Skip to main content

tv   Cross Talk  RT  December 17, 2021 4:30pm-5:00pm EST

4:30 pm
is this winter decimals in half the country's population out to the taliban takeover. foreign donors, cutoff financial aid. humanitarian aid is still getting in, but there is no telling if it will pass the 1st winter test on the taliban government is now urging the u. s. to release $10000000000.00 in afghan offsets which were frozen after the islamist group seize power in august, the taliban foreign minister has asked the world to show mercy and compassion to the country citizens. we discussed the crisis with the un secretary general's deputy representative for afghanis. situation on the ground in afghanistan continues to be difficult and conflicts. and winter has come. we have temperatures dropping below 0 and people are definitely not having enough food, enough warm enough of supplies. so it's
4:31 pm
a difficult situation our teams are reaching out to over $8000000.00 people now providing them with essential food items. and also delivering hundreds of thousands of kids which contain imposition items and which keep people warm at went overall package of h to of constant was estimated at $8000000.00 in and through the next year we will be seeking $4400000000.00 towards the human to in appeal, an additional $3.00 to what is basic human needs. the aid is coming and it's producing an impact. there may more to make a difference for the people on the grounds. however, i've gone, a son is far from meeting the needs of the people more great programs right ahead here in r t find out what showing where you are today after the short as the break season
4:32 pm
with ah, ah hello and welcome to cross stock were all things considered on peter level in terms of security and defense. europe stands at a crossroads. should outdated cold war air structures be maintained like nato in over reliance on the u. s. or should europe define and shoulder responsibilities for its own defense? and what about russia? ah,
4:33 pm
to discuss these issues and more, i'm joined by my guess when decent in oslo. he is a professor at the university of southeastern norway as well as author of the book, great power politics in the 4th industrial revolution. and here in moscow we have maxine schwarzkopf, he is the director of the center for advanced american studies at moscow state institute of international relations. gentlemen, cross up rules and effect, that means you can jump any time you want and i always appreciate it again. let's go to glen 1st here. you know, glen, where does, where does europe stand right now? because, you know, it's 30 years after the cold war. we still have nato, but we have a lot of the cold war agreements like on missiles and defense and things like that are either been thwarted or being reassessed, but this isn't the cold war here. nato is not interested in, in negotiating. missile treaties are not interested in pan european security arrangements. i mean, it seems to me from an outsider, looking in europe is kind of stuck it, it cherishes what was,
4:34 pm
but it didn't seem to work or in the present your thoughts. i agree, it has to be point out that we, we were working towards the pan european security architecture for many years. and so the main breakthrough happened in 1975 was the helsinki course introducing the concept that they know that you're being security should rest on the concept of one side should not expand their security at the expense of the other side. so indivisible security, this agreement was important for pan european security goes to play the foundation for negotiating them of the cold war in 1089. and this will some further develop the 990 with the charter paris for new york. and then finally, by 99 before it was created, a common european security institution, which was always the and again, the key principle throughout this whole time, european secured our agreements was always the concept of indivisible security. however, then in the 1990 s, russia became severely weakened and this is when effectively in the west. we
4:35 pm
realized though, we don't actually have to listen to them anymore. and this is when we began to expand nato, and that has to be a point to how that made the expansion is. therefore, in violation of the principle of indivisible security of breaching every single time european security agreement, we've had it, which has been the foundation for stable europe. and this is why predictably, the stability of europe is pioneer being as basis now. collapsing again. we're going to break the agreements. the security will no longer be there. well, let me maxine, but this is not the 19 nothing. d's has the 2nd decade of the 21st century and rushes saying no and, and what we get from european security structures, primarily nato, is that there's a, i was going to say inclusive, but actually it's an explicit denial of rushes on security interest. and this is
4:36 pm
the, the conundrum that we're in right now because russia saying you have to respect our security too. but nato's it. but we're only, it depends the alliance will, you know, i want to ask both of you. i've never heard of any defensive lines. the constantly is expanding at the expense of others. go ahead back. see, i think there is a broader understanding here in moscow that when we say a, you know, it's really for america press in europe. and therefore, there is little incentives for moscow to sheet any security arrangements on bilateral basis for the nations and rather get washington to talk about this issue seriously. if i were to continue kind of, you know, timeline to decline, provided i think ever since the breakup of the soviet union in the ends of bipolar system. there were 2 major milestones in russia supposed to need one actually, you know, 1290 nice. when there was this honeymoon promissory,
4:37 pm
as mosque wanted to be great in this, you, atlantic security diffusion was talking about a structure and did not work out. and i think it ended with speech by president into, you know, the new wave of the, me to russia, russia, west relations for more conflict with georgia. regular liter mentioned other things and eat in the crisis unit grade in 2014. our seems to was the 3rd wave of major concert between russia to particular that is now i fear, i really don't want for anything bad to happen, but i hear you very much. looks like it's going to be pitching in some other major kind of 3rd crisis. well, you know, like you claiming you started out with these, these pan european, the security structures. mean, why wouldn't that be in europe's interest? i mean, i don't understand it. i mean,
4:38 pm
if you're everyone is recognizing of the security interests of all others, isn't that the best of all possible worlds? because we're in the exact opposite right now. we're only one block of country security is to find the others are denied. i mean, i, i don't understand what, why think europe is so against this. go ahead. no. and then this is the problem. this is the security dilemma. if you deny their opponent security, they will have to act in the way which undermines your security so. so this all and what we have this mantra now in the west where we say we can't do that. that's exactly what put in one spot. but then we, we should be doing that if we allow rush without security and then we can have a stable european security architecture. so again, i think we close ourselves a bit too much in ideology from the 1990s. and now when we talk about the basic foundations of european security agreements, such as, you know, don't expand the security of expense others. we now refer through it us. no, no, that would mean accepting
4:39 pm
a russian stair of influence. so russia should not be allowed to tell you credit what to do and effectively what we've done. this was shifted the narrative because what open european security agreement states is that the security blogs have certain responsibility neighbor shouldn't offer a membership to ukraine. but instead of middle frames, this boy, russia, the nice ukraine, the right to accept this said membership of the problem is a nice way for nato to effectively make itself a 3rd party. and so instead of being the main instigator of instability in europe, it says actually putting itself on the sideline saying, no, no, this is a conflict. 14, for example, russia, ukraine is trying to curb it's sovereignty and we're just standing on the sidelines standing up for security and rights and you know, the do, the, this usual stuff. so i think, i think with that the europeans realize that this con, continue bug. i think you 1st to long made or up to cells in this ideology, which we can get away. i don't the better i can stay with you, glen. i mean, i,
4:40 pm
you know, the, making, the claim that russia is, is taking a sphere of influence. but is that exactly what nato under the leadership of the united states is doing it state out it sphere of influence and is even saying it will expand that fear of influence even further. you mentioned ukraine. i mean, they're can, they're mean they're, um, they're, they're accusing a one side who it's doing something when they're doing it themselves. keep going, glen over all this about seem like projection because in 2014 right before the nato countries to part of that, that cool in ukraine and ukraine and russia, they came to the ear and they pledged like an hour begged to come up please. let's find the trilateral agreement between ear, ukraine, and russia. so no one has exclusively influence over ukraine, like just to partner between 3 entities and a no more series of incidents. and you said no, no, that's not acceptable. so, so you're, you're right to buy a, trying to draw your cranium to nato. it's affecting the making and putting it under us serve influence, which goes against the whole concept of multilateralism,
4:41 pm
which depend european security architecture was supposed to be based upon. so, so no, it is, i think we, we really, we corrupted the language for to, along to the extent of it, it doesn't make any sense. or it might seem, i finding also an oddity that, you know, the, the, it seems to me that nato desires insecurity because an insecurity gives it a reason to expand it. they, we have to secure this, we have to secure that we have to expand. we have to, we bring in more members, but the more they do that, the more they created a very unstable environment. i mean, they're doing exactly the opposite of what they claiming to do. go ahead. maxine, no, what is the matter of this market? you know, the frequency that a liberal, like a market driven economy, you don't have to get involved because there's this invisible arm of the market that does the same. so, you know, what happens in reality that monopolies get to
4:42 pm
a control most of the market. so i think in politics, in similar fashion, you know, when you see, you don't have to go to a single stage and make their own free choices. so you don't have to tack crane back to you, asian, you more or less, you opinions, decide their own faith because there were some nation, i think there is a series degree of tenderness. you know, when, obviously, you know that there are different political movements of pressure on this dominance . and that is that this guy as sovereign choice to join nato or some other was from your organization that is obviously not interested in russia in sturbridge, the russian what ill again will say, will speak to that because, um, you know, we, we were used, you start out talking about han europe, ian security, mean you, you, you, guardy gave the historical reference in 2004 to 2014,
4:43 pm
written in basically saying, you know, we, every one needs to sit down and look at every one's others interest. and then the, the west said no that we, i don't wanna use victoria newlands words on this program. we're a family program, but you know what she said about the you negotiate in a, a settlement that would be a continent would accommodate everyone in ukraine? well listen to the problem with the nato. it frames all its strategic interest in the language of values. so this power in just by saying these are old values. so just seeking to found democracy, whatever it makes, very problematic. because if you make a basic fundamental argument that you know us a stable security architecture needs to respect this here to both sides, then suddenly this has been completely new, meaning in this ideology of nato, because now you're saying, oh no where we want, what process demanding is of the compromise on their values. so russia seek sphere influence. we seek democracy. so this whole concept of compromise and diplomacy and
4:44 pm
it goes out the window. but again, that, that the reason why there was such a demand for this on this, because now with self changed, i often make the point that the nato could be a source of stability to dismantle. that's to go back to what it was, which was the status quo power. he wasn't defensive alliance and just sitting there . but what happened in $99.00 is the began to expand and also invading other countries without the un monday as well. this is when later became a revisionist, our made would go back to its original mission. just sit there as a status quo power go back to being a defensive alliance. them, it could be a source of stability. mike's point about them might actually not endure any more because no one is threatening to invade nato. so if it's an offensive alliance, it would lose its purpose and it might not loss very well. he, it also, if i can chime in before we go to the break here, there's about 5000 um salaried employees in brussels that work for nato. this is
4:45 pm
a very lucrative a career for many, many people, and not to speak of the army producers as well. this is a good gig or you can use the word gripped. i'll leave it up to the viewer to decide or a gentleman. i'm going to jump in here, we're going to go to a short break. and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on european security. stay with our tea. ah, ah, ah, failure to allow bond markets to reflect to market forces has resulted in a bifurcation in the economy where the most corrupt are rewarded for committing crimes. j. p. morgan being a prime example. and if you have morals or ethics you're penalized. if you're not out there still stealing a loading, then you're going to be almost. and that's america today. it's just that
4:46 pm
i mean with ah ah,
4:47 pm
welcome back to cross stock were all things are considered on people bill, this is the home addition to remind you. we're discussing european security with go back to maxime here in moscow, and at the very end of the 1st part of the program, glenn pointed out the nato and it's mission is changed. it is now much more in tune with values. can you explain to our audience because i don't understand what do so called values in geopolitical interests, insecurity have with each other because i don't think they have anything to do with each other. and i think that's the problem. go ahead, maxine, well, obviously, i mean there's always this quote, a little dilemma and we can debate how manufacturers it really is a base, a strategy of the political military organization. but i think after the end of the
4:48 pm
cold war, there were a few france, i'm few ways to the ball and but you know, if it wanted to preserve as like, i mentioned in the beginning of our problem, the american military presence in europe. the only way it could have stayed was to enlarge in terms of church work and you know, except more members and also kind of enlarge politically, try to in don't more political areas. but most importantly, there's gotta be a common enemy because any political military organization has to plan and me. so i think in writing ways, this idea that you will be a lot to protect democracy. you know, you love it was really play well and then it all the sudden there was this notion of that need to have to be fighting international churches and all these
4:49 pm
resources are spent on that mission. but that, you know, rational threats. so a was back into the end or of the need to policy that enabled the requisition to accept members. and so saying what even present in my call some time ago was a brain dad or something. not the nature is brain dead. keep going. yeah . just like the same, you know, it was right in order to get back in life it needed an enemy and the idea. busy busy of the united states, to have china, to bring china to europe as their me. and if you need to play, play out quite a lot of content on change money and wanted to get, you know, deals with china in economy, jack, knowledge and russia. frunner please aren't really well and all the small faces
4:50 pm
that common neighborhoods will be faulty or some post on the c bring their office sort of trauma to the agenda of me to the united states from that place. well, i think with the major trans atlantic agenda containing and detroit, russia, well, glenn, at the end of the day it's all about a reason for the united states to say in europe. ok, i mean, because, and then of course we need to, we have the enemy, it was already mentioned in moscow. ok. it's very, very convenient. but it's kind of laziness of the mind. i mean, it is not really looking at the, the, the geo political reality of the present because in europe, in its current security format, with nato. i mean, it's going to push up against russia. a conflict is always possible when they do that. but it, that's what nato is going to be. it's constantly going to be searching for monsters to slay, and that inherently is unstable. but the americans are perfectly fine with it
4:51 pm
because at the end of the day, a lot of people will probably disagree with me. but they do it, does it really low cost at the end of the day? and so they how they have a unsinkable aircraft carrier in the western part of the region from continent and at low cost. they can project power and that's what it really gets all down to. and again, as i said at the very end of the 1st part of the program, you can dismiss the in the arms manufacturers and budgets and things like that. i mean, it's quite cynical, but i think, you know, most of the time in geo politics, the most cynical thing is the most obvious thing. go ahead, glen. well then this was a key discussion to how to worse them of the cobra. go good, much made this argument several times as well, but if the u. s. and the soviet union would end this confrontation, they would have to recognize that will come of the cost of power as well. that is because the whole system which gave us so much power was structured according to this mutual confrontation. and this is one of the reasons why i want to so the unit
4:52 pm
collapsed. the youth did not have to the soul. it's secure and architecture instead, as you pointed out, to have an incentive and who use a nato as a hedge, a monic tool, which means to keep your divided because it, because in a year divided and you have the russians which become marginalized and less of a role, and then you have the, the rest of the europeans will become dependent on the united states for security. so for him, i think that's where it, why also the interest between the u. s. changes at some point because then you have to recognize that by keeping the continent divided in this way and not having independence being secure. 6 secured architecture, the continental give divided the week and become less and less relevant in the world. so we want to look at their own problems. but for the us again, this is, you know, how the company that becomes dependent on the us. the other half is marginalized. so i think so i think it's, we would need the reform, but to have the requirements,
4:53 pm
we need to address the challenges which, which, which were being discussed here is the 30 years ago today. and we use this jargon and democratic for marrying instead of actually talking about it because because i mean, if you, if europe is, is being used as a hedge, a monic tool. but i agree with that, but doesn't that europe limited options? i mean, because of it's dependency. i me again, you know, we have 30 years after the cold war of the us. this is dictating what europe security policy should be. certainly they're trying to do with energy here. i can see how it makes europe stronger. more dependency makes it more irrelevant. can you address that real quick? yeah, no, i agree, but change in june a bit. now that you're talking about strategic me away from the us, talking about european foreign. i don't think it can be achieved, but the only way you have a problem saying, you know, they have their own army,
4:54 pm
which then means it implies less relies nato less influenced by the u. s. i think there are a lot of people who are noticing that it is a very to take but in order to have peace in europe, we do need a keep. the americans have close friends, but the not the dominant relationship. well, i mean, maxine, could it be any other way? i mean it's very messianic that with the, the american approach here, i mean it's either had gemini or nothing. i, i, i don't don't see partnerships or they use that language all the time. but it's not a partnership of equals. it is, it's a hedge, a monic and, and rushes on the short end of the stick here. let me ask you, maxine, i mean, what in russia for russia, from russia's perspective, what would a pan european security structure look like? because the russians have offered it over the last 20 years, a number of times. can you explain? can you explain to where we were, what a leon security would look like?
4:55 pm
oh, absolutely. i think 1st and foremost, it would be your duty or russia. happily it would be your orders respectful of russia, national interest and security concerns, and that extending nature to most soviet state outside the whole case ukraine, georgia, and more and others in particular are the, obviously some of the red lines and must always and will have all looking at them as for anything other than that to be moscow in again, negotiated and to be goes, you just don't pretend that these things don't matter. but if you're looking at it and again hearing loss, i see there's a lot of the sense that whatever you do or some medical or kids might interest medication. but also that could be the case that the american political has lost
4:56 pm
strategic force 5, any indeed. and their interest to me took into china and russia is anything about them or an interest. but if you are broken rush, you know, from on the red line in terms of security, it is exactly the type of reaction we're going to see. and then don't have to be surprised why all of a sudden russia, instead of our solution is part of the problem. that seems to be much put me in a plan. they the tragic thing here. i mean a, because words matter words have impact here. and, you know, i see this inability to se seriously and honestly negotiate because you have denigrated, you're the opposite side. so much russia gate obviously didn't help. we were all worried that rush gate would bleed into policy. it certainly has under the biding ministration. you have a lot of the b team from obama. they still have scores to settle. i'm thinking of
4:57 pm
someone like victoria new jake sullivan, people like this. and even even if it became an absolute necessity to have negotiations, they can't because they can't on ring. the bells of the rhetoric that they've been using for a good part of a decade now address that issue. well, obviously the ross has been demonized so far. now, we don't even talk about russian are we talking about? so there is no discussion about russia secured the interest personality, you know, what is it thinking or, and assuming that has also serving so it strikes a lot. but it also has been said though, that the acute problem now exactly is because instead of having to have the main loyalty has to be to nato natal, call it the key, the key money that goes on and on again. and this all across the prospect of stability in your, for example, you know, the simple things like in the ration period and, you know,
4:58 pm
mobile spreading nuclear weapons, they have very clear all the nuclear weapons. so nuclear states, see the us put in germany and you can reference and belgium italy, netherlands, turkey and, but it says, this is made nuclear sharing. so it's okay. i makes nato a rolled military famous treaty was supposed to prevent 1st strikes. it will find the 19th and due to all the pm's, a post, the americans withdrawing from intervals and wants to meet of the nato asset that they're being federal. we have to have the natal solidarity. so now the world for it. and now we just talk about how paranoid rush heaping exactly the same argument arguments, but there being only a few years earlier, and it's the same with enough trade in america, unilaterally withdrawal as well. we need maybe some of that, right? so we'll have to repeat the monitor that actually was russia who was being the mileage right. let me ask you a quick question. what are we in here?
4:59 pm
of all the treaties that you just mentioned? russia initially the withdrawal of any of those? no, no rush, all the grid a baby am i and so it's, it's, but again, we will, but these are your be and then or global security of yours. but the problem is our loyalty is always primarily to made the like a military book in a loyalty from security. that's what we're we heard on this program here. that's all the time we have gentlemen. and i think my get them out slow and here in moscow and i think our be, we're still watching us here at r t c in exxon. and remember across cycles, ah ah ah
5:00 pm
ah, for new german language shuttle r t d is embroiled in a legal dispute cells. europe's media regulate her questions. it's broadcast license r t management however stressed the license was obtained info, compliance with european law all to a head on the program. russia publishes a list of proposals to nato for maintaining security with the countries deputy foreign minister saying the bowl is no and the alliance's courts when it.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on