Skip to main content

tv   Cross Talk  RT  October 22, 2021 12:30am-1:00am EDT

12:30 am
ah, it's been decades since the fall of spain's fascist regime, but old wounds still have entailed a disorder because only coming out to you, a nickel, freedom of good people to me. so bowl said cutting me in the parentheses. me notice that i just, i think with thousands of newborn babies, what toned from their mothers and given away and fullest adoption i bought about. i used to yell fiesta that are my own robots. i feel about him in death to this day. mothers still search for grown children, while adults look in hope for their birth parents. ah
12:31 am
ah, [000:00:00;00] with hello and welcome to cross talk where all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle, russia strategic patience with the west, particularly with nato and the e. u. appears to have come to an end. the west is hell bent on lecturing. moscow
12:32 am
negotiating and dialoguing among equals has have been part of the equation for very long time. the west is making a serious strategic error. i cross sucking rushes relations with the west. i'm joined by my guess, i been elaine in washington. he's a senior fellow at the independent institute and author of the book war and the rug presidency in london. we have charles shaw bridge. he is a security analyst and former u. k. army, an counterterrorism intelligence officer. and in brussels, we cross to pierre emanuel phelman. he is a ph, d and geo politics, as well as a lecture at we own university art gentleman cross up rules and effect. that means you can jump in any time you want. and i always appreciate, let's go to brussels 1st here, emanuel, i noticed you have like 4 globes behind you. so you really are in de geo politics here. okay. i mean, what do you make of the prevalence decision to, to sever official contacts with nato and, and, and i could throw in to,
12:33 am
they don't have much contact with the european union, either severing this is it, a game changer is a continuation of something doesn't matter go ahead. i think he is sir, consternation of mister great power or rivalry, the configuration actually or it should tell us something about the english have ceased and to day, but they cannot be any or improvement. a merchants have our negotiations. if there is no accept sheets spatially older or, or accept teacher mercy port r, o configuration and a as wrong as the west to nato, which she's representing a 20 v or american geopolitical priorities. which is to try to contain buffer china and russia at the same time and do there
12:34 am
is no desire to, to, to accept emergency put a lot. they cannot be any dialogue on negotiations. and charles sienna, i'm times i've titled this program strategic impatience, because i think it's fair to say for a greater part of to 20 years, rush has shown an enormous amount of patients and trying to develop a reasonable, stable, reliable relationship at the west. and i think and the severing the size with nato is, is basically a signal saying with, we really give up. okay, we give up on those organizations. we can talk later in the program. but i'm dealing with independent individual countries in the e, u and nato. but his organizations no more patience. go ahead. charles. yes, i think you're right to some degree a certainly we've got a lack of patience with what seems to be an a, an unstoppable chain of events that leads to tip to tat tit for tat retaliations. in terms of it,
12:35 am
you remember that russia actually made this announcement in the wake of the expulsion of a number of its diplomats at the mission on a ledge spine charges center. which, incidentally, as is often the case with these things, it wasn't accompanied with the release of any conclusive evidence that anybody was spying. but nonetheless, we stained a sequence of events going downhill and unfortunately has been downhill pretty much the whole way as she say. i think it says there's an element of i so often is in geo politics, of course, of showmanship, here on both sides, both sides saw sending and used to would signal quite correctly. that this is a signal to night a and a nighttime has at least officially announced its regrets over this move um, that are the kind of actions that are taking place nato would argue from russia. russia would argue from nato mean that it's a pretty point discontinued with what appears to be
12:36 am
a sham relationship. let's not forget though, the context of this as opposed to, for example, the e u. o. for example, a countries on an individual basis nitrogen organization whose very existence depends upon the notion of russia modern days, russia not rochelle, a soviet union for many years ago. but modern day russia as being an existence, your threat to the member countries of nato, with st. very recently that nato's sake seeking to expand it so old bit to actually now be cancer in china, which of course the you don't need any of these a globes in your office to know that that's a very long way from the north atlantic, which of course was the original thesis will reason rational behind nature itself. and so you've got a situation where it's almost inevitable. i thing an organization such as night i am in terms of it's becoming not just a defense patch, but also a political force in its own right. well, and invariably seek to always ramp up many would argue saturate the threat from russia described to russia,
12:37 am
actions often without evidence which of which it may not be guilty. and so consequently, got a situation where, what's the point, i suppose russia can say, of having a relationship with an organization whose very existence depends upon the demonized ation of russia. you know, it's got to watch and i've any, we had a bizarre event, at least it is for my taste. and we had big toria, new and visiting moscow last week. and we've not really sure what happened. okay. there was no read out just frank discussions. the usual stuff here, and then we have the secretary of defense going to georgia coin do ukraine and then going to brussels. and it's all about nato here. i mean, if they, if they to, i knew and was sent to try. deuce get a dialogue going on the, the actions of the secretary of defense say something completely different. i mean, no wonder russia is through its arms up in the air. i mean, is there a coherent policy here because it doesn't, it's not coherent. why have a dialogue go ahead? i've been in washington. well,
12:38 am
of course are you where you're pointing to contradictions and maybe that's the purpose of the policy. maybe to show a little toughness cuz even if you're practicing the diplomacy, newland is probably not the person, the sand. i, you know, on a diplomatic chip in that part of the country is if you want to improve relations, so, ah, perhaps it, but both the defense secretary ms of n and new and visit are, are designed to show toughness. i'm to russia, at least initially in to my mind, our policy, when you're talking about the recent development, which of course you do for sure like this, but i think you have to go back clear back to, you know, post the end of the beginning of the post cold war era where nature expanded after the cold war ended and it expanded clear to the baltics to the borders of, of, of russia. and that's a threat because that nato was
12:39 am
a hostile and during the cold war. so why would russia, you know, appreciate that this is the opposite of the approach that they took after pulling artic wars where they brought math. you know, that all the countries together again. and they had a piece for up, up from major world for a 100 years. so, but, but we took the opposite approach. you took the world war one approach after the cold war. and i think a lot of these, i had to say a lot of these problems, i think resort, resulted from this expansion. and if you're talking about china, you know, as you point out, nato still ridiculously expanding to areas. they're trying to find an order miss. you for the organization expanded mission, but you know, china is far away from nature, but sort of the baltic. the baltics are very far away from the united states and we've agreed to defend all these countries. and i hope they certainly don't go
12:40 am
a plan to go any farther than that, but that all these problems have been caused, you know, by that, by those actions that have been yet let's go back to brussels, appear in many well, what, what does natal want from russia, i mean, what in the world. ok, it's very difficult to understand. i mean, and it's, it's been pointed out on this program already. nato. if you like it or not, if it's, you know, the quiet part said out loud, they need an enemy and rushes, the most convenient one. it's on the border. ok, i mean, what dialogue is it, can they possibly have right now if they're looking to continue expansion, particularly george in ukraine, which rush has already made. clear is a severe red line. go ahead in brussels. what a so we look at a map of award. actually are in v, so configuration of great power, right? are we earth united states on it's may know you're been out east with the
12:41 am
atlantic vision. they would like to contain both china and russia. and are they focus more and more on china, but at the same time, or they need a too low contain russia as well. and why? imagine if or russia will be on the side of, of nato member states against char. i know that's would be, may be a proposition from some are analogous to in washington law, browsers, but just not post. he bought it because a, russia doesn't want to evan. you owed your prescott fracture true valuation country against a china of us not in its interest on 2nd. if they were not to be a confrontation, any more between nato on russia, russia will be, and not against china or nay to have no oh job, any mo. and they will be a better cooperation between germany and russia for us. right. me,
12:42 am
john franco, german russian axis. and of course, that's not in v interest of united states with right, because are they want to maintain ne, to as a way to, to, to control europe on to devalue you rule. i, let's go back to charles here. i mean, i find it really whimsical to think that, you know, china is going to play a major role way in kane containing china. i think that's very rhetorical. i don't think the european polities want to spend enormous amounts of money. do you know the contain russia? i'm in no one's proven. it's actually a threat, but china, i mean, i think it's almost to the point of laughable. ok. the u. s. wants that the, the, the nato to be about as part of its flank. but it doesn't really expect nato, the do very much. your thoughts, charles? i think sunny 1st us china is a major threat. not necessarily a military threat unless the u. s. pushes it to that point and we've seen a few a sign that there are many of course,
12:43 am
as always within the establishment. the military stablish went well. rather, we should say that white a defense establishment including audience companies who appeared to be willing to push it to that kind of fat limits. but of course, from an economic on to geopolitical perspective. there's no doubt, i think the china is the biggest threat to america. hitherto. i gemini here, i mean, america is the world superpower. it's soon going to lose that status. and of course, as often we say the case was declining and pies when they're declining, they tend to lash out a threat. and i think we can see more of that in the months and years ahead, miss no doubt whatsoever. i think for the u. s. is dawned on them. charl charles, i want you to continue. the thought that we're going to go to a short break. and after that your break will continue our discussion on russia's relations with the wednesday with our team. ah
12:44 am
ah no one else sure seemed wrong one. 03. just don't move you world yet to see how does the because the advocate and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves? well, the part we choose to look some common ground. when i see black marriage, i see part of myself. i was growing young black america spoke to me when what a stride you did, not those who say black marsh measure is a movement we are importing from america. no, nothing of who we are. i lived in
12:45 am
a world where white lives mattered. and i was not white like amazon, and i wasn't known from black america. i learned how to speak back to whiteness. aboriginal people here, i'm more every die. you're out, wanted them now with the police were out with statistics. i'm scared that more children are going to grow up in the country that think says no racism, but they're more likely to end up in the criminal justice system. then there are other fellow friends in daycare. ah ah, welcome back to cross talk. we're all things are considered. i'm peter le belt, remind you we're discussing russia's relations with the west. ah. okay, let's go back to charles, get shot. you were at starting. you started
12:46 am
a point before we went to the break and i want to add a developer. a little bit more, charles, i mean, you know, when we're looking at these blocks, you know, the e, you were looking at nato, but i mean, you already alluded to it. i mean, a, china is very important to germany as a trading partner. very, very important. and each individual country in the european union, some countries have normal relations, i'm sorry, with nato. they had some have normal relations with russia like hungry here. i mean, isn't it kind of farcical to kind of put it into these block organizations here? because the minutiae a lot deeper and it's a lot more complex. okay. and again, it makes nato look even more superfluous. that it is. go ahead. charles. yes, exactly. and i think us to partner that nato has some going back to what i was saying, b a to start with m. china, of course, is a big economic threat for the u. s. there's no question about that. but other people don't see that way. even the united kingdom, which of course is, is one of the closest allies, arguably one of the most subservient allies of the u. s. and of
12:47 am
u. s. foreign policy is cautious when it comes to china in terms of not wanting to, or if you like, burn its own economic britches with china because of the potential for the future relationship there. and so you've got a situation up with nato, especially nato, for example, wanting to expand into this sir asia pacific area. and it may not be that that's particularly welcome from even many in the united states. those in the know would realize that just as when britain announces that it's going to expand its operations in endo pacific a ships if an area that of course this rate raises some hackers or alarm bells because these are former colonial powers that are now wanting to be seen to be asserting themselves again in that area as opposed to just sticking to their own regional interests, legitimate defense interests. and so it might well be that the perception of countries like britain or nato involving themselves or will alienates other countries, america would like to see as either allies against a china. we don't mean in the military sense for in
12:48 am
a st strategic sense. and so you've got a situation where i think nato is constantly seeing itself as under threat as a geopolitical entity of its own accord that it constantly has to reinvent itself in terms of dealing with some kind of threat. and if that threat doesn't exist, or if it exists, but it's only a marginal threat than there was seek to crate or exaggerate that threat. and i think the problem we've got is that so many of the incidents which poison relations between the west generally and russia in particular, are of debatable provenance whether they are actually manufactured incidence. we can talk about ukraine, of course, that were taken into the program and, and we have that many programs, but in so many other issues such as an avenue cation. so, when one does the extent to which behind the scenes sees a large and fabricated or at least very exaggerated issues in terms of undermined inc relations between the west and russia. and in that sense, of course, i think the role of nato's important and of course, nature than justifies its existence. and the date, it's gross,
12:49 am
on the back of those kind of incidents. and i'm in, i'm glad that charles brought up a ukraine here because if we have a severing of relations basically does, can't call your counterpart. of course, you go through the embassy and in brussels. but i mean, and to organization your organization in this draw and it's very ambiguous what's going on with washington's thinking when it comes to the ukraine, that it depends on which department of government which think tank you want to listen do. but i mean, obviously if you have a situation where there is no contact and it's, it's very hostile. obviously the russian side is going to see any moves going on in ukraine is being a threat. i mean, isn't this the worst possible thing you could do a cutting off any kind of relationship, you know, no hot line or anything like that, that just upset temperature. i just find this to be so nonsensical, the position that nato is taking towards russia. go ahead. yes, i yeah, it's always good to keep all the communication channels open that you can even with
12:50 am
adversaries. and i think the real problem here is that ukraine is not really strategic to the united states are, are, that's not what our foreign policy establishment thinks here. but it is to russia for obvious reasons that you knew that you're already well aware. i think we wanted to take a really broad look, a rising china and even that is sort of a question of all thread, i think, to the you asked. but if that's the threat, then wouldn't we want to do a reverse nixon and try to improve? yeah, yeah, well, you know, relations with russia as a counterweight to china. well, of course then we get back to where pierre said that there's, there that this nate organization, organizations take a life on a life of their own. a native was a classic case of an organization changing its mission to stay alive after the cold war. you know, they went into the balkans. they went from defending western europe to defending
12:51 am
more of europe than they went into the balkans offensively. now to type back, you know, the middle east and china and so this organization is actually an u. s. participation and i think is actually running out counter to us interests. and because of his, of bureaucratic out no running to my really is go back to brussels. we're piri menu . well, i, me, ivan, just put it perfectly. i me do a reverse nixon goes to china here. i mean, as an edge in looking at it geopolitically and historically, in europe, the european union wanted to position itself in a valuable place. it would be to in be in the middle of russia, the united states and china that, that, that has, that has assets that has capital to it. and it seems to me, they're hostile attitude towards russia. negates that they've just taken themselves off the chessboard. what do you think?
12:52 am
go ahead in brussels. yes, exactly. then if you lose the geography of your rock, of course, or the idea positioning of the european project, it will be in better balance between do you atlantic a neural asian seekers? and there are about so much was the position a classic was ation of friends. for example, from bush in our da gore, or until then to leave. it was a proposition from emanuel michael to propose a new european security architecture. we've russia reprogram ease, european union, us nato. he's in organization. oh, was created during the cold war on its parodic. my easy way of thinking. yes. cedar too much in the past and a member stay subdivided or so the poland market countries, for example, wisteria evey era, voss to take or against russia. they want to use both need to an
12:53 am
e. u. a to detach themselves from russia. we've ahead of the united states when france, italy, germany, them much. they like to have it better or cooperation reef, or russia, but not at the detriment to u. s. or, oh, e u relations. why? because or for example, of france as he's no own or m i t m bomb other own nuclear weapons, but germany does not have nuclear weapons where it behaves, but it cannot produce them each se, the share originally the u. s. and they depend on the american gra, umbrella, a. so they, they added a double truck position. they are a steel stick to nate, off of our security, and or to keep leadership. we've sat on undisturbed european countries war a suspicious of russia. at the same time,
12:54 am
germany as an economic power. no perfectly that if you you were on germany wants to be strong economic, you know, the need russian on a cas a. so there is a defacto audience between germany and russia dumps of energy. so there's a very complicated world where you can have different audience. he's on a jo, strategic, or g o economic or a traumatic and oh, so you are a member states for a long time. you don't have any responsibility for a security will very few of in a where dependent of the u. s. and know it's very difficult to take more responsibilities and do it to invest more in defense upped with their own jeopardy of i think my with that. but that creates a very, very unstable alliance. if you know, if your member nations are not taking responsibility, joining in with the security. i. charles,
12:55 am
another thing that we haven't really mentioned here because i think i'm a pure raw, geopolitical thinking is insistent been dismissed because it should be in play right now. and the reason one of the reasons may be the most important reason is it ideology for the e. u tops geo politics, which is ridiculous at a deal. politics is about national interest. i fully agree, e, you, national interest is very difficult to define sometimes because of the adverse diversity of the membership. but ideology is, but it's a in play here. and that hurts europe's ga. geopolitical positioning. go ahead. charles. yes, i think dis, disconnect between ideology and the am a precise interests of member states of the, the e. u. nato. even i am, is the main reason for the disunity that we say of course and, and that's to be of the, to be expected. after all, as you say, geopolitics is about the national interests of countries or interest groups, as such as nato. and the problem is when nato's interest, for example,
12:56 am
are not aligned to it, it's member states. and, and of course, if it's main interest is its own self promotion and self existence. then of course that's very rarely going to align with a, with the national, especially economic interests of its members and ideology. a problem with that is it can be so easily hijacked for further it's of specific, a more pragmatic causes, for example, to poison relations. i think what's very important hits, remember, as a backdrop to this program, perhaps is a bit more context and something that also has a bearing on this issue of where national interest lies that for many european countries and for argued before, oh, you open all of the west, it's got to be remembered that a very many areas of, of, of, of, of international politics. and the white ape spheres, economic and, and so on. other spheres where russia and the west can corporate and shippy corporate in, in some degrees, despite the politics are cooperating when one thinks about issues such as covet or
12:57 am
the environmental issues or the for the fight against international terrorism. or the surprise energy, for example, very coming up at the current time. and it, these are areas where the west and russia have interests incorporating and all to be these are far more important far greater interest, fog far bigger interests than those that divide. and that's in a way why i've mentioned this earlier, this suspicion that many of the points which divide the west and russia, europe, and russia in particular, tend to be those that have been exaggerated or wrapped up even manufactured. arguably, yes, he poised not relationship. and therefore, you have to ask what the motivation of those people are that are doing that. and often that comes back to niter and its existence. he has an international truly interesting, you know, the way it finish it out here. there's so much hostility from the west towards russia, but there's very little hostility from russia go directly to west. it's very imbalance here. that's all the time we have, gentlemen. i want to thank my guests in london, brussels,
12:58 am
and in washington. and i want to thank our viewers for watching us here at r t c. you next time? remember, possibles? we have always been able to push that in sort of a far dark corner of our conscious because they will turn it in once there are alternatives, you can no longer do that and you have to kind of accept, oh yeah, for that an animal has been killed and oh yeah, as greenhouse gas emission. and here we have essentially the same product. so same price, same quality with none of those features. oh yeah, it's made a lot of that in the beginning is scary, but in the end it's not in
12:59 am
that it has a list of the point, but also within the industry, we're a little fish was a little bit else with the rest of the basilica. thought the other mothers, because melissa was assumable just needed to ask you about it because i just food say that him and then you would you that is images moves up was good for supposedly good. my did some, i would say the gates has been you visit his image is spread. it's a 2 week a mom, my phone with her phone was out of the to get the vote if idea what the all of your room plan some way up. all of stella this lead to the shelter of worship with
1:00 am
with, with fall is accuses the e. u of pressure and blackmail. as a dispute over the rule of law rises to summit level highly vulnerable patients in the u. k. are at risk is confusion grows over the difference between a 3rd dose and a booster. it's crucial a given the correct order for people to get maximum protection from the virus we hear from some of those affected and present biden's ratings plummet with poles. jesting people think he's not mentally or physically capable of being in charge. a mix. supply chain disruptions and league warnings from the federal reserve.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on