no problem, we don't need a close, you can just walk around naked, maybe romanian star. that was kind of stupid. and it turns out that the 2nd place candidate set to head into the right off with georgia to apparently figured that as candidate for from me is presidency appealing to romanian voters the best place to express yourself right before the election to be in the paper marketed as you craze, global voice a keeps post advocating for quote, more than gestures of solidarity with care. whether advocating for greater nato attention to the black sea, fostering european unity on defense or supporting the integration of ukraine in moldova into european structures. romania has a vital role to play and securing the future of its region. greater nato attention to the block c like uh, that didn't already spark armed conflict with russia. so yeah. how about more of that? and while she's at it, yeah, just bring you crazy, informed me right into the you as an official member say no doubt remaining and

foreigners will be absolutely thrilled with that. such a big mystery. why these folks just don't seem to be resonating as well? with voters as the guy who's biggest political crime was apparently to call russian president vladimir, put in a true leader. well that and apparently also having the tip top 10 digital marketing skills of the average teenage an invoice or a well bought, sold for this news as it was explained to have your company here on, on the line for the the

hello and welcome across stock were 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. they were called ukraine projects, 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 crosstalk rules, in effect, that means you 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 presumably will find, find themselves in trumps official or bits 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 rush, i 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 he's not right, but might. and who 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 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. the the other company cases around the world. we don't know what's a bygone or whoever is running the united states is going to do we comp know that not only 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 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 balance 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 of 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 listing because the goal was simply to prevent from, from negotiating a piece. but this other reading, which the general the retard general who's been at pointed to the ukraine, both fairly, a outlined on fox news. he said, well maybe this is a kind of employee. so that topic and then we come back from that and have some kind of all it prompts to, to, we don't know, we do not know my, in my opinion,

the question is if, if we, if we think is all i do that russia is winning on the battlefield, of course, that could hold up a 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, 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 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. let him just 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 wine this conflict down. 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 is selected. i doubt that they have really the knowledge and the appreciation for the actual situation. that is, 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. 0 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 us. did you 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. oh, it would 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 mens 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 a negotiated partner late, at least that's my point of view. alexander, that's why russia basically needs to keep proceeding, which is it's operational on the battlefield. just to not only positively dates this regions where they are at present to you, but also what she's 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, longer engines sizes, or even like medium range missiles or gas for some sort of this means that the rest,

you will have to decide that they need to continue more and more engine interior a few brain and so maybe they reach tier because if what the rest, your needs is secure to warranties. and presently russia has not. meaning that, and also russia has another thing, 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 dense 3. yeah. 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 rights but also lives. and even this will, these last new style, these last he ok 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 the 30th effect, but at the same time, it is the same role as your weapons because it doesn't have with the side effects, it can be more peaceful, more localized go through. so 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 going through a correction, i don't see any reason why they should be so and you know, tell me what's really missed and all of this 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 messed in these discussions. go, yeah, i, i agree with said 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 russian now,

because as i say, we don't know what the united states is going to do. we know how the american foreign policy administrative stablish moment is structured. it's very one dimensional, it's will violence fountains. the russian side is more nuanced. but in the way that presents a big problem, 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 key of whatever. my question is, my, my, my, my, the thing of the question i put into 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 to achieve victory on the grounds? 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 essential level. because russia says it's uh, alexis central price. and of course, nato says that it's an extra the for john. thank yeah. hi dan, let me throw this the patrick on. i think for rush, it is because it's finding the collective west. ok. and western countries are supplying material and intelligence and personnel to chat 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 makes essential for nato. it's reputation only,

it's maybe that's essential, but not from a security point of view as to 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 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? it's europe, this isn't sustainable for europe, for europe in natal 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 got to pay your fair share, spend your 2 percent continue to go. you happen. jump in here drugs. you have to go to a hard break, and after that hard, great, we'll continue our discussion. i'm trumping you brain. stay with our to the the,

the welcome back across stuff where all things are considered. i'm here a little strange. we're talking about trump and ukraine. 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 lavelle 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 so reality as of today, we work out and then we work in what do i need? all players, we solve security issues, 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 and my right. happy little. 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 rest of the drive over and over, but the west all is rejected it. why? because they thought that they didn't have a domain, the control over all kinds of new political decisions worldwide. so and see we have this in the west. i think it to be fairly unlikely to watch such a scenario to be enforced 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 capitalization? 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 is superior. instead of having a balance, which is what everyone desires and gets 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 positions was for created for this for us. and what we are witnessing is one side, trying to get the other side for job, an empty vile over it. and it says on trying to spread its own ideals to the other side. so this is a matter of survival and the survival can only be achieved through the capital ation off your phone. and so we'd be, if we wait as less than those are losing ourselves in disposition, then there's no interruption. but there, the, the, the, the solution,

the right solution, of course, the, that's one that's why should we need a european solution security solution for every and then that's when i say about when i speak of, of european, i'm not measuring what usually in the academies me see weight measurement level as we blue are, which is your opinion was usually i x year who slept on the line and then other, other sherry pole uh, body stronger in unit speaking. i'm up to you as if you were being union is itself fewer and then you have the rest of the war. but we have central, you know, we have eastern europe. we have all the bulk and we have russia, what kind of georgia we have, the congress's, the region, they are, all of them are included in your and who should or not only with them, but also with many other players that can help as a key security stability in dallas worldwide. we have many other players, no business turning into the ideal. i idealist, pod cast or so done. please. for lots of cold water. go ahead. guess. uh,

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 to attend another a 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 roster has been one thing that since then, 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 convenience, the 1st type of peace conference, which was contained under the initiative of the russian impress, then classic science again in 1938 in the road to munich and diminutive agreement with scott, but 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 was until and much as i would once again, i wish there was another outcome. but i called the c one i called the c one, and i'm afraid i think that the breakdown has been so severe. and so a radical, the breakdown of relations that i absolutely cannot see any way in which they could be a collective security agreement for a 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, anything would be, 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 saint patrick b um um, we will, um, professor amir sam or he, he came up against the motor paper a little over a year ago called an ugly victory and the russian will probably achieve because it will be of the battlefield. i have a coal 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 current 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 fundament pollutants, just after the attack comes, we're launched into russian territory, is the argument from the west is how they sold is we're allowing zelinski to use us weapons. that's the argument that the west is selling. what put and then what russia is saying as well? well, he's doing an article 5 and reverse. they like to tell this tropi an attack on one

is back on all the improvements challenge the western saying, well, and attacked by one. in this case, the us or britain or france of 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 they don't know. 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 and 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 military strategy. it'd be on top of that. you are,

there are lots of good, good. the logic is impeccable. but, you know, uh, 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, it is a non serious uh box. patrick is right. uh patrick is right. we use, oh, 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 opportunists, 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 not 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 the 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, alexander what it will be to rally to double down and riley against russia because you are this prisoner. i bought spots spots. we don't know me though, and sandra, what, what europe 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 in 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, 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 its political leads are not in lock step with the people go ahead . i would say that's a desktop and it scares me the most is to see a witness that they've been here and you know, we don't have any kind of elections. we just vote for the environment and that's it . and from there what's laterally in what's allowed before i've gotten good step loans as luck, moments, flowers, as you know, they can only vote for the commission. and that's pretty much the powers that they're being following on test. so it started looking at them 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 a, comes commissioners from every member states and you are not even going to check x

. for example, the interest of the past, they're just going through the volt and they're going to be best. for example, when i see colors linked with the information after everything that she has been saying, i don't think she is the right person to push for the research solution that it's under. no, i think so. the, sorry. uh, the your 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 and bop united states, you can find also the same when we speak about vitamins policies. well by then suppose these, they are not that cheese on policies. they are surely developed. we a lot of actors that we most often we don't know who they are. and by that he's only the parents who brings the mask, choose the news to read the message. so let me, let me give 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, of course 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 you know, that would be lots of big promises, putting an end to the welfare state. and so him, 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 federal 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 take my guess in paris from offending lisbon. and of course i want to thank our viewers for watching us here at our pc. next time.

remember, prospect was 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 fast? can you see through their illusion going underground can the,

[000:00:00;00] the is all full. there's a 5 chain to stand, prompts on minutes of the offensive. i'm a major cities of the without the official confirmation on me, it won't say instead of taking some fault, most of the sits in the process phone and kind of just agency revealed a floss. why was some powers to ok please band with a full of competition. 100000 soldiers this size as peacekeepers, the