to prevent from, from negotiating a piece. but there's other reading, which the general,

the retard general who's been at pointed to the ukraine portfolio outlined on fox news. he said, well, maybe this is a kind of employee, so that truck can then come back from that and have some kind of all it problems to, to we don't know. we do not know my, in my opinion, the question is if, if we, if we think as i do that, russia is winning on the battlefield. of course that could hold up and you can smoke. but leaving aside that scenario, my, i think the question is, how far can rupture go in terms of its victory without inflicting a humiliating defeat on the incoming administration in the united states. for that, i really wonder if it's been in good faith as to faith and that i and, and this is something that i've talked about with you and others on this program ever since they started the special military operation. the wes, i'm going to and directed to patrick the west deals and controlling narratives. ok,

but negative. so in reality we, they're very rarely the same because you want a narrative big bedroom. it gives the impression that you are being able to create a reality. well, this administration is bundled that up pretty badly. but patrick, you know, this whole discussion about, you know, trump in 24 hours end of the conflict. and i tend to think this conflict is going to end on the battlefield, natalie to go. she ation table. patrick yeah, the and donald trump's pre sold this is he's going to get a great deal. he's going to keep, you know, he's got a man, a from the american people to wind this conflict out. he's going to come back with a great deal. the problem is, is in doubt looking at the so called, subject matter experts that the trump administration has selected. i doubt that they have really the knowledge and the appreciation for the actual situation as it's develop the last 3 years. and as it is now and beyond and, and donald trump, himself has

a very probably scant understanding of the depth in the 8 ball that the united states and nato are actually behind. and that ukraine itself is behind this conflict. there is no good deal for the, for nato, or for the west or for the united states, or there's no victoria. what one advisors saying that if, if putting doesn't negotiate with trump, we're going to open the spigots for aids, going to make everything we've given zalinski this far. it looked like peanuts. well, that's music to moscow. his ears as far as i'm concerned, because this is death by a 1000 cuts for nato, and it means ukraine's going to be weaker. it's going to be a dysfunctional, rob state, and they might very well lose odessa in the process and from his g. a strategic point of view, that's game over for nato southern front as far as really, really, i'm just saying that i just wonder all of these. um, uh, uh, pseudo intellectuals, opining all the time. do they even understand the significance of odessa? i tend to doubt it here,

look center. one of the things that the i've been saying from the very beginning is why would moscow negotiate with any of these people? we've already gone through mince one minutes to a stem bowl. i mean, again, you know, i don't want more to continue, but the only way for this war to come to an end is a, a determination on the battlefield. because the west is de legitimized itself is indigo shading partner late. at least that's my point of view, alexander. that's why russia basically needs to keep proceeding, which is good. so questions on the battlefield. just to talk only plus the only dates this regions where they are at presently. but also, let's see more and more lands which will be able to be low. i wouldn't say negotiated that that wouldn't be seen in the future as arrived of russia to hold and to have peace on protection and security with this kind of buffer zone built

into play. so you had to states want to keep spinning. you're bringing the forces to us, for example, longer engines sizes, or even like medium range missiles or gas rates. and so this means that the russia will have to decide that they need to continue more and more in the interior of the brain. and so maybe they reach tier because if what the rest, your needs is, security and warranties. and presently russia has not meaning death. and also russia has another fear, which is they have the ability to choose whether they want to have the initiative or not on the battlefield. what do you have on the western side is only a dense 3. yeah. and the more we charge 3 back against russia, by pushing them to the leaving it. this means that the rest of it will not be able to sit on the, on the, on the table and discuss any kind of preconditions because russia has, like people said before, not only right, but also lived. and even this will be lost. and so these last a ok,

the weapons use on the battlefield. b, 's has best of 2 worlds. this means that russia can use a kind of weapon that no, i mean the west has an equivalent, but also it can have determine the defect. but that this thing done is the same role as nuclear weapons because it doesn't have, have the side effects. it can be more additional, more localized to go through. so you, for us, it has this wonderful guy. why with the rest of the side, it's from the beginning, the only plans that they have when this stuff is especially for operation, i don't see any reason why they should be so and you know, tell me what's really missed and all because clap trap that we keep hearing is that this, in no way shape or form is actually helping ukraine. i mean, and this was always missed in these discussions. go, yeah, i, i agree with the 2 previous because about what i'm trying to emphasize is that war

is the continuation of politics. by other means, in other words, you find people in order to obtain a piece, your advice will in order to obtain an outcome. and the i see for russia now, because as i say, we don't know want to, the united states is going to do. we know how the american foreign policy administrative stablish from it is structured. it's very one dimensional, it's will violence violence. the russian side is more nuanced. but the anyway, that presents a bigger problem because how is russia even assuming, as alexander says, and i'm sure he's right, that they can be progress on the battlefield, maybe even to care for whatever. my question is, my, my, my, my, the thing is the question i putting to myself is how can such a military victories if indeed they are, leads to a political settlement? that is the problem. of course they can lead to

a political sacrament in ukraine. they can be receiving change in ukraine, and that can be so lensky can flee and go off to wherever he's got his video or whatever that could happen. that's one scenario, probably the only realistic scenario actually. but us, we will know this is nothing more with ukraine, is what with nato to hell can right to achieve victory on the ground. by me, look, she means and then have a political agreement with nato, when both sides, russia and nato, of puts the issue of defeat to a victory on the next, the central level. because russia says it's a alexis central president. of course, nato says that is an exercise for john. thank yeah. hi dan. let me throw this the patrick on. i think for rush, it is because it's fighting the collective west. okay. and the western countries are supplying material and intelligence and personnel to chat the russian russian, the sovereignty, and the rest is not packing the. okay. and so i attacking the united states,

maybe it. so maybe that's a different conversation. but it is not ex, essential for nato. it's reputation only. it's maybe that's a central but not from a security point of view as to that's, that's false, patrick. yeah, it's, it's, uh, the problem is the data, something's got to break the balancing act of narratives that john just laid out so eloquently. there something's got a break, and this, the united states isn't going to dismiss position. and it's, it's the approach to this europe. however, i think will be the breaking point politically in any way and what's happening. i just got back from central europe and hungry. having spoken to people in the ministry defense and so forth, they're very clear that they want to cease fire and they've wanted to cease fire for awhile. so slovakia hungry central, you have to close your to the front line. the more sanity you hear the further away from the front line, the more crazy the talk. so how is this going to play out politically? if europe, this isn't sustainable for europe, for europe in nato members,

if they ended it today, this, the donald trump in the united states could talk a wind for nato. they militarize the entirety of the new line of contact between east and west. trump can say you got to pay your fair share, spend your 2 percent continue to go. you happen. jump in here and try to go to a hard break. and after that hard, great, we'll continue our discussion. i'm trumping you, frank. stay with r t. 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 as a chosen few fractured images presented as 1st?

can you see through their illusion going on the ground can the or the after the end of world war 2, the national liberation movement, it'd be intensified dramatically, haven't driven away the japanese occupiers. the vietnamese patriots by no means wanted the return of the former french colonizers. but brands did not want to lose their rates colony, and decided to beat the opposition by force. in december 1946, a full scale war broke out. the v, i mean they 3 arctic organization led by whole team in inflicted heavy losses on the french. the invaders were in raged. according to western historians,

up to 250000 lives of peaceful beaten. these were on their contents. the colonialist widely used the practice of mass rape of b and these women as revenge on the gorilla. in 1947, the french destroyed the village of knights rock murdering 170 women, and 157 children. however terror did not help. in 1954, the vietnamese defeated the french army and the decisive battle of gen, being food, almost 12000 french soldiers and officers, including the commander. general dick had 3, and his command staff were captured. the configuration of a huge garrison at a demoralizing effect in europe. the french laughed vietnam, but they were replaced by even more violent and much stronger invaders. the american hard times were awaiting vietnam again.

the welcome after cross stuff were all things are considered. i am here a little strange. we're talking about trump and you can the okay, let's start out with alexander. i have the solution. a good day, everybody, everybody and write it down, but are not a posted in put it in your wallet because peter lavelle has the solution. if i'm being serious, actually we need a helsinki to point know what we need to do is we need a european security architecture. they've been so reality. as of today, we work out and then we work in, what do i need? all players, we solve security issues from the indivisibility of security. west is forgotten that term, it's not part of their for lexicon anymore,

and that will solve the ukraine prices. the ukraine dilemma as we work in words, we don't start there. we start here, then we go there. alexander, am i right? yeah. beautiful. i mean cousin case have been trying motion for that. the inspection is not an original idea on my part. sorry. yes, yes. yes. we all know that that's the risk of try over and over, but the west all is rejected it. why? because they thought they, they didn't have a domain, the control over all kinds of new political decisions about life. so until we have this in the west, i think it to be fairly unlikely to watch such a scenario to be enforced unbuckling on the battlefield box. well, why? i mean presently what we have is the wes, wasting itself in a position. why don't you have only an alternative capitalism? meaning that you have to go for the military solution and once you get the ads, only after that, they'll finally be able to recognize that there is no other alternative,

rather than accept that then the other side disappeared here. instead of having a balance, which is what everyone desires and fits the best solution for everyone, i need to pull the ballast worldwide, which will be able to work with all different forces, present phone line, and we would use the united nations for that. i mean, and to allow the united nations was 48 to for this service. and what we are witnessing is one side, trying to get the other side to the job and pre bile over it. and it says on trying to spread its own ideals to the other side. so this is a matter of survival and leave. survival can only be achieved through the capital ation off your phone. and so we'd be, if we wait, as westerners are putting ourselves in this position, then there's no interruption. but there the, the, the, the solution direct solution. of course these, that's one that you might think we need a european solution security solution for every and then i,

when i say about when i speak of european, i'm not mentioning what usually in the academies me see, wait national level as lira which is your opinion yet, because usually i hear who saw on the line and then other other sherry pole uh, body stronger in unit speaking. i'm up to you as east european union is itself fewer and then you have the rest of the world, but we have central, we have eastern europe, we have all the balkans. we have rush, you will have georgia, we have the doctors to the region. they are, all of them are included in your and you should or not only with them, but also with many other players that can help as a key security stability in dallas long life. we have many other players, no business turning into the ideal i. uh my deal is podcast here. so john, please for lots of cold water. go ahead. guest of that's what i would like to do. i'm sorry to say that i think that's, that's a completely unrealistic scenario. how much like you,

i made with states in another universe in a parallel universe in the matrix beyond the matrix. the fact that you, you said just now you started and you finished, you said, oh, sorry, alexander, did you know the russian has been one thing that since then, since you didn't finish your sentence. alexander russia as being one thing that since at least $1819.00, and since at least nicholas the 2nd, when uh, nicholas the 2nd conveying to the 1st type of peace conference by which was convenient under the initiative of the russian and pro, then rushed to try it again, in 1938 in the road to munich, and the music agreement was stopped at largely because the western power has refused a collective security agreement. then, obviously as being as, as pizza said to this, being helsinki and 197172. that is the i see in 1990 all these attempts have failed. and therefore i would say that the best outcome that we can hope for. and i

say this with a heavy heart is a new cold. well, i think that's what we will have the cold, who gave us a balance. he was a piece, the cold war was a piece. it was the so source of all, but it wasn't a will. and much as i would once again, i wish that was another outcome, but i called c one co c one. and i'm afraid i think that the breakdown has been so severe. and so a radical to break down your relations that i absolutely cannot see any way in which they could be a collective security agreement for generation. well, the john, you know, meanwhile one else, i mean, i like the separation. i let the west coast. so what they mean, it's heavy rating with because you know, their troubles are now wanting around the world. okay. they need to, they need to resolve their own problem just before the export it to everybody else . you know, but since patrick b, um um, we will um,

professor amir sam or he, he came up again to wrote a paper a little over a year ago called an ugly victory. and the russian will probably achieve because it will be on the battlefield. i have a cold or larry too much along the lines with judge jobs that have a lovely victory, miserable piece. but that's probably what the best we can hope for patrick. or, i mean the car and scrub crisis right now, especially what's happened over the last week is very instructive. if you look at the whole basis of nato. so what vladimir putin said after the attack comes, we're launched into russian territory. you have the, the argument from the west is how they sold is were allowing zelinski to use us weapons. that's the argument that the west is selling. what put and then what russia saying is, well, well, he's doing an article 5 and reverse. they like to tell this tropi an attack on one is back on all 3rd pollutants challenge. the western saying well attacked by one.

in this case, the us or britain or france. we regard as an attack by all. so that, that's a real crisis from nato, because think about it. if pressure was to respond to striking nato military facility in poland for instance, or another country, they've taken enough hits on the chin with regards to a missile strikes in, in russia, russian territory. how is europe going to regard that action by russia? are they going to look at as a response or an unprovoked attack on nato? no, i think europe will make the political calculation that this is getting out of hand . and they also, many in europe will throw their hands up at that point, the conversation is changing rapidly around, you know, like i was below so, but they have to make that calculation. peter is what i'm saying in the political realm, this all matters. and it becomes a military strategy at the top of your lots of good, good. the logic is impeccable. but, you know, and you know, i always try copious notes for these programs. and i,

here's one line here of western leaders, a group of imbeciles. i mean, how can a group of imbeciles make rational decisions? mean these people are not serious. john, i'm sorry, let me go to you. you know, they're, they're not serious about patrick is right. patrick is right. and we use the on the other hand, patrick, you said it's a military decision, it's a political decision. that's what i was referring to earlier. yes, they are in the sales, but they also put units and we've seen with this with shots, shots is now the fighting and election on the issue of peace. that small, nothing. you know, that's quite bank. if the biggest country in western europe is fighting a data election between paysimple between the s p d and the c d u, that's no nothing. my call is it was in domestic terms, but he tried to don't forget, in 2022, not very effectively. so,

i mean, of course, i don't even want to contemplate this scenario, patrick the you to just outlined. although it's obviously on the table, what will be the response for europe? god knows. i mean, i mean, measure what it will be to riley to double down and riley against russia because york is present. i bought spots spots. we don't know. you know me though and sandra, what, what year are we talking about here? i mean, as far as i can tell, there's never been an election in the european union about this conflict. okay. again, it's an a leak elite agenda. okay. well why is schultz in this in this dilemma? because these more of this war is not popular. it's very detrimental to me, i would even say, well, certainly for the existence of nato, which could go in passing into the night and i would, i would be very happy. but you know, and give you the respect of how much you love or hate to european union, is there and it's suffering as a result of this,

of this war. but its political leads are not in lock step with their people. go ahead, alexander, that's a desktop and it scares me the most is to see a witness that they've been union. we don't have any vendor for elections. we just vote for the environment and that's it. and from there, what's that really? what's lowery's arrives and what's the phone says mark more than that's flowers, as you know, they can only vote for the they're being commission and that's pretty much the powers that they're being found on test. so it started off in the attempt and for everyone, european union, the citizens to demonstrate that they have any power over anything, but in reality, they have absolutely none. because suddenly out of the blue, you can choose a new your information. either you can choose a, comes commissioners from every member states and you're not even going to check x. for example, the interests they pass, they're just going through the volt and they're going to be best. for example, when i see guy are colors linked with the pin commission,

after everything that she has been saying, i don't think she is the right person to push for the b service solution that it's under uninstalled to, sorry, uh, the opinion doesn't decide military policy in spite of its claim off, that's what i, what we need to concentrate on this, the national policy of breaking products in germany and of course of the united states. that's one matches. that's why that's why i don't understand if you realize when you check them up united states, you can find also the same when we speak about vitamins policies. well by then suppose these, they are not the keys own policies. they are surely developed. we a lot of actors that we, most of them we don't know who they are. and by that he's only the barrow to bring the mask. choose the news, please read the message. hey, let me, let me get down the last minute. we'll try to be any different. and would you be any different, john? as well, of course i think he will be different. i mean, i say as cool. so i think yes, i think he will be different. i mean,

in spite of everything, as far as of the must have reservations. i have about his appointments. he is and also says he wants to be bag. he wants to pull off a great show he wants to put on the legacy. and you know, that would be lots of big promises, putting an end to the wolf as state and sell him. he loves a deal. uh so um and as i think i mentioned earlier, the general who is appointed for relations with, with ukraine, claims that the escalation by biking is a way of giving him some room from the world. kelly his and well known to fox news viewers. other than that, we'll have to see gentlemen, that's all the time. i want to thank my guest in paris from offending lisbon and of course, i want to thank our viewers for watching us here at ortiz, the next time, remember,

prospect rules. the 1941, the radical right wing was stone, shall be nice. ation seized power and foam. the independent stage of croatia. hold on to the name, the level 10. what's kind of a problem with a still a system of these 3 are one of the main targets was children. historical sources say the gosh, killed over 72000 children. business it my god, they have done a roll of nose up that of course i say print down by may have done one of the, the up the done with general to go a, b, c on shooting. again. that is not even the germans themselves were horrified by the atrocities committed by the stash reflection of that. so there's a lot to deal with global mistakes. miss stella structure,

possibly it can be decided not to allow me sir. as of this, it will be. so i'm showing that the headlines philadelphia international russian intelligence were beating the western states, are apparently puffing to up to pi ukraine. amy to freeze the cost of it by sending tens of thousands of so called peace keeper. do you think the strikes on decision making centers are also possible by election. make sure everything is possible for the boat. and right the st. russian. a once more deploy as brand new hypersonic ballistic miss solve a on rush. connect with the target in gm under the i gave the idea of instruction and if there was