Skip to main content

tv   Cross Talk  RT  January 12, 2022 5:30am-6:01am EST

5:30 am
now it will be even less of a concern for koby, particularly as the u. s. administer the by the administration's coven narrative, narrative is falling apart as we speak, much less concerned for that than the economy that a runaway inflation then the, the supply chain problems, the lack of goods in the stores, the inability to even purchase a new car. you know, i think these things are even going to be a more concert. it's a big problem for democrats going into the mid term elections. well, if he's going to run on the economy, he's going to have a tough row to hoe. in fact, no matter what the democrats run on in 2022, they're going to have a difficult time of it. obviously, the inflation, which they claimed was transitory. and then said, well, actually it's not transitory is having a huge effect. we're seeing the effect of shutting down the economy, which is that the supply lines have been shut down. you're seeing a lot of stores empty in the united states and people are noticing it. in fact, trending on twitter. i think the other day was people taking pictures at the empty
5:31 am
shelves in their stores. i st. disappointing employment numbers that just came out this past month. so i think, you know, biden as usual is kind of living in his own dream world. yeah, that's it for me. next crossed hope gets on to the week of crunch security talks between russia and the west. offer that keep you updated for the rest of this wednesday, andrew pharma and the coming guy was then kevin, no, it's for the evening k a r t a for me though, calling bright. thanks for watching. ah . what else? so the wrong one. i'll just don't move any world. yes, to shape out disdain becomes the african and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground. ah,
5:32 am
ah. hello and welcome to crossing were all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle. the russia us toxin geneva were highly anticipated, but expectations of a positive outcome were low, very low rushes. chief negotiator says americans under estimate the gravity of the situation, these are ominous words. what will be the cost of this failure? cross ducking, the geneva negotiations. i'm joined by my guess, married a sheepskin london. she is a columnist with the independent on foreign affairs and of the south. we have earns
5:33 am
read. he is a political analyst, as well as a guest expert at the russia international affairs council, an in budapest, we cross the george m u l. a. he's upon castro to gaggle which can be found on youtube and locals are crossing roles in effect. that means you can jump in any time you want. i always appreciate, mary. let me go to you 1st here. i'm titling this program, geneva deadlock, i suppose even that is a positive spin here. i mean, what was the point of the meeting and what is the outcome as you define it? go ahead. marion london. well, i think it's probably fair to say that there was deadlock as the outcome, but i don't think that that's necessary quite as negative as it might seem. because i think the very fact that the meeting was held at a time of what is really quite high tension between the u. s. nature on the one hand and russia on the other. i think that is a degree of progress. and i don't think that the actual state of deadlock was quite
5:34 am
as negative as the word deadlock, which suggest it that it seems to me that things are sorted. it doesn't mean break down. deadlock means they're stuck. it doesn't mean things of broken down and that nobody is coming back to talk again. so i think what it looks hot is probably not as bad as it might have been. okay, and it may go to george in budapest, but ga, the us and russia have been talking about these things for 30 years. okay. i mean, i'm all for talk, but i'm for substance as well. i mean, the russians presented one document to nato. want to the united states, essentially, they were treaties and they, they want them to be legally binding and they want him to be public here. so i have to agree with mary. i mean talking is ok, but this is what the u. s. and it's nato allies are the best dad. go ahead. i agree with you. yes, it's true. talking is good. as long as you're talking, you're not shooting. the problem is that russia has both fool with these
5:35 am
sets of demonic. and there's nothing new about them. and it's something that they feel very strongly about, and they feel that they have to be addressed and they can't just be what would be farmed off forever with going to so. so let's build some mutual confidence measures. and then we'll have a greater transparency about the military exercises because that sort of stuff. that's just the staple of nature, russian relations. russia is very, very insistent upon no further nato expansion, very concerned about them. and therefore, they want to see some kind of action on the part of the united states and they so which would show that they have no interest into the native sanchez, if it's just simply going to talk, then ultimately i think we're still going to go on trying to corral as many of the
5:36 am
former republics with us as intimate as possible. so maybe tomorrow, but next week or the week after we go to internet here. i mean 30 years. yeah. the, the, the alliance need to alliance has doubled inside more than doubled in size. here, after all this talk here, i mean, let me quote, the russians, deputy foreign minister. he says, the west is lost, the art of deal making and has been reduced to threats and sanctions. i mean, that seems a very fair characterization to me. oh yes ma'am. this is, this meeting has been long. oh, would you and we see over the years, as you mentioned in process. yes, this has been an ongoing and ongoing debates between russia and the last name. sure . and so maybe talk about 99 seats that we can't really talk about now. russia
5:37 am
national security interests 19 ninety's because there was no one in russia. so articulate those demands. are we talking about past past 2 decades? ever since the foreign concepts replace the concept of 2000 russia as in reasserting herself and what he forwards a list of demands regards to security and nato time. and time again has been ignoring as if we look at the old ways of nature. large, nancy, nancy, much, 9 ne, in 20 its hands. miss others as infrastructure and check, republican poland washers and major major issue during the ocean was ministration as well. i assume this is definitely the right sign. arise time for this period, mary. i mean, a russia, it said that nato should no longer expand east, were particularly with ukraine in georgia. but let's all, that's all be frank here. and ukraine really is already defacto. a member of nato
5:38 am
and the u. s. is continuing to send arms, their army of greater lethal a capacity here. i mean, the russian say, we don't want to see nato expand to include ukraine. but if they, they move these types of systems in, we're getting a reversed cuban missile crisis, aren't we? well, i've been very interested that well, at this, this new term that has appeared, which talks about ukraine not being in nato, but nato being in ukraine. and i've, i've actually been surprised, and this is not really anything new, but in the, in the past for a franco government in, in ukraine. what we saw was not just joint training exercises between nato and ukrainian forces. ringback and supplies of equipment to make it compatible with, with, with nato. what we also saw were nato officials,
5:39 am
actually serving in quite high advisory positions in the defense ministry in care. and when i 1st heard about that, which was, i mean, it must have been 56 years ago. i was really surprised about that because i knew there was european union involvement in the economy in ukraine. but the idea that there was such defense involvement by nato. and i thought that was very questionable. and, but i also think you have to look at it. you have to say, well, whether it's nato in ukraine or whether it's ukraine in nato. the fact is that i think the americans are on record. this administration is on record. as saying that the u. s. nato would not fight for you cry. right. and got to me
5:40 am
means that nato membership is not. it's certainly not imminent. and you go back to 2002008 the bucharest summit, whether it's this huge disagreement between the americans on the one hand and some europeans, but or, or being in favor of ukraine and ga, joining, joining nature. and on the other hand, france, germany and some other nathan members who were absolutely again, and they fudged the final statement to leave it open. whether that would be membership or not. and the fact is that in those he is 1213 years since there's actually fees no progress on membership for those $2.00 countries. and i don't think the will be because that split still exists. and right. yeah. been, i mean, george with it. that's a distinction without a difference. ok because and, and my disagreeing with mary, but it's a distinction without a difference because the threat level in the way the russian see it is only being
5:41 am
in hands here. so, i mean, we can have deadlock and we can, you know, talk, talk, talk. but the russians are saying, this threat is, is imminent here. that's why keep using, you know, the cuban missile crisis in reverse with kennedy told khrushchev get those missiles out, or we'll do it ourselves. i think it's apt, george. yes, i think so. and the way it works with the united states and nato is that even if something is of a now all of tomorrow and next year or in 5 years time they, they just going to go on pushing and pushing and pushing, which is what they've been doing aah with ukraine. i mean, not roll. de facto nato membership was part of the e u association agreement, but initially, overture refused to sign, but which are, you know, his b as he successes this side. and so that what it's already baked in that
5:42 am
ukraine becomes a de facto member of her nature. but the problem is also that they could well be some kind of a provocation. some, some incident, whether it's a grain. oh, using force against the people of the dumbass where the, you know that the, somebody, they told us military who do something provocative on the russian border and russia will be forced to intervene. this is something that they took a great deal about that they, the ukraine or the americans might stage some kind of a provocative incidence to trigger a russian intervention. and once you trigger a russian intervention, then the resistance to having your grading nato will disappear because then suddenly why god, we're, we've got the horrible russian menace threatening all of europe. we have to do something for ukraine, so you crave will then become accepted by everybody as
5:43 am
a member of nato. also the staging, some kind of a provocative incident. well, i mean are areas that, i mean, ukraine could become part of nato one day, but it will not be the same geographical size that it is now. ok. i think you know what, my, my, my point is here because it's not expansion into you ukraine. it is to, to extinguish a threat that is in ukraine. there is a distinction there. go ahead, ernst. well, certainly it's a, it's a, it's a tricky. it's a tricky issue with russia will actually cross over the water and go into boston research and see crane on one hand, the russians brushes representatives always spoken about sovereign c respectful. so, rinsing territorial integrity, but when it comes to the saying that rushes interest, and especially for those who have those who are part of what's called what's known as russian. well, i sent you seen examples of 2000 nights, the russian ga,
5:44 am
stand off where russians were prepared to cross the border. and 2014 rushes from in operation station in west unification in the east. and if we don't want to don't bass, what we need to keep in mind is that you have a certain amount of people that will rush past with russia is not allowing hunger reason poems, similar initiatives. i mean having carried out by poem elsewhere in europe. i handed out rotten passports to the those insurance i have to jump in here i we have to how do we have to go to hard break and after that hard break, we'll continue our discussion on the geneva negotiation. stay with our
5:45 am
ah ah ah ah ah, ah, a ah for price fixing is the problem, if you want a free market, you've got to let the market be free, you can have half of the market free. and then half the market fixed, do you end up with the problem that we have today?
5:46 am
now we have e cigarettes. i just heard that it was a healthy alternative to cigarettes. and do we trust tobacco companies with their message that these new products are actually going to reduce? are these, these sugars are making the tobacco up into the workforce? i emotions medieval institutions. and then i go to like technology and the combination of these 3 very you could say, historically distinct seeks fixes within our psycho physical makeup. i have rendered us pretty dangerous list to ourselves to, to the planet. ah,
5:47 am
welcome back to cross stock where all things are considered. i'm peter labelle, to remind you we're discussing the geneva negotiations. ah. okay, let's go back to mary in london. let's change gears a little bit, mary. what could we possibly expect after, you know, after russia gate bled in to policy? i mean, what american administration is going to make, quote unquote concessions to the russians, because it be a tend to appeasement and it's munich, and it's all these things. we hear all the time. i mean, you know, when i, you know, when i look at the negotiators there, i mean, they intentionally wanted to talk a different game completely because their hands are tied. i mean, you know, the way the, the, the trump administration was treated, we're making in treaties to russia. there's this administration isn't gonna go down that path because joe, by knows there's a lot of bins around. ok. they don't love joe biden. i mean, if they,
5:48 am
if joe biden breaks the rules cross is a lie and he can go to mary your thoughts. i wouldn't be quite so pessimistic as you because i think one of the young, one of the differences between the biden has only been in office for a year. and we had 4 years of trump before when trump's almost the so element of his foreign policy was to improve relations with russia. and the whole of the american security establishment. and the whole of the democratic party refused absolutely to let him do that. and yet, it seems to me that almost the moment biden came in, he's almost been doing in practice what trump wasn't allowed to do. he held a very early summit with the oh, with with porton. and they followed up by establishing all sorts of working groups, including a working group on cyber warfare,
5:49 am
which was completely extraordinary because that, that, that, that, that, that particular term, the very suggestion that the americans of the russians might talk about cyber under trump. those all hell was let loose. that was the last thing that anybody was going to happen. and yet it was one of the things that was named that went almost a mentioned as a result of the of the geneva summit. so it seems to me that, and you can look at the withdrawal from afghanistan to that this was something that trump had been trying and trying to do, but he couldn't do it. he couldn't get it past the political establishment in washington or the military establishment. biden managed to do that. yes, it was chaotic. yes, though. it problems with it. he did it. and it seems to me that he's pursuing quite slowly, quite quietly. the very same thing that trump was trying to do, which was to talk to russia, to keep doors open and to try to make progress. and it was very interesting to me
5:50 am
practically, on the eve of these geneva tall, the 1st or 2nd, 2nd grade level. that from the white house it was said that they thought that russia needed something diplomatic space over ukraine. and i mean, i've taught that now for, for the, for the best out of 6 years. and that russian needs to be, isn't diplomatic space. i the americans by nato, for that to be any useful outcome in ukraine. and it seems to me that i'd appreciate. okay, well, and george did the, does this administration or any administration want a good outcome? i mean, again, i'm after 30 years, so he marries right. talking about cybersecurity, that's great, but it doesn't change the calculus on the ground. i mean, again, that's just, you know, talking about issues on the margins. again, i want to remind everyone, this summit was based on 2 documents. the russians had presented one to nato and
5:51 am
one to the united states. and you know, we can talk about all these other things on the side, which are all nice and fine, but it doesn't change the calculus on the ground. and it isn't addressing the core issues that russia has made very, very public, very often. and pub, of too many different officials, different for i mean, they're very serious about this because we have the russian negotiator saying that the americans are just simply not serious people when it comes to these core demands. i agree with you because one only has to listen to entity blink and the press conference last friday when he went on this extraordinary and to russian tirade leveling every kind of accusation, every single, like in the book against russia. oh, they're wanting terrorism. they using chemical weapons, especially political opponents on european soil. they're, you know,
5:52 am
they've attack no, georgia, ukraine, an on and on on. and then you have to think what, what, what does the united states and nato really want? i think that quite happy to cause russia headaches. i mean, they, they think, but what they've done in ukraine is actually very nice. will that be a relatively low cost for the wes? they've given russia headache. why should they tried to help russia sold this problem? if they really wanted the help brush and sold the problem, they could do very easily, they could get on to the landscape and say, look them in because you know, it's clear what you have to do in order to comply with the bench the chords. please do so, and then this whole thing will be over. that's what they want. they, they like the fact that this, this will continues. it's a very, very painful for russia and whatever russia tries to go to read down very badly
5:53 am
on russia. so i don't see any real upsides for the bike ministration to do very much, to help out roger with the exception of what they call the strategic stability to nuclear weapon. and that's an issue. i think there, there is a kind of a us interest in restraining the sort of the arms race when it comes to intercontinental ballistic missile. that's a separate issue from major to expand your they americans are very happy just just to make life difficult. rush, well, you know, in the same theme here and we go to earns thin and novice out the is. we have nato steve sultan berg. he said right before the summit, he said on nato states are fully prepared for a quote, new armed conflict in europe. i mean, what kind of language is that going into a summit? ok to de escalate tensions and all of that. and what is it,
5:54 am
what does he mean by that? what i mean, how do you think he's defining what a military conflict is? because nato is already said, and the united states separately said, they're not going to intervene in ukraine. if there is a confrontation with russia. i mean, it seems to me as usual from the, the nato chief suttonberg, this empty words. but it's loose rhetoric at the same time. go ahead, ernst. the new novi sat, i mean they certainly, it doesn't seem like they have the house and all it is a stone bag, said one thing. and what is it quite the other by this it was an american troops on the ground. the cran events rush invasion which they keep talking about is not on the table. and britain's secretary of state for defense and wallace asset. a similar thing as well. if not, you grant and isn't a member states, and it is very unlikely that anyone's going to send troops, archie grant change russia. however, it's clear that biden's administration really wants to be close to europe if trump
5:55 am
didn't really care much for your very muscular strength. and it would everything in every way could biden's administration. ms. john nash, i'm mentioned that last year that of ministration sees europeans as these children who need to be protected. they need the u. s. pastor nash and are going to be present in europe and you see are for sure. and just nuggets are going to ukraine. very unlikely that they would. okay, mary, would i want to go back to russia's core demands of that were a lead up to the summit. here is that if the united states and other made the nato countries continue to supply lethal weapons, the ukraine, we have to expect because it's been tell a ground for months now, rochelle will react, and that is why we had this meeting. ok, i think the russians are saying, you know, we put it on the board, we've told you exactly how you feel. we know that for the past 30 years,
5:56 am
you have no recognition of our legitimate security interest. we're stepping up in public. we want the world to know. this is why we have tensions here. and if you go over the line, we're going to react sanctions. you know, who cares. ok. because our national security is saying is it, is it when it's the challenge in an existential way, the russian is going to react to it? no one should be surprised. that's my major take away from this summit. don't be surprised if we go over your red line because you're challenging our red line, mary. i you think that at the moment it's a bit early to talk about people crossing other people's red lines. but i do think that the in the documents, the to treaty documents that russia handed to nato and to the us. that they're actually very, very interesting because there are ideas that wouldn't necessarily mean not the u. s. is not going to accept everything that's in those documents,
5:57 am
maybe almost nothing. what's in those documents? i think nato is almost secondary here. and i think russia appreciates that they have to deal with the united states. and i think the united states understand that too. and i think the stolen bug in particular, in the last 2 years has been very much out on a limb. i mean, if we go back to afghanistan again, the nato simply wasn't. it wasn't consulted. no arrangements were made with nato for the if the, for the ultimate withdrawal from a, from afghanistan, even though it was in name and nato led operation, nato was ignored. and i think the same thing is happening over ukraine and russia. you're dealing with in very traditional terms between the us and russia. but i also think that in the past, the been a lot of questions from not just united states,
5:58 am
but from specialists and from politicians in western europe, in particular saying, we don't understand russia. we don't understand what does russia want? and my view of these to treaty documents is that nobody know, can complained that they don't know what russia wants. it spelt out there in black and white. that is what russia wants. and i would say that is an opening position. russia wouldn't expect to get everything that it's, it's a demanding illustrated documents, but i think they need to be studied because nobody can complain anymore. they don't know what russia we not. okay. george. 20 seconds will. did they actually care what russia wants? 20 seconds, george. i think they, those attitude, the russia has been you on, on the soviet union. you do not deserve the respect that we, according to the soviet union. we have found that nato and we will go on trying to
5:59 am
expand nato. not only will do we want to get you granted, georgia and we want to go into the caucasus and then for the far east. and i think that, and there's nothing that you can do about that plate. his attitude and russia said, yes, we're not going to accept it. and there is something we can do on that note. there we've run out of time many. thanks them i guess in london, budapest and no be sad. and thanks to our viewers are watching us here at r t. see you next time and remember process rules. ah, with join me every thursday on the alex simon. sure. i'll be speaking to guess in the world. politics, sport, business,
6:00 am
i'm show business. i'll see you then. ah, a has always turned to the latest round of moscow security with the west rushes envoy to washington wounds. the remarks by us officials are an attempt to scatter the negotiations. also this our cut your past due start jumps. if you want to stable this winter, a major british energy company feels the heat for it supplies while fuel costs rocket. i think i've completely lost the floor. i went out she paid really for you didn't our in house because we're trying to get the close down thing . i what else i said today i will talk talent, quit the b, b c this time.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on