Skip to main content

tv   Cross Talk  RT  May 31, 2022 12:30am-1:01am EDT

12:30 am
i don't buy 3 geopolitical narrative, they're more you do, let's say, making sure the surprise, very pragmatically and in this is, i think clearly you can see this interesting enough irrespective will be more to the right or more to the are not totally clear about that. you politically, ah ah, ah. hello and welcome across like were all things considered? i'm peter labelle,
12:31 am
the west ukraine propaganda machine has begun to crack. the reality in the battlefield is at odds with the tightly guarded messaging bed to western public's view. courageous voices say the obvious ukraine should negotiate. now while it still has something to negotiate with. ah, to discuss these issues and more, i'm joined by my guess, glen deason and also is a professor at the university south eastern norway as well as other of the new book usa phobia propaganda in international politics. and here in moscow we have maxine susco. he is the director of the center, advanced american studies at moscow state institute of international relations, originally across stock rules and the fact that means you can jump anytime you want . and i always appreciate it. we'll start out with our slo glen over the last few new cycles and i'm thinking of the new york times editorial piece that actually
12:32 am
question the goals to the biting ministration has in ukraine and, and de facto nato's goals. the washington post a, publish an article about volunteers, not, not a regular army, but all in tears in ukraine's military forces that are treated quite badly, ended up leaving the field and being arrested for desertion. and then we have of the big name of them all henry kissinger at the davos setting is just basically saying, you've got to wrap this up quickly through negotiations or it's going to start unraveling for everyone in ball. so my question is to you, is it, is this going to have an impact on policy making or is it just double down triple down. ready well, i think there will be more and more opposition runs the war, and it's not going ukraine's way. so obviously, for a long time, for many weeks, ross has been grinding down the ukrainian army. and then obviously
12:33 am
us been making a lot of pictures. however, in the past 34 weeks now, we see that things became very critical. the last time we spoke, i mentioned that the main key front lines in ukraine has collapsed. and now in circling this huge pockets on thousands of thousands of ukrainian soldiers. so it's hard to ignore this, you can't really, in the story in a more victory. so this is why this becoming a lot of pressure now on within the west, on trying to find some kind of a, an agreement with russia. it makes the question, what is, what is the objective if we can't make a settlement with the russians? because if the alternative is a bad deal today or even worse deal tomorrow for the west, a dictate that we make a deal today. and given that the washing group doesn't seem interested still how to make a deal that it makes the question, is there an alternative objective?
12:34 am
and obviously there's been a lot of voices in washington from the administration suggesting that the goal is to break cross back to we can. and so there's many, was concerned this mission is to create the new york on in your crane and trying to weaken the russian for, for, for the long, for a long period time is indeed a pro ukrainian policy or with the russian mr. gloss, ukrainian, especially sacrificing country. now that is so i think that the positions i ricardo artificially position as being even pro russian or western of the question. what is the purpose of this now? i think this, this more voices are increasing. and at some point, i guess they will have some influence in washington to come out. so it is,
12:35 am
it, is it something is changing, but we're still, i think far away from a change in policy and what you bring up a good point. how is this to the advantage of the trainings will match there? there is one element, one copy up many in the ukranian political elite i would find is the positive is all this huge amounts of money being thrown at them from the west. i mean, now if we put all in, it's like $53000000000.00 from the united states and then we have the european union. i don't know the exact numbers, but i mean they're going through but $5.00 to $7000000000.00 a month to pay salaries in the military and all that, i mean, if you're in your zalinski and you're in that circle and this is in the middle of a conflict where they have foreign leaders waltzing around downtown, here without a care. huh. that's it. that's what i call the grid. why wouldn't ukraine want to keep that griff going as long as it possibly can. go ahead. well,
12:36 am
i think right now on the west has to deal with 3 challenges kind of lump together. one is the challenge of dealing with the leadership in g f per say. we're asking for more money and more military hardware. and i think there is this understanding that starting to trickle down among the minds of western lease it's, it's really a black hole that is soaking up resources without clear implications for western public and western security and for western political objectives. the 2nd one is of course, and how you deal with russia, you know, kind of post conflict. and we've seen this proposal coming from italy and you know, we need to think about european security architecture while i personally think the very proposal is kind of the sheet that has sailed. there's much worse to where it still is interesting, sighing,
12:37 am
very different will be seen over the past few weeks on the very thinking patterns among some of the western countries. and finally, you know, the western leadership has to deal with implications of this conflict and confrontation with russia for their own domestic constituencies and globally. and it's getting harder to explain what are the clear objectives, you know, and you know, this massive price hike and stuff like this isn't really flying well with many constituents in the worst in us in particular. and there is even some suggestions that emmanuel micron may perhaps be the last of the current western leadership go for got re elected. others maybe your phone to out of office quickly, which is a star of difference from president to who i should remark to our audience is, in my view, operate more in the paradigm of quote unquote history liter name,
12:38 am
classic western politician. you know, he doesn't really have to care much about re election. it doesn't really have to care much about the stuff that worship colleges have to care about. so this in a way empowers him to think. i know that he has courage and wisdom. i agree with wally is going to all there, but will he do it and everything we've seen about him? so bar tells us he won't. ok, but i agree with it, glen, let me go back to you in a, in a sense this whole ukrainian gambit for, for the us in the u. k. because they seem to be an x is here driving this, both, both countries that are not in the european union interest singly enough. and their unity of the euro is almost seamless for now. and that's why they need a breakthrough to keep that unit need together. the longer this goes on even be can government submitted their losses in the east,
12:39 am
they won't say specifically that there are many going so well here. so i mean, if the, if the purpose was to unify the west, in the european sense around, behind the us and, and behind the u. k. as leaders of nato, they need they need this a breakthrough one way or another because of the baby formula. energy crisis migration. i mean, you can, you can keep the fever pitch up for a while emotionally. but now things are beginning to settle down. we're seeing, you know, reports in, in, in germany to check republic hungry po and about my grades and things like that were the welcome mat is not so welcoming as time goes on. so that, i mean that there's been a kind of critical breakthrough, but it, is it sustainable with out a quote about when ukraine? well, no, i think that was the problem. i think this, the unity of nato, which we heard so much about the premise on,
12:40 am
on the victory over russia was seeing the battle field house. we played out, asked expect that they can only cor, against the russia as expect. indeed that there's a huge effect there. were european economies suffering greatly and, you know, this whole story of russia being the gas station masquerading as a country. this is, this is, i think we, we've seen ourselves from the west by buying into this. so i think that again, this goes on on a mixture, but now that this doesn't seem to be the case anymore, i think you will see a fragment more because now we're looking at our the costs are affecting us and also we're paying higher costs and then if there's no clear objective behind this. and then i mentioned that if the goal of the status and britain is to, well, maybe you know, this last, you know, we've got sacrifice thousands of ukrainian soldiers there. but at least by some
12:41 am
time, to train up a new army in west in ukraine and have this waves the continuous attacks to wear down the rush over time. to what extent that this in the european interest. so i think that we didn't commit to this narrative or mystery is collapsing. i don't want to denigrate the ukrainian soldiers. they're very well in well trained . well armed everything. however, this narrative in the beginning was very distant from reality. if you remember, you had this mattress on the make island until they popped up on russian team. you're being alive. you have this ghost of key who shopped around 40 russian jets. i mean, it became ridiculous, still not just sold us a fact them out a few weeks ago now. and you know, they became training soldiers, those surrendered and their unconditional surrender going into russian activities.
12:42 am
and i was just coming in to renew the evacuation. how do evacuated from battlefield into russian prison? it doesn't make any sense of we reinventing the language to keep an eye to ramos. i think now now that they're the smallest, are coming in and some are having 2nd thoughts. i see that the commitments to the narrative is cracking. and with that, i expect that the solidarity within nato will begin to wither away as well. you know, max, one of the biggest problems with the western mindset and looking at what's going on the conflict in ukraine, is it expected to be done like an american way or a nato way. and if you look at the rushes military efforts and ukraine, you know, knowing something about russian military history is just the long grind to victory . ok, it's, it's, it's not clam buoyant. it's, you know, they're not looking for headlines. they're just methodically doing what they always do. from the red army taking berlin, some would say gross me,
12:43 am
what we saw with the conflict and south is that it's remarkably similar, but it's not american or navy or western in, in performance. go ahead. i would also to the, throughout, as history russia has barely entered any conflict will prepare, you know, it's always had a big issue in the beginning and even against, you know, adversaries that appear to be much weaker. so there is nothing new in terms of how, you know, the sort of obstacles that russia has encountered now, it has changed a lot. i would also focus there to pick up on something that glens mentioned. and you know, this constant pursue, just trying to reinvent the live, to keep the narrative going. and i think is it kind of the dark reality of the information worker that you can win as many the dark reality of what we're going to stop on that point here. we're going to go to a quick break. and after that break,
12:44 am
we'll continue our discussion on some real news, staying with our tea. ah ah ah ah, with a with ah ah
12:45 am
. mouse another while you while you easy while fantasizing with 4 units. one slide yes. south. yeah. thrashing out with a new dock. awesome. voice, now watch them up. all me. double up. i'd beat them. is emily up little video from sheila vicious kim's room? she thought video to watch the ela a yes my thought or change in the again the or did fortune very up my be a lot of all this morning. just financial a welcome
12:46 am
back to cross thought were all things considered? i'm peter labelle. this is the home edition remind you were discussing some real meals. ah ok, let's go back to max here in moscow. we're talking about information warfare before we went to our hard break continue. just to say that, you know, you, you may win as many info bands, if you know, as you wish, you know, create as many sections you want to talk about the dominance information warfare. but the reality check of the battlefield would come back to haunt you one day and you will have hard time explaining to your old constituencies about how on earth
12:47 am
this turned out the way it turned out where you told them it would have been a different. i also would say that, you know, one of the major things that is now for supporting this is the risk of global feminine nation. and the, did the narrative that is now being shaped up, as i can see, is to shift the blame for this to russia. and i think it's important to know that ukraine brings share in the global production of weak is 11.5 percent. whereas that of russia, 16.8 percent. so the, the town to focus on, you know, russia blocking, build their support and being the main reason for potential local famine, you know, without talking about. busy how russia's own supply chains with being disrupted, including 2 sections. and that is actually the major driver of what the problem in
12:48 am
the, in the market is also another thing that will come back to haunt those who propel this narrative. i think sometime in the fall, oh, it's interesting gland to say, i've been following this quote in quota, mom and rushes warren on food supply here, which is absolutely absurd. i mean, if we look at the exit points in the black sea, these are all been mined by the ukranian government. actually on the day of the conflict and started the day of the conflict, started then the mind, these are these parts here. and there is also talk, i guess, is the next are threat, you know, a possible military or non military solution of escorts and things like that. when i listen to the british government list trusts. i mean, she, she does, it keeps you entertained every step of the way here. i mean, she's her, she so divorced from reality. um, it makes her potentially very dangerous here. but there is always looking for a wedge, a wedge that doesn't in, at the same time,
12:49 am
it just didn't. but part of the information more is just a shame when you know this, you know, when the british is saying, well, we won't get involved in it. but other people should do it. i mean, again, you know, i think the biggest question for me in this program here is that, how are they going to accept defeat land? how do they come come to terms with that? because the way i look at it is that possibly in future, historians will tell us, i suppose that, you know, one month in the conflict, there was talks in a sample and it looked like possible movement. and then that suddenly dash suddenly, okay, within the hour people say it was boris johnson, there were other people that were influencing zalinski when ever since then it's russia's time table and rational. say when it's over, i mean, because if you don't have an interlocutor, then you have no other choice but to make your own unilateral facts on the ground decisions go ahead one. and again, i have a different view of what the pro ukrainian policy should be,
12:50 am
which is stop making you pay the cost of this escalation and they keep in mind that you go back one step in the wanted was unable to stop expanding. if we get some, some concessions on the western side, let's say the what the problem is no, need to expand it this way, more can loop. and then we want some confessions in ukraine. then they could get a good deal without the ukraine. this thing as high price in territory, but instead we're in this escalation alone. keep in mind that for 7 years with them in agreement, agreement, 12, maryland, to give a hard to me to switch ross was happy with. but after that deal with something for 7 years, russia went to new military and then said, well, if a military bus will have independence and again, you had that you have a piece of diplomacy in the, on the reaching will still far away. but there are, there are moving towards some kind of an agreement that have some common common
12:51 am
agreements. and then we saw that the british and americans are pushing them to step away from and withdraw all the concessions. they have committed themselves to these points and they're working escalating, and now you see russia is also also the entirety of partis other companies and also much corporation as well so. so the longer we keep it, we're going the longer we delay it, the more territory i think ukraine we're loose and, and this is again by deal today for your credit or worse or tomorrow. but again, it will start today. there was no objective or need to make this point building some dollars into your grant, simply because they're good guys and want to help them out or objective. so i think i'm going back to this now that this our objectives are becoming more obvious. i
12:52 am
don't think necessarily that americans european still have the same objectives and therefore from your perspective, and i'm going to stand here on the continent is not necessarily in. that's a favorable idea. i don't know if you can bandied about on cable tv, but the reality of it is that you really want something like that on your borders in europe. i mean, europeans and americans, you know, they tolerated that in afghanistan, iraq, because it was just so far away. and the refugees went to europe. they didn't go to the united states. but matt, so when they pick up on something, the glen was saying, you know, henry kissinger and said, you know, a negotiation should begin soon. ok. that i give credit to his geopolitical genius . ok. not his policies that when he was in power, but i mean, he's not, it's a pretty smart guy. i think everyone would read it. well, why should the russians get involved in any negotiation? just because of what glen just said. i mean 78 years with the dumbass line deception all of this. and that now you really want to talk in good faith for me,
12:53 am
that's really hard. ok, and, and plus rush is made a commitment here. it can not lose. it cannot lose this. it's going to take whatever it wants and, and the room for negotiation i think is closed. i think when the russians decide what their security requirements are, that's what this all is about. everyone gets and when they decide that well then, you know, the other side is going to have to eat humble pie because that's the way it is. i think we've discussed including over this microphone. so in the past of this conflict is in a way, a 3rd major attempt to restructure european security order and order in general, since the end of world war 2. you know, during the ulta conference, she'll be a union to go with us and you can go, she did the new terms for the world order as a where the 2nd attempt to structure world water. european security order came after the berlin wall and the collapse of the soviet union,
12:54 am
which the soviet union and earlier russia negotiated as a martial loser. now there is an if you were to renegotiate those terms, and i'm pretty sure russia won't stop until it negotiates the new terms for its own political participation through creating more favorable security outcomes as a winner. oh that, that's, that's a brilliant way of looking at glen to reflect upon that here. because max essentially more eloquently just kind of answered my question. your answer was better than my question. so when, i mean is this, are we seeing as results here? because people are so honed in the micro part of it here, but the max is just right. this is actually creating a new pan european security order. that's what russia asked before this happened. and now, which is going to make it happen, glen, go ahead. yeah, i think it's
12:55 am
a part of explore why your security architecture has been collapsing over the past 30 years now, much, but the collapse, so the berlin roles and also the soviet union in the same sense, went up to remember there's 2 years in between. so it was in moping 989 with the cold war was declared over and exactly 2 years later the soviet union collapsed. now, why was this interesting? because when the cold war was declared over in 1989, it was being a compromise. and both coming to table with diplomacy there, resolving this differences. and thereafter, you had all these agreements like the charter, paris for new europe in which they said the new york should have no dividing lines, indivisible security one, such not expanding the expense of other however runs the soviet union collapsed in 1991. then you have the us ambassador, the last us about the soviet union, arguing, well, as soon as you come up, you have this creation in the united states that the cold war had been run and they
12:56 am
should dictate the new europe. and what was the new year old, the new year was run, which would be organized around united states. one that was mentioned include all of the continent except the largest country, russia and you know, as many leading americans, politicians and pastors academics don't. this is going to go really wrong point because if they don't want to get expanded to the if russia will have to push back one that the time has come. and now we're having a devastating war in europe. so this is, a lot of this goes back to this failure to establish our cold war post cold war security architecture for europe. and, but i agree with max, i think the idea that we viewed the rush of the loser of the cold war. it kind of put a victor estates in place in the us will dictate all the terms which meant recreating
12:57 am
european architecture, which russia can liquids one where the m, b i n f, treaty one after another. their oldest treaties collapse. the consequence of nato expanding towards the russian borders. so i think if we want to solve this car warrant ukraine, i would see it as a symptom or consequence. on this. i would say the best way to go back to step one, have a look at the security architecture. is really what brings europe having every year, having a larger, larger, gone closer to the head of russia. it doesn't seem like a recipe for stability. and i think you are paying a heavy price for, for neglecting the security discussions we should have, hadn't in europe over the last 30 years, which we never did. and maximum the especially close it out here. last 45 seconds. can europe live with an outcome where it rush, it dictates its own security needs? can europe live with it? i don't think it can, but it will have to eventually,
12:58 am
if there is no other option on the table. and i think, as i mentioned before, other more peaceful options have failed. when the, the west declined to talk about russia security proposals in early december. and that's very unfortunate. but i guess that's the reality of today. yeah, i know you're doing this program ever since those documents one day to one of the united states. i made the program after program after program warning. this is going to happen and you know what gentlemen? it happened. maybe they should have listened to me. ok for once i talk with dad, we have a mouse in moscow. i want to thank you for watching us here to see you next time. remember ah, ah, ah
12:59 am
ah, it's a matter of fact, those in the deep don't, right. 3, q political narrative, they're more you do, let's say, making sure the surprise pragmatically and in this is, i think, clear to you to see this interesting enough, irrespective of being more to the right or more to let, the are not totally clear about that you politic with
1:00 am
ah, with after tough internal opposition, the you announces a tentative deal for a 6 the round of sanctions against russia, including a partial embargo on oil imports. nato no longer plans to observe restrictions on stationing forces in eastern europe going against what has long been a red line for moscow. ukrainian military is notorious as of a battalion attempts to whitewash its image by getting rid of nazi symbols on its uniforms. but recent photos shows some of those emblems are still being war with.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on