Skip to main content

tv   Cross Talk  RT  October 22, 2021 4:30pm-5:01pm EDT

4:30 pm
some of so common ground ah ah hello and welcome to cross talk. we're all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle, russian 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 negotiating and dialoguing among equals has had been part of the equation for a 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 elan
4:31 pm
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 shew 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 he can jump 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 into geo politics here. okay. i mean, what do you make of the prevalence decision to, to sever official contacts with nato in, in, at i could throw in to they don't have much contact with the european union, either severing this is a, is it, a game changer is a continuation of something does it matter? go ahead. i think he is sir continuations of mister great power or rivalry. the consideration actually herb it should teddy says something about the
4:32 pm
english have ceased and to day, but they cannot be any or improvement, a merchant, lots of other negotiations. if there is no accept sheets spatially older or, or accept teacher mercy, poor r, o configuration and a as wrong as the west to nato, which she's representing a 20 v or american geopolitical priorities. which she's to try to contain buffer china and russia at the same time and do there 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,
4:33 pm
stable, reliable relationship at the west. and i think and the severing the size with nato is, is basically a signal saying we've, we really give up, okay. we give up on those organizations. we can talk later in the program by 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 a we've got a lack of patience with what seems to be an a, an unstoppable chain of events that leads to tat tit for tat retaliations. in terms of, if 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 spy and charges center. which, incidentally, as is often the case with these things, it wasn't accompanied with release of any conclusive evidence that anybody was
4:34 pm
spying. but nonetheless, and we've seen this as sequence of events going downhill and unfortunately has been downhill pretty much the whole way as she say. i think it's circ, there's an element of i so often is in geo politics, of course, of showmanship, here on both sides by side 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. i'm 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 as continue with what appears to be a sham relationship. let's not forget though, the context of this as opposed to, for example, or the you old, for example, countries on an individual basis, nitrogen organization whose very existence depends upon the notion of russia modern days, russia not rochelle or soviet union for many years ago. but modern day russia as
4:35 pm
being an existent show threat to the member countries of nature, with st. very recently that nato's sake seeking to expand it so old bit to actually now be countering 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 has the original cecil reason rational behind nature itself. and so you've got a situation where it's almost inevitable. i thing an organization such as nato, and in terms of it's becoming not just a defense patch, but also a political force in its own right will in invariably seek to always ramp up many would argue saturate the threat from russia and ascribed to russia actions often without evidence, which of which it may not be guilty and so consequent, you've 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 going to wash and i've any, we had a bizarre event,
4:36 pm
at least it is for my taste. and we had victoria 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 rush, it 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, 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. ah, you know, on a diplomatic chip and that part of the country is if you want to improve relations
4:37 pm
. so, ah, perhaps it both the defense secretary of visit van and the new and visit are, are designed to show toughness. i'm to russia, at least initially in 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 politics to the borders of, of, of russia. and that's a threat because nato was 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 mass. you know that i all the countries together again. and they had a piece for her from major world for a 100 years. so,
4:38 pm
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, nate are still ridiculous expanding to areas. they're trying to find an order miss you for the organization expanded mission. but you know, it, china is far away from nature, but so are the baltics. 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 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 nato 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,
4:39 pm
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 if? so we look at a map of award. actually are in v, so configuration of great power, right, are we are united states on it's may know you're been out east with the atlantic vision. they would like to contain both are china on russia and are vague folk who small and will 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,
4:40 pm
of natal member states against char? i know that's would be, may be a proposition from some are on the least in washington, all browsers about just not possible because a russia doesn't want to evan. you urge your party got 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 and russia, russia will be in 90. ye gods, china, or nay, to have no job, any mo, and they will be, or a better cooperation, or between germany and do russia for us. right. me, jack, the franco, german russian axis. and of course, that's not in the interest of united states. right? because are they want to maintain, ne, to as a way to, to, to control europe on to devalue you rule a. let's go back to charles here. i mean,
4:41 pm
i, i find it really whimsical to think that, you know, china is going to play a major role way in cain 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? oh, i mean, 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 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. a pushes it to that point and we've seen a few, a sign that there are many of course as always within the establishment, the military establishment. or rather, we should say that white a defense establishment including audience companies who appear to be willing to push it to that kind of fat limits. but of course, from an economic and geopolitical perspective, there's no doubt,
4:42 pm
i think the chinese, 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 see the case with declining empires 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 short break will continue our discussion on russia's relations with the wednesday. with our team we have always been able to push that in sort of a far dark corner of our conscious because then we'll turn it in once there are
4:43 pm
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, there's greenhouse gas emission, and here we have essentially the same product. same price, same quality with none of those features. oh yeah. to maybe a lot of that in the beginning is scary, but in the end it's not with the point, but mostly with daniel's provided with it because i just would say that in and then you would you that is images. it goes up as good for supposedly gonna have my dad on. i would say again to spend you visit his image, his parents, we come up with hope was out of see to get the vote if idea with all
4:44 pm
of your group plan some way up, we'll have to fill it with the to the shelf, which will push up with what happened? i make no sense. you know, born is and is blind. and you parish as a marriage, we don't have authority. we don't have a vaccine. the whole world leads to take action and be ready. people are judgment. come with, we can do better, we should be doing better. every one is contributing each in their own way. but we
4:45 pm
also know that this crisis will not go on forever. the challenge is grateful to response has been massive. so many good people are helping us. it makes us feel very proud that we're in it together with ah, welcome back to cross stock were all things are considered? i'm peter lavelle to remind you we're discussing russia's relations with the west. ah. okay, let's go back to charles, get shot. you are at starting, you started a point before we went to the break and i want to add a, develop it 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, god, i'm a, china is very important to germany as a trading partner, very,
4:46 pm
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 minutia is a lot deeper. 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 than nato has some going back to what i'm saying be a to start with china, of course, is a big economic threat for the u. s has no question about that, but other people don't say that why even the united kingdom, which of course is, is one of the closest allies, arguably one of the most subservient allies, if the u. s. and he has fallen, policy is cautious when it comes to china in terms of not wanting to, or if you like, bernie sony konami britches with china because of the potential for the future relationship that and so you've got a situation up with nato especially nights. example wanting to expand it to this
4:47 pm
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 e and i pacific, i ships if an area that, of course, this rate raises some hackers or alarm bouts, because these are former colonial powers that and 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 alienate other countries, america would like to see as either allies, against a china we're not mean in the military sense for industry strategic sense. and so you've got a situation where i think nato is constantly seeing itself as under threat as a geo political 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,
4:48 pm
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 would take an entire program and, and we haven't many programs. but in so many other issues such as an avenue occasion. so, when one does the extent to which behind the scenes, these are largely fabricated or at least very exaggerated issues in terms of undermining correlations 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 indeed, it's gross. on the back of those kind of incidents in i'm in the, 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 can go through the embassy and in brussels. but i mean,
4:49 pm
at to organization your organization in this draw and it's very ambiguous what's going on with washington thinking when it comes the ukraine, that it depends on which department of government which think thank you. want to listen do. but i mean, obviously the of 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 define is 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 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
4:50 pm
to take a really broad look. ah, if i know 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 more of europe than they went into the balkans offensively. now to type back, you know, the middle east than china and so this organization is actually and. c us participation and i think is actually running out counter to us interests and because of his up
4:51 pm
bureaucratic out no running him, i really is go back to brussels piri menu. well, i me, i haven't 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, if in europe the european union wanted to position itself in a valuable place, it would be to, in to 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, there hostile attitude towards russia negates that they've just taken themselves off the chessboard. what do you think? 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
4:52 pm
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 east pardique. my easy way of thinking, yeah, cedar too much in the past and a member stay subdivided or so the poland market countries for example, wisteria ebay or or voss to take it or against russia. they want to use both need to an e. u a to detach themselves from russia. we've ahead of the united states. when france intone, germany, them much, they like to have it better, or a corporation reef or russia, but not at the detriment to
4:53 pm
u. s. or o e u relations. why? because or for example, of france as he's no own or m i t m bomb, oh, nuclear weapons. but germany does not have nuclear weapons where it behaves, but it cannot produce them, each se is shamary to be the u. s. and if it depend on the american gra umbrella, a, so they, they added a double truck position. they are askew, stick to nate, off of our security and or so to keep reader sheep. we've satony's tub european countries war are suspicious of russia at the same time, germany as an economic power. no perfectly that if you were on germany wants to be strong economic, you know, the need rush on on a cas a. so there is a defacto audience between germany and russia, demps of energy. so there's
4:54 pm
a very complicated world where you can have different audiences on a jo, strategic, or g o economic or a traumatic event. oh, so you are a member states a fine long time. didn't have any responsibility for a security. will very few of it a, where dependent of the u. s. and know it's very difficult to take more responsibilities and due to invest more in defense on to where they are own jill print. 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, another thing that we haven't really mentioned here because i think i'm a pure raw geopolitical thinking, is it system 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 u tops.
4:55 pm
geo politics, which is ridiculous city 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 g. a geopolitical positioning. go ahead. charles. yes, i think dis, disconnect between ideology and the i am a precise interests of member states of the, the e or nato. even i am is the main reason for the disunity that we say of course and, and that's to be a to be expected. after all, as you say, geopolitics is about the national interest of countries or interest groups as such as nato. and the problem is when nato's interest, for example, 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 aligned with a, with the national, especially economic interests of its members and ideology. a problem with that is
4:56 pm
it can be so easily hijacked for further it's of specific or 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 arguably for 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 and in some degrees, despite the politics are cooperating when one thinks about issues such as cove, it or 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
4:57 pm
be these are far more important in 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 nato and its existence. he has an international truly interesting, you know, the way it will finish up 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 in balance here. that's all the time we have gentlemen. i want to thank my guests in london, brussels, and in washington. and i want to thank our viewers for watching us here. r t. c. you next time? remember possibles?
4:58 pm
blue. blue, blue? ah ah ah. ah, it join me every 1st it on the alex simon. sure. i'll be speaking together from the world politics sport. business. i'm show business,
4:59 pm
i'll see you then. mm. when i see black america, i see part of my so when i was growing, you know, like america spoke to me when white australia did not. those who say black lives matter is a movement we are importing from america. know nothing of who we are. i lived in a world where white lives mattered. and i was not wide like missing. and i wasn't known from black america. i learned how to speak back to whiteness. aboriginal people here, i'm more every day. we are moving them now with the police were out with she states, 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
5:00 pm
other fellow friends in daycare, a bit of splits exposed it and he knew summit as latest demand. poland obeyed european rulings, but warsaw insists that pluralism is respected. kafka says he's not surprised by aggressive rhetoric from nato states after germany calls for nuclear weapons to be deployed near russia's boldest people. fly. beautiful in london, tries alleged us war crimes and an act of support for wiki leaks. whistleblower julian, assault to washington. once extradited from the u. k. sites editor in chief says allegations of a c i plot to kill us on to prove his case has been politicized. the recent revelation shows suv without any doubt. so the political elements of the case we've got to be on songs now we have also human rights and civil liberties organs.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on