[000:00:00;00] the welcome to cross the bullhorn is were all things are considered on peter lavelle trump's ukraine initiative? is it real and what is next? is the u. s. a europe rift for real? or is it merely kabuki theater as differently? are these serious policies or trumps personal preferences? to discuss these issues and more, i'm joined by my guess george, send me while we in budapest, he's a pod cast where the goggle, which can be found on youtube and locals. and here in moscow we have marks level that he's an international relations and security analyst. all right, gentleman cross type roles in effect, that means you can jump any time you want,

and i always appreciate it. all right, let's start with mark here in, in moscow. would beginning to get some of the outlines of what the so called uh trump, ukraine piece initiative is um, it was very controversial. would be tags that said in a, on this europe and trip about basically nato membership is off the table for ukraine. the us will not commit troops. any european troops under the flag of nato will not have article 5 protection. and now we're going through this. absolutely absurd, ridiculous, rare earth's minerals a dance which is absurd on its face. um, personally, i think they're talking about that. so people don't ask about nato membership. i think it's a peer diversion. we're all we're on this mark because, um, i have to say uh from his team doesn't seem to be a 100 percent on board mark. yeah, obviously there's some dissension within the administration,

which is fairly deductible. it's the, i think the only unpredictable thing is that they're able to trump and, and the people who want to the escalate. the us from the conflict in ukraine still seem to be pushing forward successful way, even if there is the sanction from kellogg waltz and a few others within the administration. it's happening behind closed doors. for the most point. i think that the europeans, of course, uh, and plenty of people within the us and the entirety of the west and mainstream media are on the attack against trump. there the accusation is that all of this that hangs upset or concessions being given to russia before negotiations, even begin betrayal of ukraine, etc. but i mean, peter ags of had the perfect come back. he said,

this isn't concessions. this is reality. i. you are not living in reality, we are living in reality and what he's not saying, but he is almost, you know, completely implied. is that the war as last we, you, by we, he, me, they mean you because of course, the trump administration wasn't themselves directly involved in, but the west has lost this conflict. and it's time to own up and recognize that the europeans aren't ready to recognize that yet. but i think the other important thing that higgs, that said has said since is he acknowledged that russia has superior already in terms of manpower and fire power. a significant advantage on the battlefield and that no western aid packages, no future western aid packages, will be able to change that calculus. and that is all, most good, important,

a real list recognition of the reality on the battlefield, that no other western liter, you know, the exceptions or bon and fits so have owned up to it is either or george, the, the other penny hasn't really dropped because the good criticism of peg 7. obviously the trump administration in general was that what concessions of the russians making no taking on board with mark just said yeah, and i agree with him completely. but what i think this is all about, unfortunately for the ukrainian people, not it's the lead. so it's never really been about them. what trump is gonna say now is that we, well, we've made it very clear about nato expansion, american troops, etc, etc. no rush, you have to parlay with us on china on a ran and then north korea. that's the next to drop here. it's obvious to me, george. i think that's right. because really the question is live,

has the been this reversal of us all to say that in the sense it isn't totally a reversal on trump's part that is consistent with his themes in 2015, 26 and he said them, i don't see why there should be a conflict with russia. russia could be of a partner. and uh, it being said, then brailey, where it implied that the real adversary of the united states is a china then subsequently you can go into the whole thing with the wrong and is to seems to be coming back to that though that is an immediate ticket. so he wants russia, as a partner, have been that the problem is that he's not going to talk to russian. i said, look, we have given you everything that you desire, you know, we've given you, you know, respect states, us, we're going to treat you as our, uh, geo political popped up. um, but we want something in return. we want you to end this war now. but in other

words, you know, wherever you are now, you know, we, we want to cease fire now, and we want it done. and this is where to gets problematic for us for, because if a, if it's a cx 5 now, and then there's still a lot of the goals that russia has yet to accomplish. and of course, are actually has unfortunate experiences coming to agreements with the west and the pos whereby, you know, everything's fine in a world the assembly and then 234 years later we've got another conflict. so it's a very difficult situation for russia to be, and clearly it has been like the norm is changing. so, and from uh, washington which is very positive. but then russian has to respond to that because any pressure doesn't respond, then trump is going to turn around and say, russia is the problem. the europeans arrived. russia was being always the problem. we need to then go back to the policy of escalate the good guys. russia. yeah,

well, oakland impeccable logic because what we have so far, gentleman is that, you know, there's talk about ukraine. it either. it's in the, in the center of the conversation around the periphery. but the only thing that is really changed beyond the rhetoric is that the us and russia urge are talking. well that, that's a good thing here. but to kind of echo with georgia said there the russians want some iron clad on paper signed notarized, witnessed documents about their own security, because we don't need to waste our time going through the litany of lies and deceptions a we, you know, we, the cool regime in 2014 was instantly recognized against all democratic norms by the west. and then we had the machinations of the o. s. c e were just prior to the s m o. then we had the mens process $1.00 and $2.00, then we had is simple. well i am going to little bit naymark. they want something

more solid than that we've had in the past mark. yeah, i rushed is going to drag this out forever and they've already given plenty of science. they're glad they're talking right. they've got plenty of the deal with the u. s. on but they've made clear 1st of all they've pointed out that they have no one in care of that can sign anything. so trump team is actually seems focused on getting rid of zalinski. right. yeah, and that's going to be problem magic and russia can just sit back and eat popcorn. well that happens. they have don't want to cease fire. and to be perfectly, i don't think they intend to stop the middle of the conflict in any way, shape, or form any time soon. they've got their book on the key. every james throat, they're not gonna pull it off. they're not gonna play that hollywood game of. i should have killed you when i had the chance this time. i think they're going to go all the way. and i think trump has made a couple of statements in the past week that show that he actually understands the position that the u. s. is in,

in these negotiations and on the battlefield. he said that russia doesn't need a deal. they can take all of ukraine if they want. he said that he also pointed out that roger could have a bomb the key of into the ground. it could have destroyed it several times over and has no interest in doing so. and that's also true. and he also pointed out that russia has all the leverage all the cards and negotiations. he pointed that out because of russia has already taken so much of ukraine's territory. so obviously trump is informed enough between that and the statements we've got from higgs of the trump administration is now aware of what a weak card they have. this statement by kellogg's about bleeding russia about the concessions that russia should make. being to break their alliances with china, iran and north korea are as fantastic all as much of

a fancy. so the lamb scenario as it is for the europeans to believe that they can still win this conflict. they're both living and in fantasy re out. all it is right . the russia understands that they can't trust the west, including trump any further than they can throw them. and if they did trust drop these down in 4 years, they're not thinking and in us selection cycles, they're thinking for the long term. i think what's actually likely the big rupture in geo politics. the big split that's likely to occur is not the special relationship between russia and china, or between russia and the ron. but the special relationship between the united states and europe, that okay, and that's exactly what we're going to talk about in the 2nd part of the program. i absolutely agree and towards zalinski is name is popped up here, but

a lot of feet are being played out here. and uh, it's quite hilarious watching a peak zalinski again on, on twitter. most people there don't even have a clue what they're talking about. but i mean, this is also kind of a diversion because it's for, instead of focusing on, they were military realities that the west is brought ukraine to with ukraine volunteering for this ridiculous. did we exercise? and now it's a battle of personalities. this is exactly the kabuki theater. the west always plays about the guy in the white house, a guy in the black, which is completely divorced from geo politics. george? no, that's right. any that is going to is, are you using that the media uh, full on blow. they're all singing from the same him shape, but just we kind of possibly have elections, know elections and no possibility of elections in ukraine out of the question as a war on no election zone actually. but they seem to forget that they were elections in iraq during the war. there were elections in afghanistan during the

war game. you may know things that i have from the united states head of election or 1964. and that's exactly it is an example. sounds they have not, i mean, you know, people who are with a lower mentor is out there and i'm having new mobile x is during the war years. so people didn't have any problems. but it's amazing how everyone has this. uh, you know, the, everyone's thinks on the same. she gives you guys a talking point, and then every little bit, we're going to repeat it just like this. uh, let's pull that was come, came up on some, uh, the events that you, that the landscape enjoys. 57 percent approval and the you buy us a id. thank you, georgia correctly. if you just pick the prep to 70 percent, what political liter anywhere enjoys a 57 percent approval. well, georgie, if you did have 5070 percent, why doesn't do you have elections if in fact, but yeah, so, oh, so yeah, they're always, even though they're coming up with all of this, but it's not going to be easy to oust um the landscape because i don't know who

exactly would replace the landscape. i don't know. even the people who are being talked about as realistic. um, uh see goes, would be in a way, any better or, i mean the illusion is obviously the one was being talked about, but i don't know the, the money i have time this block of the program. but who does have legitimacy? that is the question here, and that is something they're going to have to grapple with gentlemen. i'm going to jump in here. we're going to go to a short break and that's about your break. we'll continue our discussion on some real new, stay with r t. the same just don't have to shape house and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves will depart. we choose to look for common ground,

the, the, the, the, the, the utilities because of the, if you look at the annual, i guess hopefully down to the cause i thought it was on some last that as a sign you know, the rest of your activity on the any of the we show you the solution pretty

she is doing much to it. the customer lives here. michel seen you in the shell state video commercial scale that she'll go i've seen really is what additional us see. so the the welcome back to across that bull horns and peter a little to remind you we're discussing some real news mark, let's go back to you here in moscow. you already hinted in the 1st part of the program, getting a little bit ahead of ourselves, but what special relationships are at stake right here and i think you're absolutely right. it's the, the transatlantic one. but i have a long enough memory that, you know, it's been tested every once in a while, and you know, there's a lot of noise, you know, and not much heat is generated. obviously, this is something of

a different magnitude. but because the europeans, the u. k. have you know the base themselves so very much they have very few resources to resist. okay? the only, the only real weapon of resistance they have is rhetorical, is looking at if it's social media. but other than that, there is not much there and you know what gentlemen, they're just gonna fall in line because they have no other alternative mark or? yeah, i think the big question, right? we seen where the trump chaos bomb is going off. it's going off in washington, dc against the deb state and it's going off on the trans atlantic relationship right at the land. this is my work, or you could more specifically say natal, although it's not restricted to just the institution of nato. and trump not only doesn't have any interest in europe, he has contempt for europe for european leaders. he is obviously

focusing his foreign policy vision on coming to terms whatever those terms might be, with what he sees as the other 2 great powers, russia and china, notice the europe, the e. u is not one of those great powers. therefore they don't really matter. and the europeans have, obviously, the current crop anyway, have become a colonized by the idea of previously us exceptionalism. now, western exceptionalism to an even greater degree than the united states. now, at least with the new administration, they believe that they are morally structurally and societally superior to everyone else on the planet, including the united states right now. but for trump, it's more then i think a foreign policy decision, although i think that's obviously part of it. but it's also personal. trump aids,

v e, u liberal technocratic a lead. he hates all these, you leaders that came out supporting biden. and harris openly. storm are sending operatives to campaign for errors. all this talk about trump proving their conflict the ukraine. he despises them. he also despises zelinski and the key of regime in jeff earle because they were instrumental lee involved in the whole russia gate hopes and peach meant attempt against them. the steel dogs, ca, all of this stuff. he won some payback. i think that trump much like he wrecked obama's j c p o way with the ron is set on the racking the ukraine conflict. biden's, you could argue there argue signal. so that's why that's why that's why i said in my introduction, george, i mean, at least a in, in this regard. it is, it's deeply, deeply personal with,

with trump. he is settling accounts because is mark pointed out to russia. gates of the 1st and peach meant all had everything to do with ukraine, and the same cast of characters are there. um trump is in no mood to reward these people. okay. at all is as a matter of fact, it was a he wants to show that he was the victim. all. this is really interesting. how may i get his adopted a victimization profile with it. but, and that's a program for an ideal for a different program. but it is personal for him. george, it is possible. and the question that really, um, get it from usability is days. trump has been a nato skeptic. however, you know, you know, again, those are always a little older generational. remember, that'd be so many of these trends that land take risks over the years. from the 1950s, with john foster dollars agonizing reappraisal. the idea is 6 days old to talk

about you cleared the coupling. when you know the americans longer to sacrifice washington for, do so the fund and then we, they get the 7 days. you know, the americans aren't paying attention to as security and we and then we haven't read them. and every time, every time the europeans, us, i don't want to ride. well maybe we should. um, think about a european security and defense that the mission of maybe europeans should take more interest and concern about this. it good. the american does have come down like a ton of bricks the day you talk about any kind of separation related to you know, map, lenovo, bryce fame is 3 d no. decoupling no duplication, no discrimination. and trump himself in 2018. when my chrome started mumbling about, well, maybe to your been should do morgan on the day you take care of this? a care of it is a don't you even death? think about that. we americans, we came to your rescue. you know, 1st, well, we'll look into your skin. the 2nd level, you know, they, we,

we won the cold war how day you think about separating from us. so i don't think it's going to happen. i think your of is very, very useful for america, that it's a way that america project is power in the world. it's how it gets to be a global power and bowl is everyone around what he wants from your of however, is to focus on your up to me in your room so that the americans can concentrate on china. so it's really kind of a division of labor. that's what the europeans then all going to because they don't want to step up, you know, they that have to give up the 6 week vacations, a universal health scare. uh, you know, guaranteed incomes that very, very comfortable live side that you were being to enjoy. so they're not going to do anything you know, to stop, you know, despite all the top, they're not going to do anything about their own security. so i just think whichever way this ukraine debacle resolves itself, i don't think there's going to be a split between american you're it's, it's very interesting mark because there was

a bentley with the advent of the 1st trump administration. the 2 percent of g d p spending on defense was a the new benchmark. now he wants to up the ante to 5 percent, which is extremely unlikely and, and probably depth 2 bit uh, detrimental. um, but i mean my, my inclination about his always been the drums and people around him that agree with them. say, if russia, if is such a threat to you, then why don't you spend 5 percent and then they're going to come to the realization. well, maybe they're not that big of a threat. i mean, i think he's forcing them to make that decision. i tend to agree with george the, there's a lot of people that are really excited to the cheer leading the end of nato. and i'd like to see the end of nato, but i don't see it happening any time soon. mark, i think it depends. i think every thing is on the table now, right. i've had to do some serious assessment here. and a lot of it depends on what happens even personally between trump and european

leaders. if they're smart and roll over and show their bellies to trump, right. he was still won't have any respect for them. but you know, they might be able to last through the next 4 years. if they do what zelinski has done over the past week, ran the openly challenge and insult him back then. anything is really on the table as i think it's more important. what happens after trump, those ged vans succeed him, then he can carry on? if not, then the us can go right back to the role that they had with your you know, 4 years before. so there's a lot still on the table. but i think another important thing with all of this is that all of these last 8 years of, of liberal attempt, both in the united states and the intelligence community and in europe and the

media to try to use the issue of russia are imported artist of trump has always had a degree of respect for poor and right from the beginning, as a strong leader. but they tried to paint him as the puppet of poor, right. they tried to paint him as a trader, as, as, as, as just an instrument as an author or carry on like they call boot. and, and i think all of that has blown back in a big way old on russia gave attempt to slurred trump has actually pushed trump into a bracing of russia in a way that he might not have before. and so i think that in trying to, to div legitimize trump with russia gate, they have created a trump pool monster of their own accord. what do you think about that judge? because a lot that imo uh, as a avid viewer, a breakthrough rachel mad out should that she's back on the rush of russia rush out

horse right now, and i find it very quick odd because it didn't really be a garden or any dividends for those people but that they really don't have much left. i mean, they have zelinski as their liberal hero. there's a lot of people that still walk around with masks. i mean, cobra was one of their sacred cows as well. so it's not gonna be, it's not giving them dividends. maybe you're both right. doing that there is going to try to outright trump. i don't know george, when he gave how strongly david is. i mean, they did in 2018 they, they won the mid terms. they impeach him, they had mala investigation, and that weakened trump is low question. the 1st um, of trauma was a failure and it was a failure in large. but because of russia gave, he was thrown off balance. he couldn't really get his bearings. he pursued a very anti russian bubbles, including sending lisa weapon rate to ukraine. so it didn't deliver something. it

doesn't. what do you want them to do? of course it didn't destroy a truck, which is what they were hoping for. but now, you know, all these years later i, i don't think it's going to achieve them of very much, but i think it's gonna lock mark is right. clearly, trump is now angry and is pursuing the policy that he might not up to see what had it not been for russia good. we'll also see what happens generally when you or of is under the control of the kind of sent the last liberals relations with the united states a fault. and so even these policies may not change that much. you get so center, right? people in power in your room they really shows will improve not for as of the games in germany. and we have john, so shaw. and so i think it's going to be replaced by matt sounds those months is even more focused on russia then. um schultz is, but i suspect he'll be able to get on trump's wavelength, mold and show says, i mean it's,

it's good trip to trump just kind of get along the style and kind of talk to people like shoals and style. my and my crowds go up with somebody like muds, the, you know, the kind of going back to the days of hell would call grade. he's a christian democrat, he's a conservative and it know be some kind of communication. so it's not necessarily the question on, on russia is just as you will have a way of communicating with him that he didn't have with the shoals and doesn't have with micro installment. well, the finish off, gentleman, i hope you hope it's the mean try to everything, but from his personal but um security infrastructure is about far more important things. the, the european security architecture is in, in disrepair. it's in tatters. and i don't know if we were going to move any closer to fixing it, fixing us right. a rush relations is one small step. so we'll see. it's all the time we have gentlemen, when i think my guess in budapest,

in here in mosque. and of course, i want to thank our viewers for watching us here at our d. so you next time, remember across up rules, the, the, the, [000:00:00;00] the, at the end of the 18th century, great britain began to conquer and colonize australia. from the very beginning of

that, british penetration to the continent. natives were subjected to severe violence and deliberate extra patient. according to modern historians, in the 1st 140 years, there were at least 270 massacres of local people. any resistance to the british was answered with double cruelty. hundreds of natives were killed for the murder of one settler. indigenous australians were not considered complete people. no wild beast of the forest was ever hunted down with such unsparing perseverance as they are. men, women, and children are shot when ever they can be met with squatter. henry myrick wrote in a letter to his family in england, in $1846.00 plus strategy as fast is rightly described as blood soaked in races. if at the beginning of colonization, there were one and a half 1000000 indigenous people living on the continent, then by the beginning of the 20th century, their number had degrees still 100000 people. despite the indisputable historical

facts, the problem of full recognition of the crimes of white australians against the aborigines has not been resolved so far. the the, [000:00:00;00] the,