and its nato allies, and they are very concerned about expanding nato, but they are even concerned abouthe kremlin. -- about ukraine. one thing the kremlin has learned over the past few years is a ukraine that is not part of nato but still is able to purchase advanced weapons from nato such as these drones they purchased from russia, is maybe even more unpredictable, and they simply do not trust president zelensky upon this in ukraine. they think he is out there to retake their territory. they want to preempt that. i'm not at all justifying this, but i think we do in the west need to understand the rationale of the kremlin for doing this, and i think it goes beyond just diverting from the very dire economic and socioeconomic situation at home. this is not just a diversion tactic. this is going after some very real goals for the kremlin. >> the whole narrative is widely seen as saber rattling just for the sake of political compromise . from an american and european perspective, how do you see the compromise, if it ever happens? >> it is really tough. nato operates by consensus, so i canno

of nato.exactly. exactly. there's no contradiction between stronger european capabilities and a strong nato. as long as the u.s. wants that. it's very easy to imagine europe building up more capabilities and making them useful within nato by carrying more of its own weight, in terms of deterring russian aggression and not just relying on the u.s. for this. as long as nato was viable, as long as the u.s. is able and willing to underwrite european security, more capabilities will also make nato stronger. that's not at all a contradiction. at the same time, it's a hedge against the possible future in which the u.s. no longer underwrites european security. and a very clear future in which the u.s. is much more focused on the indo pacific theater so that europe needs to take care of relations and its neighborhood, especially with russia by itself. glenn has a very funny reading of history and relations with russia where europe and the u.s. are the only, the kremlin in the cards if we only disarm di

in terms of ukraine joining nato . now of course subsidy true, the ukraine is a sovereign nation and it has every right to make whatever decision once. but we should also consider how would the united states react, for example, if russia and let's say cuba, hypothetically, medic, and some kind of military alliance. so over the russian, mexico, for example, in russia, started putting offensive military weapons in mexico and cuba for example. we know for a fact that the united states will not just sit back and take it. so i think the, the key problem here is that native still considered russia to be a weak state of the 1990 s. but the situation has changed that i would say russia has upgraded its military and it's, it's very much more capable of defending its interest. and that's what it's trying to do here. essentially, it's trying to say, look, why don't we build a new security architecture in the european space where russia is part of the conversation where we can discuss together how we can prevent a conflict by ensu

of nato.exactly. exactly. there's no contradiction between stronger european capabilities and a strong nato. as long as the u.s. wants that. it's very easy to imagine europe building up more capabilities and making them useful within nato by carrying more of its own weight, in terms of deterring russian aggression and not just relying on the u.s. for this. as long as nato was viable, as long as the u.s. is able and willing to underwrite european security, more capabilities will also make nato stronger. that's not at all a contradiction. at the same time, it's a hedge against the possible future in which the u.s. no longer underwrites european security. and a very clear future in which the u.s. is much more focused on the indo pacific theater so that europe needs to take care of relations and its neighborhood, especially with russia by itself. glenn has a very funny reading of history and relations with russia where europe and the u.s. are the only, the kremlin in the cards if we only disarm di

and its nato allies, and they are very concerned about expanding nato, but they are even concerned abouthe kremlin. -- about ukraine. one thing the kremlin has learned over the past few years is a ukraine that is not part of nato but still is able to purchase advanced weapons from nato such as these drones they purchased from russia, is maybe even more unpredictable, and they simply do not trust president zelensky upon this in ukraine. they think he is out there to retake their territory. they want to preempt that. i'm not at all justifying this, but i think we do in the west need to understand the rationale of the kremlin for doing this, and i think it goes beyond just diverting from the very dire economic and socioeconomic situation at home. this is not just a diversion tactic. this is going after some very real goals for the kremlin. >> the whole narrative is widely seen as saber rattling just for the sake of political compromise . from an american and european perspective, how do you see the compromise, if it ever happens? >> it is really tough. nato operates by consensus, so i canno

be part of nato. and furthermore, they didn't simply sign an agreement with you. they were there was a coup backed by both the united states and the you. and because of this, the russians reacted status call would be by, by claimed, by holding onto its naval base in crimea. so again, if nato had not had the back, the crew in ukraine and nato hadn't threatened to expand into ukraine, russia would never have taken back to criminal. right. so yeah, i want, i want to give what's probably going to be last. what on this to teresa allen? go ahead. well, i think it's always important to try to understand how the russians see the world. it's very different from most other people. i think that status quo, i mean seizing crimea, and over 14000 people have died in the dumbass. so the idea that nato is changing the status quo. i think the evidence is there on the ground. and as we see moscow rattling sabres outside of ukraine, it's extremely worrisome and they're using that as a way to try to change the agreement.

and nato members. last ones were in september, though quite, quite big and closing on the black sea. this has been a lot of military movement. ah, from, from nato around ukraine. and you can understand why russia's, of course concern. i mean, russia has a long border will ukraine, and that's why, ah, russia has as taken steps as well. and to, to demonstrate to the west and to, and to nato that look, this has to stop, you know, you can't keep, ah, you can't keep essentially promoting or murderer provoking russia by carrying out so many military exercises on russia's border hill. it walter is when i look it's going on here again, this is a, we saw a repetition of this from spring here. but when the more i look at these scenarios that could be played out here though, there's one country that loses in every single scenario in its ukraine. and i, and is we've already reiterated here, you know, nato is not really talking about a military response here. so, i mean, if, if something were to happen and there wa

but it, that's what nato is going to be. it's constantly going to be searching for monsters to slay, and that inherently is unstable. but the americans are perfectly fine with it because at the end of the day, a lot of people will probably disagree with me. but they need the u. s. does it really low cost at the end of the day? and so they how they have a unsinkable aircraft carrier in the western part of the region, continent and at low cost. they can um, project power. and that's what it really gets all down to. and again, as i said at the very end of the 1st part of the program, you can dismiss the in the arms manufacturers and budgets and things like that. i mean, it's quite cynical, but i think you know, most the time in geo politics the most cynical thing is the most obvious thing. go ahead, glenn. oh, well then this was a queue discussion to how to worse them of the cobra. good. much made this argument several times as well, but if the u. s. and the soviet union would end this confrontation, they would have to recogniz

but the fact is that it is nato. that seems to think that it somehow has a right to me in central asia. that is, or what we need to conduct the activities, the central asia. we need to set up military bases in special ed. it's always defensive. so well, i know it doesn't take a genius to figure out what you may call to defend it, but somebody else does not see this defensive. so that's why they all think you final acts, then security is indivisible. you can't just simply say, well, we say it's defensive, therefore it must be defensive. no, it depends on, well, who is it directed against? what do they do? they think that the deployment is defensive. if not, then, and other than then it's not acceptable. you know, in patrick, i mean, it's coming to a head right now. i mean, do these lincoln's at sullivans? are these people look the caliber to understand the historic moment that we're at right now? because this is the russians are saying, you've gone far enough and we're not going to take it any longer than line has bee

this is an absolute, central grad for nato nato's mission. and it has to expand or basically to shut down shop. and obviously from what patrick had to say, there's just too much money involved be or go ahead a lot of money. and of course, later comes accompanied with this massive propaganda machine. you know, you mentioned moments ago about it's a defensive alliance, so it keeps repeating this over and over again. and just as the media always repeat, well, so is providing your grain with defensive weapons, you know, so that everything is defensive. so when they provide mis styles, they are anti tank miss miss on a miss. it doesn't matter whether you launch it against a tank or whether you launch it against the civilian population. but that's why, because ultimately, you know, the public in nato countries really do not want to get into a war with russia. and so that's why they have to be bamboozled with all the talk about how nato is terribly frightened of imminent russian invasion. that is, why know me, journalists ever goes to ukraine and of

the closer that nato and u. s. troops and tags and missiles move to russia, the more unpredictable the game gets, which is why putin has said he's red line. nato state's commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of nato, including the accession of ukraine, as well as other states. not that nato thinks much of russia's concerns. not long ago, secretary general stockton, burge announced that roger has no vito, no sane nato operations and no right to any sort of security. buffalo sphere of influence, which sets us back all the way to square one at the nebulous motor. this is not an attempt to revise the post cold war order. it's a response to western expansion which has been conducted in a hostile manner. the, the gist of the proposal that, that the u. s. nato and russia have a requirement for security as essential as food or water. that they must, all equally respect. nato has received the proposals and says that the little disgust them amongst themselves and with input from ukraine. but there isn'

is nato that he's moving. every slip is nato, that has extended its reach far beyond what was envisaged when it signed the 997 foundation document with russia. and so it is extraordinary that the media which it was, if the parents, whatever nature with us officials of them are just completely outrageous. well, why is it outrageous for russia to insist on the security guarantees of the se, but they are the countries that are our neighbors, the countries with which we were partners in the former ussr. these country should not be the base for nato activities ever, but it's the nato think he's now so ingrained on policy makers of media by that they think that there's something really outrageous rush asking for some, some kind of a security for themselves. you know, i think the rush is accused of building up spirit and then phones. but in fact, it's made out it's creating a sphere influence at the expense of russia and in security. that argument is never presented in western media. yeah, it is. and it's, it's amazi

become a member of nato when allies agree that ukraine meet nato standards.f, i'm coming from a small country, norway, bordering nato. i'm very glad that our nato allies never gave russia that power over norway to -- we decided to join nato many years ago. >> understood. jens stoltenberg, thank you for joining us. we appreciate you joining the show. >> thank you so much for having me. >>> still ahead, former president trump now refuting reports he hid a covid diagnosis before his debate with joe biden. we have a live report with the latest details next. feel stuck with student loan debt? move to sofi and feel what it's like to get your money right. ♪ ♪ move your student loan debt to sofi— you could save with low rates and no fees. earn a $1,000 bonus when you refi— and get your money right. ♪ we have to be able to repair the enamel on a daily basis. with pronamel repair toothpaste, we can help actively repair enamel in its weakened state. it's innovative. my go to toothpaste is going to be pronamel repair. how did panera come up with the idea to combine their

and that means we're going into ukraine, dismantling nato infrastructure nato intelligence operators. so be, it does nothing much linda could do about. now mike, you got a little been out home, and producers just sent me some breaking news on the heels of vladimir putin wrapping up this marathon presser, breaking news, a. the a f p has just reported tweeting at the u. s. ready for talked with russia from early january in the morning to a senior us official. how much of that do you think had to do with the former, with this press conference and vladimir putin really outlining his red line? well, i heard, i heard that news before the press conference actually had occurred. and there has been, there is a background dialogue going on between the 2 sides because it neither side, once war. having said that, ah, vladimir putin is correct to laid down the conditions and, and, and from which other countries then can i have negotiating points and russia is right in, in one in a buffer zone. and what they're very fearful of, of course, is that nato will bring in the amount of, of even offensive

busy off the us and it's, it's nato allies, and they're very concerned about expanding nato, but they're even concerned about ukraine. mean, i think one thing the kremlin has learned over the past 2 years, a ukraine, that is not part of natal, but still is able to purchase advance weapons from a partner. these drones they purchase from, from russia, is maybe even more unpredictable. and they simply don't trust the president lensky on, on the, on east and ukraine. they think he's out there to retake the territory. they want to preempt that i'm not at all justified as i'm but i think we do in the west need to understand the rationale of the kremlin for doing this. and i think it goes beyond just the diverting from the very dire economic and socio economic situation at home. this is not just the version tactic. i think this, this is going after some very real goals for the crevice. david, the, the, the, the whole narrative is widely seen as a favor backing just for the sake of political compromise in a, in a time. so now from an american and european perspective, what do you, how do you see

there's also one to nato as a whole. and the gist of it is that we all need to pull back from the brink to de escalate. to stop threatening each other. it's right there in article one that there needs to be a healthy respect for each other's need for security. and in that vein, it proposes a manner of a whole range of practical steps. in order to achieve that, the parties shall not use the territories of other states with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other party. it is no secret, of course, not to you, not to of you as that the things have reached, i wouldn't say in a chasm, a chasm. we're on the brink, where in the past we had talk of sanctions and you, you do accusations of ill behavior. now we're hearing things about an escalation towards what repeat of a cuban missile crisis. and so russia proposes i again, a range of steps including issues that a very sensitive to rush and that is at the station in increasing station of intermediate in short range ballistic missiles. near russia. t

is that the expansion of nato and the installation of nato infrastructure in ukraine. and, you know, nato military operations in the black sea within the vicinity of russian territory are existential red, russia and your native continues to do with blinking yesterday of them on saturday . he was talking about a defensive alliance, rushes, nothing whatsoever to worry about anything and then, and shoulders and says the same thing over and over again. but they don't seem to appreciate that for russia, if you keep expanding, you know, inch by inch roches, borders and you keep installing your infrastructure in violation of the nato russia housing act of 1997. if you keep doing this, then they do, does not come across as a defensive alliance, and it was made, there hasn't been a defensive alliance ever since. the end of the cold war. and just simply repeating this. as you know, the russians are going to be persuaded by it is just a full erin, which is why, you know, essentially they just not, they're not listening to what russia saying, and that's why i think it is leading t

nato. it's affecting the, making it, putting it under us serve influence, which goes against the whole concept of multilateralism wished upon european security architecture was supposed to be based upon so, so no, it is, i think we, we really, we corrupted the language for to, along to the extent of the it, it doesn't make any sense or it might seem um, will i find it also an oddity that, you know, the, the, it seems to me that it, nato desires insecurity because an insecurity gives it a reason to expand it. they, we have to secure this, we have to secure that we have to expand, we have to, we bring in more members, but the more they do that, the more they created a very unstable environment. i mean, they're doing exactly the opposite of what they claiming to do. go ahead. maxine, no, what is the matter for all this market? you know, the frequently see that a liberal, like a market driven economy, you don't have to get involved because there's this invisible arm of the market that does the

the closer that nato and u. s. troops and tags and missiles move to russia, the more unpredictable the game gets, which is why putin has said he's red line. nato states commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of nato, including the accession of ukraine, as well as other states. not that nato things much of russia's concerns. not long ago, secretary general stalkin berg announced that roger has no veto, no se nato operations and no right to any sort of security buffer or fear of influence. nato has proven on the last years that her, our open door policy is not on the something we are support in words for those in deeds party by inviting to new countries. montenegrin off m madonna to become members, so we have enlarged the line. so the last few years for to new members, despite protests from, from russia. and also we are supporting ukraine in ukraine's efforts to a con, closer to a natal membership, which sets us back all the way her square one. it, the nip, it is not. this is not an attempt to r

and there was no politician and no secretary genera of the nato of nato, who had the courage to say, no, no, mister president, we are not following you. you're falling our interests and in our interests, we have to make peace and not war. a groups a warning that have gone a stance monetary crisis is about to made even worse by financial crash, drought, and famine being compounded by currency to valuation. many people can't afford the most basic goods and is economic growth been made worse by america cutting aid and praising assets in the wake of the taliban takeover itself. a consequence of the makers bungled withdrawal. locals, a desperate if they have blocked our money when needed for our daily living costs and to run our businesses, you see the dollar aids goes up and down, up and down league of a hardware and people have to sell their belongings to survive, to eat. and he, their homes, some immigrants to living in parks, they faced many problems and live in a pitiful way. for most of our life has become so tough nowadays because of increase and famine and poverty, the prices of f

it must succeed in nato in ukraine or cease to exist. it always creates these, the 0 some binary decisions george. yes, i agree. i think there is some calculation that if indeed russia intervened militarily and re, incorporates within russia, the dom boss, then essentially nature will be consolidated. nature will be able to impose it struck coney and sanctions on russia, a russia out of the swift financial transaction system. and rush will just be on the east and out of the west altogether. i think there's a calculation of that. the problem that they do has is that if indeed such a scenario plays out, they don't will be shown to them a tight yet because they to will it it. what is, what is it, it's done is an issue also guarantees that was really just pay for point money, right? you know, the baltic states were under the impression that they were being given actual money . the actual guarantees of security. the suddenly he got are going to be realizing in the way, does anyone really believe nato's ready to go to war, to nuclear war for t

i mean, you and nato have push for bosnia herzegovina to be a member of nato. and in order to be a member of nato, they wanted to create a centralized government and a unify as well. that was always a non starter because the reason why there was a war in bosley in the 1990 is precisely because they wouldn't accept a unified, centralized or already, which was always liked it to be dominated by the bosnian muslims. so by pushing for this, there was always likely to trigger a reaction from the service. and then what immediately for 7 they did this current crisis was the, the, the high representative off there, some suddenly amending the criminal code and making it on a crime punishable by prison. genocide, denial, which is essentially a code for you know, whatever the, so think about their performance in the war. so a said, well, you know why, why do we want to be part of a state that is inherently hostile to us and bearing, you know, now with all the threats that are coming, you know, how dare you. busy violate the date of the course, but of course the data was n