ah, to discuss these issues and more, i'm joined by my guest, lindy's, an oslo. he's a professor at the university of south eastern norway as well as author of the new book. russo phobia propaganda in international politics. and we cross to george m u l e. in budapest, he's a podcast or the goggle which can be found on youtube and locals. gentleman cross stock rules and fact that means you can jump in any time you want, and i always appreciate it. i'm going to start out with glen in our slow, glenn. i suppose. we shouldn't be surprised that we have the u. k. foreign secretary, talking about global nato. we've talked about it on this program, but you know, this trust is a presentation that we can put it that way. i really was a vision that should terrify all of us because a global nato, as we have said on this program,

is essentially short circuiting international law i. e, cementing western had gemini over the global system. most of the world is on board for that, but i guess nobody told lives, go ahead. i agree, and i think this doubling down on what was under, on the cold war because again, when the cold war came to an end, initially we had agreements about creating the common year with common security, with rush instead of against about with rush and weakness. i think we embraced this concept of hedge a monic q piece, and this is, again, this is built into all of us national security strategy. it's overwhelmingly dominant. no countries can aspire to challenge it, then this will be the foundation of peace. but obviously this depends on marginalizing rising power, russia and china, iran. so, so this kind of creates professional conflict. now that you have an actual future of most, all about the multiple narratives here. you can go to it as it wants to create

a new international order based on recognizing this different power and having security where we minimize the security, the landline, which we have agreements, how us are trying to minimize the threats against us and but that's not the way we're doing and so she's suggesting, let's double down the goal in which means let's go global nato in which you envision democracy to some of the world countering the authoritarians. but this is largely, in my opinion, at least the case because the world is not divided along. you know, this idea of this new cold war ideology between democracy, not frontier and isn't russia. i think, for a warrant here in this, of the world. this is, you know, this isn't the mind of how so in the countries like india, the largest democracy in the world and then are going against russia. and also on the other side, you have a lot of authoritarian states linked with states. so i think this is global nato is a way i'm trying to shape shape the narrative of this being this huge global

conflict of good versus evil, 3 versus authoritarian. so again, this is, this is what the, how, how major space form their language conflicts. so in the nature of this has this really long habit of being that friendly, smiling smiley face alliance. george george. one of the interesting things from liz's presentation is that russia is the enemy, china is the enemy. i mean that the mask is off right now. ok, no longer time, a projection of stability and all of this. no, i mean there, there is no such thing as the indivisibility of security and she said it ok, so least we know where we stand. go ahead, george. well, definitely we will know where we stand. the curious thing is that she titled her for the return of geo politics. there was no geo politics and anything that she said a supposed to be about the influence of geography on the international relationships

of state. there was nothing about geography that there wasn't really even very much about economics. it was a purely a logical statement of intent. not only did you talk about the global nature, she said that the g 7 has to be an economic natal. i'm going to use this, this body of the g 7, which was supposed to be helping countries out during recessions and other economical. i'm going to use this all the to wage a war against russia. and to a lesser extent, china. i mean, she's got some good china a little later on. and she also talked about not giving countries access to the global economy as if somehow the global economy is the private property. all the g 7 hours. it was a declaration of war. i mean, there's no question when she went to what she was saying that was

a declaration of war on the part of the leading western powers and said, you know, if you don't follow off, we are just going to destroy you. we're going to destroy economically, show you militarily because it's a, it's a vision that can lead to war. i mean, just no way you can. i mean, she didn't even have the usual proviso that other dignitaries have been fulton, but i would say, well, we must still maintain the dialogue with russian issues that matter to us. he didn't even say there, she just want doesn't want any dial and it's just all out war. it least good, least during the cold war we, everyone kind of warmed up to the idea of peaceful coexistence. ok. i mean that, that actually, you know, is what got us through the cold war, excepting that you're going to be out there the other side, is there. ok. and we will engage when necessary. no, there's no,

an ideological military political enemy list doesn't even go that far. what i find remarkable in or should unremarkable is it or speech. there are references the international law, but only that reinforce western gemini and little u. k is being the arbiter of all things. i mean, you know, that's not like you're good for like what? 1872, maybe 1912, but it doesn't fit into 20. 22. that's my reading. go ahead of course, and i think this is why it made it was found a very difficult to recruit. again. this is a global campaign outside of nato. this very few countries who are taking active sites and putting sanctions, this is pretty much conflict between 0 and, and russia. and this is again, one of the problems that we had in the past 30 years. given that we never remove the dividing lines. we're just competing where the new dividing lines on the continent should be. so this is why the rest of the world looking and throwing

really, really, is written out or, you know, you're just lobby iraq's, olivia, are they really the champions of international law? so i think in the west, the moral authority, which we often assume that we have when it comes to this, i think you are, i think are correct on your 1st is because why they recognize the british me that she's trying to channel through her in their margaret thatcher, if she wants to be, you know, this is, this is how much is going for, you know, the actual own lady she was, she was putting on these topics there, but she also recognized that need to actually find some middle ground and accommodate your adversaries. online, you refuse? i'll try any compromise or a combination of the opponent. so security interest and then full war and full decide the mixture rate enemy is the only possible outcome and this is this will be a disaster. so i think she maybe fell in love with the voucher instead of the

reality. it's very dangerous. i'm. i'm not sure how serious you're taking her because i know that she's making a bit of a pitch for the domestic audience. they want to, there's a lot of pressure on written post breaks to find your new role in the world. and without this political role within the you, it's trying to have this military role in their own. and this is the source of influencing your, it's leaving from this meeting, the fight against russia. it's a military camp. and of course, they have real concerns about russia as well. this is also a large extent about finding britain scrolling in georgia. i mean, obviously she's making a pitch to her badger. she's what's essentially backstabbing morris johnson, which is very popular right now. and then in finding a role for the u. k. after after briggs it in, this is a perfect way. um, in your way into european institutions,

but i would pass it to both of you. the more the neo liberalism fails, the more it becomes rhetorically. and i, and that's what i found the speech to be so remarkable is that it's, it's a, it's, it's reach, it's an intensity, as everything is falling apart around them. ok. i mean, the, the sanctions that have been imposed on russia does hurt russia, but the blow back is even worse on europe as we all predicted george. yes, there's a question and written is indeed suffering economic consequences of food prices shooting out gas prices shooting up and the government is on a substantial in the polls is likely to so be calamities in the upcoming local elections. so this policy isn't in any way or something of popular uh, within the country. so yes,

she's obviously making your political calculation that you know bars. johnson is for the bugs, and she will be in place to pick up the pieces. it seems hard to believe that britons really want this what, what she's offering because what she really offering is that, yeah, we're now out of the, you. but we found the mechanism whereby we're actually going to dominate you because you is now going to be a subordinate. so, and we as a loyal kugal of the united states will get to pull the shot. so she was very mocking about the germans. you know, the german fantasies are going to change russia, route trade. that's all out of the window. so she's very much now we are going to be the leaders of europe. thanks to later. it can happen. britain just simply doesn't have the economic and military strength to do so,

and you haven't really forgotten all of the military fiascos. just sheer military incompetence of britain's recent campaigns. i mean, it was in iraq or afghanistan. i mean, so it doesn't have any of the resources for the global roll. she envisages. well, i mean, george, i mean, since we have, we go from winter to winter the upcoming winter in the new k, there are a range of estimates, but quite a few people are fuel insecure. i suppose fighting for democracy in ukraine will make up for the cold when they're sitting in their homes. but don't eat. i wonder, george, you know, people are ideologically motivated, the days go ahead. i think as you talk, we're going to do this for your brain, for your brain and you, cranes, fight is all. i can't really explain how. how are you crazy by the fight, the brave. i mean, your brains know when they were,

even though your brain has never been in any way, you kind of a national interest of, you know, military alliance exist with. so she just makes this assertion. oh, you cranes fight is our fight that we was or in definitely the resources to it it's, it's just battling, i mean like everything else about that speak with. well, it's certainly a wedge to maintain the money, the relevance of nato, which we've discussed quite off of this program. i gentlemen, i'm going to jump here. we're going to go to a short break. and after that your break, we'll continue our discussion on somebody on the same r. oh ah, [000:00:00;00]

a spoke was 80 a still on yeah. still cleans got out of the sports. what kind of board missed this deal with? the why would it be a good, a good huge, but you're more difficult to set up on a bus to load the day of school or pro that then you shouldn't have been really well. yes, you said all of us them. i just really didn't care what

pushes with him pushy, i get some push with somebody. steve wayne lee could i do with l. look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except where such order is a conflict with the 1st law show your identification should be very careful about official intelligence. and the point of view, see, is to place trust rather than a with artificial intelligence. real, somebody with

protective own existence with oh, welcome back to crossed out. were all things are considered. i'm peter labelle. this is the home addition to remind you. we're discussing some real news. ah. or let's go back to glen in oslo, you know, talking about the continued nato expansion, which essentially is the origins of the conflict that we see in ukraine. right now . we could, i can get away from the mean who's winning and who's losing, because depending on your media, you know, menu, what you're consuming, you're going to get radically different opinions on who's winning and who's losing

and ukraine. and one thing that's for sure, gentlemen, at least a lot of promises, promises of a massive military legal aid to ukraine is in the, in the works here. one has to wonder, considering timelines rushes almost out of ammunition. though general milly that thoroughly modern guy says it could go on for years. i mean, even within their own discourse, i have no idea what they're talking about. glenwell go to you 1st. there was definitely a narrative problem because, well, the way i read the conflict so far has been, well initially russia was talking to and towards the capital. and this was trying to get a quick, quick victory. and, and also convincing landscape to, you know, find some agreements on however, when that didn't come through, it was a good way of tying up a huge amount of courses in their existing position around the capitals and if allowed for russia to a place, maybe it's true or shaped up,

i don't know. so put their logistics in place by connecting them with crimea, and it will effectively encircling much on the bulk of the training troops which have been and more less than built up towards the front line, a bus to work. so i so, so i think when the russians pulled out of it away from the narrative in the west las look, the russians are running, we are winning. and again, we, the nato in the agreements are winning their yes, go ahead. yes, every title is headlines is putting us last, you know, finally this is them, the end of the regime and in the rush. you know, i think went to the head of iran. and now now we kind of waking up to the reality that actually on the past 2 months, rush has been coming away at the front lines of some bus weakening their front. they've been cutting off a lot of supply chain supply routes. so now you have severely weakened ukraine in defense,

the low and i'm emission low fuel and poor supply. and and over the past 2 weeks with the russian began to punch through a lot of this front lines. and that was something in the narrative of change because we're seeing out of the, especially britain in the us. some reports coming out that actually came from us, might be harmless. and if this is where most of the kind of troops are in, if this falls, you know, russian a tens of thousands or 100000 troops which can just marsh in response to this. and this is creating some pattern, but it's also creating some need to change market. russia losing, on the other hand, is for panic. also. now we have to send in an ungodly amounts of weapons to turn to tide. so the narrative is very confusing, especially open in the british or german newspaper who had jumping on that george because you know, you, you get the feeling because russia, the russians didn't take you,

didn't take care of. was that part of the battle plan? does anyone in the west know what the plan was? they all assume they do, but you know, that's why i've always found it. funneling, is it? well, maybe that was just a blocking effort to do what they wanted to do in the east. and now what's being, we see the crumbling of the mil, military, ukrainian military in the east. and i can has no strategic value whatsoever because because it's not part of the plan to control all of ukraine. if it is, it hasn't been revealed. go ahead. oh, that's exactly right, and that's with the state of the western media commentary since february, the 240. this fail because students fail to take care of but no plan anywhere to suggest that that was ever the goal of russia. well,

i don't think it ever was because it doesn't make a lot of sense to go into the big cities where tanks can't really maneuver very well. and you, your victim of snipers. i mean, they're essentially just, you know, meet grinders. i mean, this is where a military just get destroyed, trying to take it is. i mean, it was always about a particularly did it on for the 20. well, there was about liberating the don't go down the people's republic and what he called a decent demilitarization and the knowledge and that i think is going ahead. i mean, obviously they the destruction of the other courses in your home. i mean that that's been done. and i think even the military, they sure will be effective as the lead russians will eventually destroy the both of the ukraine in army in the east. and i think that will be lab,

i think what will then have accomplish goals? i mean, i think that they may well go for decimal, but again, i haven't really been specified that, that that will be the case. but if you're on the way the russians are calculating and if lou wes, continuous or in this weapon rate to ukraine, then i think they'll just go further. they'll just simply say. 2 you know, the grains black, the coastline that way, the basic to control the other line, the black, pico line, and then that's it. like i said, leave the rest of ukraine to nato. ok. you want this rump state? they said, that's really what i surmise from the very beginning. no one wants to say it publicly a little bit on the brand. but essentially we're, we're going to have been a partition. a russia has no interest in western new grade whatsoever. oh, by the way to polls do, we'll see how that plays out. that could be very interesting, but it's good in a run state isn't making it's really interesting. after the month of one month,

the conflict zillow couldn't settle for what the russians were proposing because he didn't have control over the dog bats. and he didn't have control over creamy, as he would have been giving away something. he didn't even control. now that his change, that is a major shift in this because at the end of the day, it's not what moscow is going to control. it's going to be what you have controls and that it gets smaller with every asking day go ahead one. yeah, i agree, and that's one of the problems of continuing this war, i mean and then, because that way i know that the payment forces are, are suffering defeats in ukraine and him signed on bus, older escalate tori and by the west in terms of helping ukraine is making things worse. now obviously i can see the closing argument that, you know, supplying weapons, helping them to defend themselves. and you know, that is,

you know, a moral and right thing to do. however, might have to be honest, but it's actually happening because when russia 1st went in and they were very open, they didn't want to even strike kids. ukrainian troops in their parents didn't want to go out for the electricity. they don't want to take the water. no civilian infrastructure, but now, but once, once it keep did not want to negotiate and you know, walked away from the negotiations. a rationale massage is just, they have to defeat is troops and they won't be pulled out them. and that's why, you know, the russians have just have more artillery. they are fighting well, but again, it's all of them. and then the russians have a lot more children and they're just pulling them back. so this force are being destroyed or captured now. so there's a lot of destruction and now the rest is pumping in this building and building some dollars of new weapons. well, i would, russia responded, well, we already see it and they want to prevent it from entering the front line. so now there's a lot of attacks on the railway networks, energy station bridges,

a lot of this infrastructure which is also needed for an economy. but this is to prevent these troops from reaching the front lines creating all next group. so as soldiers which can before the reach the front line. so this somebody, every step to help you crane countries being punched more and more into becoming a huge wars on. and again, some of this is predictable in the united states. and if i did for creating, making ukrainian to card my reason you are going to drain russian sources will have to be honest. but that means it means making ukrainian means it will be devastated . and, you know, it doesn't mean or, you know, of course you can blame can be put all around. but, but the whole point is to what extent is escalation and interest of ukraine and to watch interest, or if it's only for us for the next phase, which is now sitting very openly. our goal is to believe that the rational drive we want to have regime change was

a decisive victory over them. so if this is the goal, are we helping are creating? i mean, we, the natal or destroying using them as what's a good hold you. well, as you don't have the russians, but then, you know, sacrificing the ukrainians on the way. i think this is a necessary discussion to have, but we don't have it in the west because if we suggest that the, you know, the west is not actually hoping you know about sacrificing if you would be labeled the propaganda of the kremlin and you would be count, georgia, the cynicism is, is so galling, it's hard to comprehend. i mean, 1st of all the complete one sidedness of the coverage of the complex only using ukrainian sources, leaving the ukrainian government. but then need to look at that all the sums of money and weapons. while you get into the militia, george, it's basically a lot of junk was ok,

let's give me like 30 years old. better over ok. isn't work. nobody knows. but we sent, you know, i mean like these, what about german tanks that don't even work they have made for a long time? they're hardly anyone are getting went around actually to play ukraine recreating and the use that mean, the cynicism is this going and it is there. like i said, it's very difficult to comprehend because it is the west is fighting the propaganda war. it's not really anything to help you. great in north america, i had your highest cynical policy of united states. ok, know, most of them they talk about ukraine, but then you know, you, great is a mechanism for mobilizing nato, mobilizing the way to wage this geo political struggle. that list trust is talking about. so yeah, along this goes on the longer they imagined that this is just going to bleed russia

the better this will be for nato. and yeah, and so we're going to get the ball consent and they don't get georgia where everybody into and they don't. but one thing they don't care about is the life of you gradients. and then you have to then wonder about what kind of a leadership ukraine has that they don't see where this is going. that this is like you destroying the country that you know, within 5 years, the be very little of this country live. it's a goal and tragic. yeah, it's the same time. i'm glad you brought up the girl leadership in ukraine because whenever you have something like this, inevitably, george, that will be the stab in the back. why did we succeed? nato failed. that's west failed. and then you get into when you and i talked about a very often a growing civil war. so even when we have hostilities, when a civil war will continue, gentlemen, that's all the time we have one thing i guess. and also when

a good person. thank you for watching this here are see you next time. remember with only one main thing is important for not as an internationally speaking that is at nations that's allowed to do anything, all the most to races. and then you have the mind in a sense, while the slaves, americans, brock, obama and others have had a concept of american exceptionalism. international law exist as long as it serves american interest. if it doesn't, it doesn't exist by turning those russians into this dangerous go. you man, that wants to take over the world. that was a conscious strategy and walked out of it on your own. i not

leashed it off to move on and tablet block. nato said it's out. we move east. the reason us, hey jim, it is so dangerous, is it? the law is the sovereignty of all the countries. the exceptionalism that america uses and its international war planning is one of the greatest threats to the populations of different nations. if nature, what is bad that shareholders in united states and elsewhere in large obs companies would lose millions and millions or is business and business is good. and that is the reality of what we're facing, which is fashion. and when i was showing wrong, when i just don't move to safe out, the thing becomes the advocate and engagement. it was the trail.

when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look so common ground. ah, more than 100 civilians have been transported to safety by russian military from the besieged to as of the factory. in mario po, some of them say they were aware of the humanitarian corridors, but ukrainian nationalists refused to let them lead. buddhist i live at the slightest. it was our idea to hit in the bunker and when we realize the front line is coming, we were all terrified. we tried to leave, but they just didn't let us out. one time, they wanted us to dig trenches. the men said that they would not go out to do this because it was dangerous upon here all for me. really. the engine is mercedes from germany and all the thermal images and video cameras inside the electronics