reviews the photos, the equipments, and any information. and maybe i believe more people to, to, to hide technology and the within the system. or to make sure that these tools and his soldiers on the ground why conducting operations are mostly facing his main intention at this time. and just leave it under just under to stage, just to have some time to focus more in goods more for also to achieve some strategic on blue to go maybe objectives, to gain some more um enforcement on some supplies from the united states. currently, as we all know, he's the one that supported those that are to states of america. so i think he needed more time and more equipment or more of the nation and women, and he as well to many non mainstream sources saying that in yeah, i was asking me, taking a, have already during his invasion of southern lebanon and both pundits outside the mainstream media, so he is just buying time, but still couple more weapons before launching an old amount. well, because you're covered by here on air and online. we'll see you soon with back to

the top of the the hello and welcome to the cross though we're all things are considered on peter a little by all accounts you'll find is intending to end his presidency with the bang literally. and by doing so, he aims to saddle donald trump with his foreign policy. they were called ukraine project, many in the truck or they seem to have no problem with this. the

prospect getting trouble and ukraine. i'm joined by my guest on laughlin in payers . he's a university lecturer in history and political philosophy in plymouth. we have patrick senningson. he is the editor and founder of 21st century one there and elizabeth, we crossed alexandra guerrero. he is an international legal analyst. the gentleman cross stuck rules in effect, that means he can jump any time you want, and i always appreciate it. well, let's start out with john. you know, jen over 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 a of a wide variety wide spectrum of opinions coming from people that presume bleeding well, find them, 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 products are ukraine,

are sending missiles into the heart of russia. well, does russia have the right to retaliate against the u. k. in the united states? well, the question of rights i think is the relevance to provide the question of whether israel has the right to exist when international relations, what counts he's 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 special relations. because uh, rules are wage to 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. the, the other couple of cases around the world. we don't know, lots of biking,

or whoever is running the united states is going to do. we call that 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 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 enough 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 nicholas stick 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 list it because the goal was simply to prevent from, from negotiating a piece. but there's another 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 in the new kind of smoke. but leaving aside the 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? well, that's really well done. it's been defeated as defeat and 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 that basically 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 gonna end on the battlefield. let him just go. she ation table. patrick? yeah, the and donald trump's pre sold that says 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 wine 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 be good and, and donald trump, himself has a very probably scant understanding of the depths 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 victorious. 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 the land. see this far? it looked like peanuts. well, that's music to moscow. here is 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 a pseudo intellectuals, opining all the time. do they even understand the significance of odessa? i tend to doubt it here. like 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 minutes one minutes to assemble. 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 a negotiating partner late, at least that's my point of view, alexander. and that's why russia basically needs to keep proceeding with a, it's

a rational is on the battlefield, just to the only possibility dates this regions where they are at present to you, but also the chief more and more lance, which will be able to be locked. 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 have to states want to keep spinning your band forces to use, for example, long range in size, or even like medium range missiles or gas 1st. and so this means that russia will have to decide that they need to continue more and more in the interior of your brain. and so maybe they reach tier because if what the rest, your needs is, security, warranties. and presently russia has not meaning that and also rest your has another fear, which is they have the ability to choose whether they want to have the initiative or not on the battlefield. what they have on the western side is only

a dentist to react. and the more we charge 3, we're 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 lives. 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 one in the west has and if we will, but also it can have determine the defect. but at the same time is the same role as your reference 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 will the rest of the site from the beginning, the only plans that they have when this stuff is especially true for operation,

i don't see any reason why they should do so. and you know, tell me what's really missed and all this clap trap that we keep hearing is that this, in no way shape or form is actually helping ukraine mean and this was always missed in these discussions. go, yeah, i, i agree with the 2 previous speakers about. so 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 administrators stablish from it is structured. it's very one dimensional, it's will violence violence. the russian side is more nuanced. but in the way that presents a bigger island, because how is russia even assuming, as alexander says,

and i'm sure he's right, that they can be progress on the battlefields, 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 this, we will know this is nothing more with ukraine is what with native. so how can i so a chief of victory on the ground by military 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 essential level. because russia says it's uh, alexis central president, of course, nato says that is an exercise, john, i think height. yeah. and let me throw this to 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 tat the russian russian solver and team. the rest is not tracking the u. k. and so attacking the united states, maybe it. so maybe that's a different conversation. but it is thought it's essential for nato. it's reputation only. it's maybe that's a central but not from a security point of view after that's, that's false, patrick. yeah, it's, it's, 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 in this, the united states isn't going to this, this position and it's, it's 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? it's 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've militarize the entirety of the new line of contact between east and west. trump can say you gotta pay your fair share, spend your 2 percent continue to go. you happen. jump in here drug. you have 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 really one say better wills, and is it just as a chosen few fractured images presented as 1st? can you see through their illusion going underground? can the, the, the, the welcome at the cross stuff where all things are considered. i'm here a little strange. we're talking about trump and you can the

okay, let's start out with alexander. i have the solution. ok, everybody, everybody in write it down but are not a posted in, put it in your wallet because peter level has the solution. if i'm being serious, actually we need a helsinki to point out. what we need to do is we need a european security architecture. they've been through 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 pushing 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 tried over and over. but the west all is rejected it. why? because they thought they, they didn't have a domain, the control over old kind of new political decisions, more life. so, and see we have this in the west. i think it to be fairly unlikely to watch such a scenario to be in force and not going on the battlefield, but well, why? i mean presently what we have is the wes listing itself in a position. why did you have only an alternative to pollution? meaning that you have to go for the military solution and once you get the edge, only after that, they'll finally be able to recognize that there is no other alternative, rather than accept that than the other side be superior. instead of having a balance, which is what everyone desires and fits the best solution for everyone,

i need to follow the bell as well. why, which won't be able to work with all different forces, present phone line, and we would use the united nations for that. i mean, until now, do you like the admissions was for created for this for us. and what we are witnessing is one side, trying to get the other side for job a n c file over it. and is this 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 capitalization of your opponent. so we'd be, if we wait as less than those aren't putting ourselves in this position, then there's no interruption. but there the, the, the, the solution, the right solution, of course, these, that's one that you mention. we need a european solution security solution for every and then i, when i say about when i speak of european, i'm not measuring what usually in the academies me see, wait national level as we blue are,

which is your opinion. yeah. because usually i hear who saw on a lie and then other other sherry pole uh, bodies from the unit. speaking them up to you as you are being union is itself fewer and then you have the rest of the law. 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 and balance worldwide. we have many other wives, a little bit of info starting into the ideal i idealist, pod cast or so gun 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 of how much like you, i may wish it in another universe in a parallel universe in the matrix beyond the matrix of if i can you,

you said just now you started. know, did you finished? you said, oh, sorry, alexander, did you know the russia has been wanting that since, since, since you didn't finish your sentence? alexander, russia as being one thing that since at least 1899. since i've least nicholas the 2nd, when uh, nicholas the 2nd, a convenient, the 1st take a peace conference by which was contained under the initiative of the russian impress. then classic science again in 1938 in the road to munich and diminutive 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 war, and i think that's what we will have. the cold, who gave us a balance. it was

a piece, the cold war was a piece. it was the so source of all, but it wasn't a will. and so much as i would once again, i wish there was another outcome. but i called to see when i come to see one, and i'm afraid i think that the breakdown has been so severe and so 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, that may be, john, you know, meanwhile, one else, i mean, i liked the separation. i let the west coast. so what they mean every where they would because you know, their troubles are now wandering around the world. okay. they need to, they need to resolve their own problem just before they explored it to everybody else. you know, but some patrick b. um, um, we will um, professor amir sam or he, he came up again to motor paper a little over a year ago called in dudley victory and the russian will probably achieve because it will be of the battlefield. i have

a cold or larry too much along the lines with jump jobs that have a great victory, miserable piece. but that's probably what the best we can help for patrick. or, i mean, the currents credit 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 vitamin pollutants just after the attack gums were launched into russian territory due to the argument from the west is how they sold is we're allowing zalinski 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 liked to tell this tropi and attack on one is back on all the improvements 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 the calculation. peter is what i'm saying in the political realm, this all matters and it becomes military strategy at the top of your lots of good. good. the logic is impeccable. but, you know, uh, you know, i always write copious notes for these programs and i, here's one line here of western leaders, a group of, in the soul. so, 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 not serious about patrick is right. patrick is right. 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 thoughts, shots is now the fighting and election on the issue of peace that smoke nothing. you know that's quite big. it's 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 that was in domestic terms, but he tried starting to get in 2022, not very effectively. so, i mean, of course, i don't even want to contemplate this scenario, patrick, do you 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 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 elite elite agend. 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, you respect him how much you love or hate to european union is there and it's suffering as a result of this, of this war. but it's political leads are not in lock step with their people. go ahead, alexander, that's a desktop in groups gives me the most is to see

a witness that their opinion, you know, we don't have any kind of for elections. we just bought for the environment and that's it. and from there what's laterally, what's allow me for, i've gotten books that phone says mark moments flowers as you know, all that kind of the vote for the there would be information and that's pretty much the powers that they're being following on test. so it started off in a down in full, everyone in 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 beam can be single. either you can choose, it comes commissioners from every member states and you are not even going to check x. for example. they're interested, they fast, they're just going through the volt and they're going to be best. for example, when i see cults linked with the information after everything that she has been saying, i don't think she's the right person to push for the research solution that it's

under. i think so. the 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 problems 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 vince policies. they are not. they did cheese on policies. they are surely developed with a lot of actors that we most of them. we don't know who they are and by then he's only the better to bring the mask. choose the news, i read the message. let me, let me give down the last minute we'll try to be any different pam he'd be any different john as well, of course i think he will be different. i mean, i say that's cool. so i think yes, i think he will be different. i mean, in spite of everything, in spite of the must have reservations, i have about his appointments. he is and also says he wants to be bank. he wants to

pull off a great show he wants to put on the legacy. and uh, you know, that would be lots of big promises putting an end to the welfare state. and so, um, he loves the 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 real 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, plymouth, and in lisbon. and of course, i want to thank our viewers for watching us here at our pc. and next time remember, prospect rules. the

in 1941, the radical right wing was stone show organization seized power and from the independent state of croatia. hold on 3 and am villamor tense. what's kind of a problem with a still a system of these 300, not one of the main targets was children. historical sources say vigorous gosh, killed over 72000 children. business it my god, they have done a roll of nose up that of course i say you click on the brand, they have done one up front that we have just done with general just the goal of pc shading again, that even the germans themselves were horrified by the atrocities committed by the stash reflection of that. so on the election bill, a couple mistakes a theme is that we saw on structure possibly at the site, not to allow me just

a little research on the headlights or whatnot international russian intelligence revealing but western state supporting to occupied ukraine, ending to for ease of the conflict by sending tens of thousands of so called piece people. we discuss century apologize for the south africa, economic freedom, finance potty, leda julie as my lima to share. it says view on washington's decision to give key of the green light to use as long range missiles that construction clean is good and no capacity to lose that kind of we have plans that they are using. they don't have those. i made a can a web point, which means america has declared war against in staff. i should add another pair of african states planning to give french troops.