things must be strengthened, there must be more investment into pretty expense, and the must be my investment in order, tentative banks, because the i m f and the world bank. i'm not interested in building a fleet. the assistance to the african countries is to come up with them and say to them, you'll come perform such a in the expertise to kind of put money in this in that. and you, when you look at that, it is actually the things that you kind of put money in was that are 2 major things that they have my responsibility or for state. and when they say you can put the money in these things and impose or 13 measures that it's for the eclipse in that state, they're not helping africa as far. so i think, but the more emphasis it has to be made. and that tends to, such as but expand it should be strengthened. and so that they can be able to, to add up skin countries and the countries the,

or over the with that need. and you know, as of what i'm into but has got so much potential is on the american and bob and with a pretty expand with that. have to buy some buy or not. but it, with it's progressive agenda. they should be a deliberate, you know, i joined an intention to have to but to spend on it. so i came to the american in bible and still be able to, to start talking about briggs. i want to leave that as a parting shot and ask you, where do you see bricks and the next 10 years? and what kind of, you know, ideas would you say? breaks needs to continue unifying and becoming this global global south power. sprig see is an exciting or tentative platform which is going to grow and the less a big, semi team price. yeah. the more members have joined and,

and then we expect that there would be more of that because a where the body embraces the platform, where they can express themselves a way can their the way it way the way they would feel it come with the tips and while come and that's the way it breaks east. we have a situation where a our people are able to exchange ideas and play together. and do this even talks about coming with an order, tentative kind of in c, a. i came to the door law and order with that. so it's an exciting development which we fully support. and then we'll hold with that. what kind of my daughter to the well being part of police and creeds. having land from this, ida and my tenants, i'm out of bodies. what are the weaknesses they've done to repeat this? to me, let me stay. they actually provide practical waking or attendance program. mr. melinda, as i said before, you are a busy man, and we do appreciate you taking the time to talk to us on our

t. thank you so much for being here. the. the, [000:00:00;00] the hello, and welcome to the cross. though we're all things are considered on people enough by all accounts you'll find is intending to end his presidency with a 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 cross fucking truck and ukraine. i'm joined by my guest on laughlin in paris. he's a university lecturer in history and political philosophy in plymouth. we have patrick hennington. he is the editor and founder of 21st century, one 3rd and elizabeth. we cross alexander guerrero. he is an international legal analyst. is it only cross talk roles in effect? that means you can jump anytime you want and i would appreciate it. all right, let's start out with john. know, general with the last few days there's been a lot of insight 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 orbits in january. but let me ask you, let me, let's ask some very broad,

simple questions and most people in the mainstream 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 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 been 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 stuff. sure. 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, lots of biden 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 all 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 been cleared enough for 20 or 30 years. they didn't really have any of the tools in their toolbox than that. russia, by contrast, does, of course it has fallen, so it 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. and that is the risk of pushing things too far. so yes, on the one hand, i think that 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 this other reading, which the general the retard general who's been at pointed to the ukraine both earlier 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 bottom of the field. of course that could hold up a new kind of smoke. but leaving aside that scenario, my, i think the question is,

how far can rock should go in terms of its victory without inflicting a humiliating defeat on the incoming administration in the united states. so that i really wonder if 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 west, i'm going to and directed to patrick, the west deals and controlling narratives. ok, but negatives in reality. but 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. 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 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 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 real estate, and they might very well lose odessa in the process. and from a 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. well, it, alexander, 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. that's why russia basically needs to keep proceeding with it. it's operational on the battlefield. just to not only possibly dates this regions where they are at present to you, but also which is 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 get spinning your band forces to use, for example, long range and 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 engine interior a few brain. and so maybe they reach tier because if what the rest of needs is, security, 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 west end side is only a dentist to react. and the more we charge 3, we're against russia by pushing them to the limits. 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 the are the weapons use on the battlefield. b, 's has best of 2 worlds. this means that russia can use that kind of weapon, that no one in the west has an equivalent, but also it didn't have a deterrent effect. but that this thing done is the same role as your weapons because it doesn't have of the side effects, it can be more additional, more localized to go through. so if 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 the question, 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 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 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 time actionable. it's

will violence violence. the russian side is more nuanced. but in the way that presents a bigger darling, 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 us, we will know this is nothing more with ukraine, is what with nato. so how can i to achieve 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, the central level. because russia says it's a alexis central president, of course, nato says that it's an exercise for john. 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 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 makes essential for nato. it's reputation only, it's maybe that's a central but not from a security point. if you add to that, 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, and 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 of 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

r t. the welcome to cross stuff where all the things are considered. i'm here a little strange. we're talking about trump and you can the go 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. never states the realities 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 rest of the drive over and over, but the west always rejected it. why? because they thought that they didn't have a domain, the control over all kinds of new political decisions, more of life. so and to we have this in the west, i think it to be fairly unlikely to watch such a scenario to be enforced unluckily on the battlefield box. well, why? i mean presently what we have is the wes working 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 edge only after that, they will finally be able to recognize that there is no other alternative rather than accept that than the other side disappear. instead of having to balance, which is what everyone desires, and it's the best solution for everyone. and multiple of the dallas worldwide, which will be able to work with all different forces present live. and we would use the united nations for that. i mean, until now the united nations was for created for this, for us. and what we are witnessing is one side, trying to get the other side for job and pretty well over it. and it's is on trying to spread its own ideals to the other side. so this is a matter of the bible and the see why well can only be achieved through the capital ation off 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 you that's under to motion. we need a european solution security solution for every and then i, when i say above, when i speak of a european, i'm not mentioning what usually in the academies we see weight measurement level as we blue are, which is european union was usually here who saw on the line and then other, other sherry poll bodies from the in unit speaking, i'm up to you as if you were being union is itself, you're and then you have the rest of the war. but we have central, we have eastern europe, we have all the balkans. we have rush, you will have georgia, we have the congress's origins. they are, all of them are included in europe and who should work, 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 players. well this is this. turning into the ideal. i idealist. pod cast here, so john,

please for lots of cold water. go ahead and guess 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 and a power level universe in the matrix to be on the matrix. the fact that you, you said just now you started now, did you finished? you said, oh, sorry, alexander, did you know the roster has been watching that since since since you didn't finish your sentence. alexander restaurant 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 convenient under the initiative of the russian and pro. then i shall try it again in 1938 in the road to munich, and communicate agreement was stop it largely because the western power has refused a collective security agreement. then obviously as being as, as peter 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 and you called 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 so much as i would once again, i wish there was another outcome. but i can't see one. i can't see one. and i'm afraid i think that the breakdown has been so severe and so 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 left the west coast. so what they mean, anything would be, you know, their troubles are now wandering around the world, okay. they need to,

they need to resolve their own problems before they explored it to everybody else. you know, but patrick b. um um, we will um, professor mirror sandra. he came up again to wrote a paper a little over a year ago called an ugly victory that russia will probably actually 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 to. 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, were launched into russian territory. you know that the argument from the west is how they sold is where a lot knowing zalinski 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 trope and attack on one

is back on all 3rd pollutants challenge. the western saying well, and 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 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 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. you are,

there are lots of good, good that the logic is impeccable. but, you know, and you know, i always try copious notes for these programs and, and here's one line, year 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. uh patrick is right. uh 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 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 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. yeah. me though. and sandra, what, what europe 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 have the respect and 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 in groups gives me the most is to see a witness that their opinion, 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 naturally and what's allow me for, i've gotten good stuff, fontes, loc moments, flowers as you know, they can only vote for the, there would be information and that's pretty much the powers that they're being found 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 of because suddenly out of the blue, you can choose a new and you're being condition 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 pass that 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 opinion doesn't decide military policy in spite of its claim off. that's why 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 cheese on policies. they are surely developed. we 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 to read the message. let me, let me give down the last minute. we'll try to be any different,

he'd 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 a narcissist, he wants to be big. 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 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 for admin role. kelly his and well known to stops 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 our pc next time. remember, prospect wills,

the savvy and people limited in other parts of heads, the governor as well, both of us, but you still have that it could be clipped. you closer to the unit to them in the future, you can build you a better deal on children. little as a favorite target and there's another notable execution site and there's a governor depicting cup of which a village in looking at municipality, which developed $72.00 people. the few who showed that most were thrown into the pit to live. but anyway, i'm, we're for, for stealing each where you have, you know,