Skip to main content

tv   Documentary  RT  April 27, 2022 6:30am-6:59am EDT

6:30 am
ah ah ah ah ah oh, when i was showing the wrong one, i just don't know. i mean you have to figure out disdain becomes the advocate and engagement equals betrayals. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look so common ground. ah though she had completely new machine to
6:31 am
restock and just look up some of novels, only a muscle is onion noon. judy doesn't beating train show on a nurse to me as play soup. mamma cook goose creek. suddenly tim got the right to his ashley of dc. wanted to work with one of 3. instead of cool, jason, happy with you but not. but the key for the cheenum grants to network for phones arrive something like that. and then we go at that point, did that with no grain to have that should give it, but of course pursuer, phineas more. thank you so much for finding the time in your busy schedule to talk
6:32 am
to us. but thanks for inviting me. if it's a big game, one must play though, watch him or her big game, high stakes. i'm sure that a lot of what's being said in washington is at odds with how you see the situation yet. i think you will probably support one thing that president joe biden said that world war 3 is something we must strive to prevent. look what else we need to acknowledge. the rescue. a former assistant secretary of defense and harvard university professor graham allison, whom you know well, has written that today's situation is as explosive as it was during the cuban missile crisis of 1962. it could in fact, be even more dangerous if there's less clarity about the rules of the game and even more mutual distrust. so what do you think about the crisis we are all facing? how deep is it? how real is it? what cannibal russia do about it? or susan duluth, russia is already doing a lot for years during donald trump's presidency. we were calling on the u. s. on russia's presidents to reaffirm once again together the joint statements adopted by president gorbachev and reagan, back in 1987, which said quote,
6:33 am
a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. we tried really hard to convince president trump's administration that it was crucial for both on nations on the entire world to hear this message from the u. s. presidents, again, unfortunately, we couldn't convince our american partners that make and such a statement was a necessity. we may quick progress with present biden's administration. however, in june 2021, the president of the united states and russia made this joint statement in geneva, january 2022 saw yet another initiative of ours on this track bring some positive results. prior to the next scheduled review conference of the parties to the treaty on the non proliferation of nuclear weapons, all 5 permanent member states of the united nations security council adopted a joint statement that said the same. all 5 leaders put their signatures under the statement that says a nuclear war is an acceptable. we are committed to this position and we stick to it as our guiding principle. today, there is a fairly high, i would hate for anyone to boyd's out of proportion artificially. however,
6:34 am
there are you seem to wish to though the risk, however, is the, it's real. it shouldn't be underestimated during the cuban missile crisis of 1900. 62 there went so many written rules. so to say, the code of conduct was pretty clear. moscow had a clear understanding of washington's moves. washington had a clear understanding of moscow's moves today. there are not so many rules left. the new strategic arms reduction treaty. it was a very positive and wise foreign policy decision made by president biden to support russia's proposal, an agree on a 5 year extension on new starts with no p conditions. president trump administration wasn't willing to do that. the same time, other tools and mechanisms that allow to control the arms and nonproliferation agreements are in a shambles. we no longer have the anti ballistic missile treaty or the intermediate range nuclear forces or i n f treaty. the united states keeps rejecting our proposal to enforce a moratorium on the deployment of short intermediate range nuclear missiles. despite the fact that we have agreed on the need to reconcile verification
6:35 am
mechanisms. with key objection is that they can't simply trust that the cleaning grad deployed escandone systems comply with the i n f treaty requirements. we propose the exchanging delegation, so our american partners could inspect the basic cleaning grad while we would get the chance to visit us space in poland or a mania. it's an honest deal, but they still keep saying no. the treaty on open skies is also dead. it no longer exists. the new start treaty is the only remaining tool to control the arms that we have. we initiated the talks with us about what can be done after the 5 year extension runs its course, which is 4 years from now. since the common understanding is that the u. s. is not planning to extend it any more. we have to fruitful rounds of talks in july and september 2021. when the feedback we collected after that, made it clear that we have some serious disagreements and the both sides understand what they are. we have to work in groups established that were tasked with defining
6:36 am
the scope of the agreement, specific threats to be considered during the talks in the future. the united states refused to maintain all this work because russia was forced to defend the russian population in ukraine. they, yes, those people were bombed by the official regime and no one in the west seem to care . the west only encouraged kids, russell phobic, neo nazi policies. when kids outlaw the use of the russian language in all ways, including education, mass, media, and everyday life, and encourage neo nazi ideas and practices. but we were talking about rules, you see the united states and the allies like to refer to the rules when they demand the everyone else quote behave well. it's when they no longer urge everyone to observe international law, but rather to respect the world order and its rules. there's no definition of what those rules are whatsoever. you said there are not so many rules today. there are no rules at all. there is the international law and we respect it as well as the un charter. the key principle here is the sovereign equality of all un member states.
6:37 am
the us keeps violating its commitment to the un charter by promoting its own rules and demands that the entire world should follow its lead. no questions asked, as well as the lead of america's true allies. many in europe and a few asian nations us does not on the commitment to respect the sovereign equality of all states in fights. it blatantly violates this equality by trying to make everyone follow the rules it once imposed. what's us treasury, sex to johnny yellen? said one is a perfect definition of what these rules are about. she spoke on a different topic for what she said applies nonetheless. she was talking about the need to reform the bretton woods institutions. didn't have to choose her words carefully like diplomats do. and she said quite clearly that in no case should the reforms lead to creating a bipolar world. she said that the u. s. had to work closely with china and ensure that beijing understands as much. it was perfectly clear. the u. s. needs a unipolar world, the way they already see it, and other reforms have to stay within the unipolar world philosophy. back in the
6:38 am
day, the trump administration supported the idea of reforming the w t o. as it became clear with time, china was smart enough to out play the u. s. using the u. s. promoter platforms is globalization concepts and all the rules is no wonder that washington ended up blocking the video dispute settlement body that had already received plenty of claims from china, employing procedural loopholes. the u. s. keeps blocking all new hires to the d. s . b. when it has no corum, it cannot function. when it came to the video platform, washington declared that it had to be carried out by the u. s. in europe. while china should be kept away from it, just stating their plans bluntly, in such an unprofessional way, has recently become our western partners, m. o. they are completely unscrupulous. they open the state that they intend to lead, that nato can do whatever it likes. they can say nato is a defensive alliance, so there is no need to be afraid of. it's as this organization does not pose a threat to anybody security. and at the same time,
6:39 am
nato secretary general the install. tim burks as that nato is globally responsible for the world's security, even in the endo pacific region and another fight after the war. so patch was dissolved and the soviet union collapsed. nato moved its line of defense since they claim to be a defensive alliance from the berlin wall towards russia's border, 5 times that he was not to be afraid and assure knows that this was no threat to russia security. it was rather a blunt and impolite way of telling us that we are not the ones decide what was best for our own security. another pun to move the defense line of their defensive alliance into the south china sea. this is what the orcus and quad security parks are about. and now they're trying to get japan, south korea, and half the asian members into orchestra. they are trying to dismantle the entire security architecture that has been built over decades and was based on consensus and participation of all major players including us, russia, india, japan, china and australia. everything is being reshaped dates,
6:40 am
the union polarity principle. the u. s. is trying to save at all costs for everyone is repeating mantras that world war 3 must be prevented. and it's within this context that we should consider ukrainian president lensky, and his team's repeated provocations that almost amount to demands that nato, to be deployed in ukraine to defend its government. and everyone keeps saying they will continue providing care with weapons, which also says to add fuel to the fire, they want to keep the ukrainians fighting against russia. these arms supplies to the last soldier, in order to attract this merger, conflicts for as long as possible in order to make russia suffer more. that's what they hope to achieve. and while they continue pumping weapons into ukraine and publicizing the efforts on this truck, all western leaders except for poland, rule out the possibility of sending nato troops to the conflict polish prime minister mateus moore, of etzky, propose some sort of a peacekeeping operation. ukraine. it seems that was so interested in sending his troops to ukraine as peacekeepers. you can only imagine what happens next when the
6:41 am
polls answer the land that once used to be their own western ukraine. we can only imagine how the historical nostalgia might go and play out. so what should we do? it is similar to the cuban missile crisis back then there was a communication channel. both leaders trusted. this isn't the case today and nobody's trying to establish one. or there were some timid attempts to early stages, but they, when successful, we've abandoned all hope of making need to listen to us, need to continue to expand despite their promises not to despise our warnings. they pumped ukraine with weapons and encouraged anti russian policies introduced by president par shenker and promoted by president landscape. we will that ukraine joining nato was an acceptable to us as a goodwill gesture, we made our last attempt and propose the u. s. and nato. to sign security treaties that would ensure security of all nations in the euro, atlantic region including ukraine. everybody new ukraine was the proverbial apple of discord that tapped into much bigger global problems. and figured this process
6:42 am
we propose to agree on ensuring security for all nations collectively, without expanding any military and political blocks, the us and nato listened to us politely and then said they won't be able to curb the expansion. it will go against the open door policy. they said we studied the north atlantic treaty article turn says nothing about open doors is allowed to invite new members upon member states agreement if they meet the requirements. and more importantly, if new members can strengthen the security of the alliance, you know, open doors leave invited monta, negro, north macedonia under bayne. yet, how could these state strengthen the security of lions? if its purpose is defense? this shows that the expansion of nato has nothing to do with its former goals. they expand their 30 on the us leadership to strengthen the u. s. lead unipolar world. we held us russia talks. i had a meeting with anthony blink and our team visited nato to present the draft agreements in the russian nato formats. all they showed was that nobody was
6:43 am
interested in considering a lawful security interest. we kept telling them my friends, this is right on our border on multiple occasions, president putin said they were at our gates. despite all our appeals declarations and warnings, they just came to our border and said they weren't going to change anything. they said it had nothing to do with russia and that there was no threat to our security for how we supposed to reacts. now they started to india. they want to drop into their formats, u. k prime minister johnson visited the country and so did the us diplomats 1st deputy secretary of state sherman publicly declared that the u. s. must have help india understand what it needs its own security. they do not mince words and speak bluntly, even though india is a great civilization and also a tiny island nation. they're sending messages to china along the same lines, trying to explain what the punishment will be for supporting russia. and yet whenever the u. s. suddenly decides, there are threats to his national interests,
6:44 am
many thousands of kilometers away be in the former yugoslavia, iraq or any other place in the middle east. they immediately sending the troops and bombs civilian targets without even consulting the international law. or the un charter. we saw that in belgrade, blown up bridges, wrecked passenger trains, and destroyed tv broadcasting center. it wasn't a tv broadcasting sensor. it was, it's all of aggressive. serbian propaganda. tony blair said in the same vein prison micron denies the insubordinate and accreditations the leaves a palace, calling them not media propaganda outlets. these habits and behavior patterns have deep roots. mosul in iraq and racket in syria were bombed into ruins. dead bodies stayed in the streets for weeks. the u. s. claimed there were threats to its security in those places on the other side of the ocean. the largest military base in the balkans was establishing cost over and it's not going anywhere. the pretext was the instability that slow, but on the loss of each allegedly created in the region by allegedly oppressed in
6:45 am
cost of albanians. let me emphasize this. once again, they think they can do whatever they want in the name of their own security. while they deny of the right to secure our own borders and territories where russians have been oppressed for years, bombed humiliated strips of their rights, the language culture and traditions the problems that the u. s. is absolutely sure it is always writes, and exceptional democrats and republicans alike use the term exceptional nation. the sense of superiority brings back certain memories, especially today when the phobia and real racism. i prejudiced against everything russian promotes at the highest level. canadian prime minister trudeau said recently the vladimir putin and all the supporters must be punished out. the old russians will have to pay for what's going on now. and he miss because i don't think washington would even deny this. they would worded a little differently. they'd ask you, if you really believe that authoritarian regimes should enjoy the same rights as
6:46 am
the democratic one, which is the board, i do believe so for school, we're, we're, and since you do and this is unacceptable to them, this defines the key difference between moscow's in washington's views, they claim nato as a defensive alliance in russia has nothing to fear, but what they mean us and we are not stupid or naive to think otherwise, only as long as you behave. but absolutely, sure, yes, if a country is doing something that nato, as a democratic alliance thinks, is wrong, that country might have to face some consequences. i think nato doesn't really hide this. so what should we do about the ukraine crisis? considering the risks you've mentioned in obvious clash of approaches to foreign relations and even the definition of the contemporary civilization, which there is a peaceful settlement of the ukrainian conflict, even on the table given its large scale and major disagreements and mutual lack of trust between russia and the u. s. lead nato. gillis thought the cook of seal u. s. just like all other countries. the brag about being flawless. democracies
6:47 am
have signed and ratified the un charter that operates on the key principle of sovereign equality of states. it doesn't say democracy should enjoy more rights than autocracies, dictatorships, or monarchies. all member states have equal rights. then there's the security council shore, but his difference, the reason why president roosevelt insisted on establishing the security council with 5 permanent seats with vito powers is no secret. he didn't want the un to share the fates of the league of nations. without this mechanism, the un would have probably been long gone, just like the league of nations before it. it doesn't help when great powers can't in vote their privileges and negotiate the rights of vito forces them to negotiate for mutually acceptable solutions. at least that's how it was for many years. today, the u. s. and some of the western nations are trying to devalue this, right? they want to transfer the security council's monday to the general assembly. this would allow them to twist any members, arms, blackmail them, or threaten them by targeting their bank accounts or their children's schools to
6:48 am
ensure the majority of the votes whenever they needed. this is dangerous path. it makes the security council and these 5 members with vito rights, the only strong hold of international law. they're trying to replace everything else. prison biden held the 2020 wants to meet of democracies for a reason. they're planning to hold another one this year and establish an organization that would as an anti un oil replacement. this is nothing new, of course. the west, you're primarily, and especially france and germany has been producing various platforms, calls to action and partnerships to address issues that are already on the you ends agenda for a while now. take, for example, the partnership on the international humanitarian law is membership is by invitation only. when asked why they don't want to deal with the issue the usual way. i. e via the un refugee agency, or the un human rights office. they reply those bodies to on progressive. they say it's because there are some autocracies in the u. n. so members that are not democratic in north while they need to develop really progressive ideas. germany
6:49 am
and france have established the alliance of democracies and the alliance of multilateralism. when asked why give up the un and the true multilateral organization, representing all the nations in the world, with an exception for someone recognize ones. they say the same in the u. n. there are those who are against multilateralism, while wanting to bring together all the progressive pro multilateral nations, just like the you with it's multilateral partnership policy. so they want to build a block of those who share their views. again, this is all about the sense of superiority, coupled with the unwillingness to discuss important issues on platforms where they can face the slightest opposition. they simply don't want to, it takes time while they want to implement the neo liberal reforms, a s a p. i also think it's because they feel they can't win a straight discussion if their opponents get the chance to present their arguments . just look at the invitation list to the summit for democracy. u. s. has never even recognized some of these countries of democracies. washington got
6:50 am
a lot of criticism about these notions of demarco. see, it's allowed it to invite some countries to clearly not democratic yet. strategic location fits the u. s. agenda. well, the u. s. wants to do is gather those countries under an umbrella of democracy, flat to them, and then use them to its own advantage. we use labels such as democracy, autocracy, or authoritarian regime. recently, political pundits in the u. s. drop the label. democracy when referring to india and begun calling it an elect, total autocracy. instead. when i mentioned this to my indian friends, they smiled they know about it. there are many methods to try and put pressure on the country. and speaking about the talks on ukraine, we know for a fact that both the u. s. and the u. k. that seems to be eager to fill it. solitary post breaks in existence with excessive activity, advised presidents lensky to gradually toughen his stunts. instead of expediting, the talks became clear after the meeting in the stumble, as president putin already mentioned,
6:51 am
it was the 1st time ukrainian side ever provided a list of their written proposal signed by the leaders of the delegation. we were ready to incorporate them into the draft agreements, but there are lots of areas for improvement to meet them acceptable to both sides. but we welcome them as a positive developments, what were you saved in it? stumble were the only written proposals ever provided by ukraine. so we made a draft agreement based on that and returned it to our ukranian colleagues. after that, they returned it with new requirements that were completely different from the system bull list. this was a giant step back lending style. maybe even 2 steps back. and that was done on the advice of all american and british colleagues, poland and the both states might have also played their part in it just around the dish. so ukraine has toughened that stance. they've gone back on some requirements . russia was ready to accept and work on project. we had drafted a documents based on their proposals, only to hit ukrainian side to come back to us with comments like this is wrong. let's remove this. let's come back to it later. despite that,
6:52 am
we continue to talk via video calls and we keep explaining our position a week ago, following yet another online meeting. we submitted an update to draft incorporating all then you requirements. as we always do, we'll be waiting for apply for a week already. when president lensky was asked to comments on our proposals during and use conference, he replied, he never received or saw any. we asked the ukrainian delegation if they had been reporting to the president, they said he schedule is very busy. this shows all too well what the president crane really thinks of the talks all the while he declares that you prefer the piece that we talked about when washington wanted me. let's talk now about what it does. i can't find the right words to describe the scope of american military assistance for zalinski and his government. it's unprecedented and quite unexpected . for me, at least ukraine received $800000000.00 worth of assistance just 2 weeks ago. and then another 800 millions worth a week ago. now that the u. s. state secretary and secretary of defense have
6:53 am
visited kiana. they agreed on yet another 700000000. no, yes, you don't go cuz it's not all for ukraine, but also for some of the eastern european states. it gets about half of this money . really about what you could look for us. fair enough. then there is the question, what will be the consequences shipping the i am particularly interested in rushes, official position on this one. your personal viewpoint is also very important. no doubt. but can you please tell me what russia intends to do about all this? you perhaps moscow believes that all the efforts made by washington are unlikely to bring about any meaningful changes in the current balance of power. well, you definitely know, appear to i've read several statements made anonymously by some of the u. s. army officials in regards to what happens to these weapons once they cross the ukrainian border and where they end up. they all said that they didn't have any information where these weapons might go. apart from tanks and armored personnel,
6:54 am
carrots is thousands of man pods have been supplied. ukraine, which are the weapons used by terrorists. it was for a reason that russia and the u. s. used to have an agreement to keep each other informed of any man pat deliveries abroad. it helps make sure that neither party ever supplied lethal weapons to anyone with an evil intent. javelins also man portable missiles, even if they were delivered for tanks. they can also be used by terrorists. where would all these weapons turn up? we're talking about thousands and thousands of weapons. her previous experience shows that these weapons will leave you crane as they would from many other poly control country. especially one where the neo nazi battalions of an i don or the unit do not have a supreme commander in chief and a proud of this and occupy a special autonomous and untouchable place in the armed forces. these weapons will scatter, including back to the countries where they came to ukraine. these countries also groups of people, especially given the waves of migration, who would like to get their hands on such an opportunity. the u. s. military
6:55 am
doesn't know where it's all going to end up. maybe they know about some things, but others, they don't. what would the russian federation do when the so by routes are drones, ukraine, a long time ago they, we used for many years to conduct reconnaissance in the dorm bus, to assist in bombing this region with the artillery of the armed forces ukraine. engross, violation of the minced agreements. the agreements were publicly buried by zelinski . he referred to a military contract with russia's ross about on exports. this contract says that the helicopters in question can only be used for the needs of the african security forces and can be passed on to a 3rd party without russia's consent. the commitment not to pass the vehicles onto a 3rd party were stipulated in the end user certificates they were signed before. 2013. when the helicopter package was been implemented, hillary clinton with the u. s. 60 states at the time. and then john kerry took the position, therefore, sending these helicopters to ukraine now would be a direct violation of commitments in a critically important area of international relations. everything depends on the
6:56 am
people who are controlling ukraine, managing the zelinski administration from a board. not as i mentioned, it's tumble, it was a meeting that the russian side received the ukrainian proposals on paper for the 1st time. we were prepared to take them as a basis and propose slight improvements of the word and, but we agreed with the contents of these proposals. in essence, the neutral states, a security guarantees, the extent and procedure for granting the guarantees to give you a rough idea where they late to departed from this concepts. i don't want to give away any big secrets, but here's an example. the stumble documents stipulated that there will be no foreign military bases in ukraine, and no military jails involving foreign troops would be conducted on his territory without the consent of old guarantee. countries of this agreement, which includes russia, it was written in black and white. the final version we received falling our positive reaction to the initial proposals when like this, no military drills without the consent of the majority of the guarantee countries.
6:57 am
can you see the difference? but it's obvious. they did the same with a number of other proposals to that were 1st voiced in a stumble. i'd like to stress once again. that's our general reaction to these proposals. it was positive ah oh, when i was showing wrong, when i just don't hold a sheep out. disdain becomes the advocate. an engagement equals betrayal. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground.
6:58 am
ah ah ah, ah ah. hello and welcome to cross top. were all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle. there are 2 kinds of conflicts being fought in ukraine, a western design in controlled propaganda war targeting russia and a russian military campaign that is changing the security dynamics of the european
6:59 am
continent. and western propaganda is hell bent on escalation.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on