Skip to main content

tv   Cross Talk  RT  January 25, 2022 10:00pm-10:31pm EST

10:00 pm
use the world according to amazon, or financial survival guide. i don't buy, hey, my guys only teachers. that's not an amazon to friday. that's the last time i buy it from the teacher. so franco watch kaiser reporting a president of corporation, said he's country will withdraw troops of nato in eastern europe. if there's a conflict between russia and ukraine, they come to the west rum. so pitts military presence in the region over a legit plans by moscow to invade its neighbor. us delivers a 3rd batch of military aid to ukraine and is considering boosting its military presence on nato's eastern frontier. washington already has over 8000 troops on done by the pentagon. there's a code then more integrated resolution to
10:01 pm
pursue joe by dennis court on a hot, mike insulting a journalist who's been trying to get answers from the president over record inflation and prime ministerial partying police in the u. k. launch a probe in to potential lockdown breaches by forest johnson's government. it follows a series of revelations about who's a shin diggs in downing street. those the headlines that fixed am moscow time feel free to head over to r t dot com for more on those stories. but i'll be back here with another log in about half an hour with
10:02 pm
ah hello and welcome to cross doctor. all things are considered on peter lavelle. lines have been drawn and positions made clear. after 2 weeks of high level talks, russia and nato remain poles apart on how to define pan european security moving forward. moscow is presented, it's vision in writing while washington falls back on our cave. cold war cliches. ah, discuss these issues and more. i'm joined by my guess, brian becker in washington. he is the executive director of the answer coalition. in new york. we have john rowley. he is a political animals, as well as a former foreign correspondent in russia and in london, we cross to unreal, consult that he is a founder of a consulting in a foreign affairs analyst,
10:03 pm
a gentleman crosstalk rules and effect. that means you can jump any time you want, and i always appreciate it. let's go to brian 1st in washington. i sent him an introduction where we had 2 weeks of high level of everyone's positioning. i think what we know, and what we now know is how, how much both sides disagree with each other on certain particular issues. li, nato expansion over the weekend. we have this story come out of the u. k, where the u. s. are confirmed without sourcing it in the public anyway, that russia has designed for regime change and again, no details provided at the end of last week i talked to a lot number of experts and too much to my surprise. so someone were a little bit more optimistic than usual that yes, there hasn't been a breakthrough, but maybe that's a good thing. and then we have this over the weekend, and now we have evacuations from embassies here where we stand after 2 weeks. go ahead. well, i don't think we stand in a far different place than we were at the beginning of this period 2 weeks ago. i'm
10:04 pm
in washington, d. c. what an uproar over the evacuation of the u. s. embassy, and you have, i mean, the, the sense here is a great for voting that the russian invasion is imminent. that the u. s. government is taking, you know, dramatic measures to save american personnel. a real hype has been created. and at the same time, if you look at the washington post news paper, front page headlines, binds speech, elicits uproar. well, what's the uproar? is it that the u. s. in russia, the 2 largest nuclear powers may be on the verge of conflict? no, it's because biden happen to say that there might not be a major u. s. war against russia. in the event that there was a quote minor incursion into ukraine. so a bind is in a corner right now if he wanted to step back. and he said, look, let's, let's calm things down. let's not like play chicken, right,
10:05 pm
right there in ukraine. i don't think he has any political rome. i mean, the closed ranks within the u. s. ruling establishment echoed by the media. whether it's m s, n, b, c, or fox news, it's the same chorus and, and the question is why, what, as, what has actually happened? russia has a mass troops, allegedly inside of russia. russia has said in writing, look, this is a red line couldn't set at the end of the year. press conference, this is a red line. we will not let you crane. we will not let our border area be a staging ground for advanced weapons with missiles whose flight time might be 2 or 3 minutes to their targets in russia, or to allow ukraine to be permanently in nature. so that kind of scenario can play out. that's a red line, we're not going to let that happen. and so, and as he also said with the u. s. possibly of what russia do this at the us mexican border, or the us canadian border, of course not. so again,
10:06 pm
this is an american created crisis, but one where russia actually does have to respond and actually make clear that this, in fact, is unacceptable. long term and short term for russia's national interest. you know, john went looking at the media drumbeat here and the gaff that we, well that was just mentioned by biden. i mean by just let the mass drop for a 2nd. the stop you talked about one of the scenarios here. he got off script. this is what he does here, but one should expect that russia has its own scenario as well. but i mean, the media seems to be the cheerleader as usual. you know, i always get worried when something's bipartisan in america because it's usually something bad like war. and this, the kind of illogical sequencing that the, this is the context of all you know, to protect ukraine. we have to send more weapons, maybe troops. but if you do that,
10:07 pm
then russia feels threatened and then you get this, you get this cascade effect. i mean, doesn't anybody see that? and on top of it, all you claim isn't a member of nato in the u. s. and its allies have made more or less clear that they're not going to fight for ukraine. so they're fighting over something that the leave the object that they're trying to protect, they're putting, making it more vulnerable. don't they see that? go ahead. joe biden has brought nato to the edge of a catastrophe. potential catastrophe in the case of a war, just forget the nukes for a 2nd. if a, if a conventional war would break out a russian. but probably when in about a few weeks, i mean, they just have to come in from the north like a dagger and hit in hit key. i mean, they could just launch missile missiles and the key of and take out didn't military and political infrastructure. you can, it can be done, maybe in a matter of days. so nato will lose in a conventional war. but 1st, let's try go back 2nd. why answer the question, why is all happening? and the reason is because joe biden, his administration,
10:08 pm
is an absolute catastrophe. absolute catastrophe on the foreign policy front, on the domestic front domestically we have an economic crisis, the worst it 50 years. runaway inflation poverty is also increasing rapidly. a lot of discontent at home. of course the, on the foreign policy front, the worst foreign policy disaster. since 19 vietnam, so it's kind of stand obviously. so this is a man who's ministration. it's one disaster after another. he's got to deflect the popular discontent away from all these problems by your own admission. that's a losing proposition. i mean, this is what so paradoxical about it, because even by being quoting a pro active and showing strength of projecting strength, and it will end up in catastrophe, i would agree with you. it would only would any kind of conflict be very, very short. ok. and would also entail, if it were any kind of occupation would be minimal if any. ok, because of the technology. i mean,
10:09 pm
let me go to you. i looted in the my 1st question to brian about this ridiculous story. coming out of the u. k. about course resume chain, except for not the americans doing it this time, but russia, which is completely nonsensical, even the figures that they have mentioned are looted lucas, even to consider them. why did this come out? why now? and why is the u. k. care so much about this, go ahead. in my opinion, i think are you kind of trying to find its place in the world after leaving the you are global britain is trying to support as it was doing all of these years on united states and american stroke goals, whatever it might be. so ukraine is the easiest part for the global britain to raise its voice, because we know that it's shipped. oh, hi. with a total foss. uh, i'm leaving express in this article a few months ago in prospect magazine. so yes,
10:10 pm
i think that united kingdom is trying to manage the constant for such actions like united states aiding the legal aid to ukraine in order to portray and justify these actions regarding the fact that they are instead of bringing peace, a possibility of peace. also finding some sort of a acceptable solutions full for both sides is just adding fuel to already very know the situation in the region. so also by referring to all the panelists, i would say that it is a little walk joe biden wants to have and it is more of the decline of the united states from spectrum on a position in the world. it's trying to portray it so and it's ability to strike is influenced in the world. so in this region,
10:11 pm
regardless the fact that a cure to others that it might need to the nuclear war, which low same person wants to have. but i think is a part of the psychological, informational, as we know, it's those, mary. a recent polls suggest the british citizens believe that russia will invite you crate in 2020. so we already see the repercussions of this cycle for a manufactured consent here. here, brian, because you know, one of the things i find very odd is, you know, the, that the head of nato sells and berg and then you have other leaders that are boosters for nature. the only thing about nato unity, nato unity. well, the more they talk about it, the more i have to wonder if that unity is really kind of been because once the 1st missile is fired, then the sanction start up. and if you look at how the sanctions could be applied,
10:12 pm
the biggest loser will be europe. it won't be russian because russia used to sanctions. it's been 8 years now. a sanctions, me since 2014, i can tell you, the average person hasn't felt that in russia. i live here. ok. but europeans will throw in rush out of the switch system. so is russia going to give oil and gas for free? i mean, if there's no switch system, how are they going, how would the europeans able to pay for it? they can, has anybody bought this through? right. that's such an important point. peter, about europe. and you know, there's the europe of the establishment, and then there's the europe of the people. and when you think about what's happened in the last 20 years, the u. s. cancel the abm treaty and put and has said that that was really the beginning of the new cold war, the anti ballistic missile treaty that was cancelled in 2002. the only reason to do that is the signal that the u. s. or nato want to gain a 1st strike capability against russia. so is very destabilizing. and then he was
10:13 pm
cancelled the intermediate nuclear range treaty. now, why did that treaty, which was signed by gorbachev and reagan in the late or mid $1080.00 is why did it become such a triggering event? because it affected europe. when the u. s. puts missiles with a flight time of 6 minutes to their soviet targets, which is what happened in 1982 in all of the european countries, the europeans then realize, well, wait a flight of war on our soil and it's going to be a nuclear war we are kind of like bait and we don't want to be bait. we don't want to be in the middle of your geo strategic designs which could likely lead to our deaths. and so that really became a dominant political event in the 1980s. and i think right now if, if we get past this stage of the crisis crane and wiser head start to articulate the message for europeans. the message should be if there's
10:14 pm
a conflict at the end of nord stream to the americans are actually saying they may destroy. can you imagine destroy nordstrom to using military means? i mean, what would that actually mean for europe? it would be devastation, it would be catastrophe. and again, for what, for what for the, for the round government in ukraine that came to power as a consequence of a u. s. approach date coup d'etat in 2014. is that really worth it? and of course, most europeans will say, no, that's why break here is i'd like to point out to people, the more you cranes, friends in the west. hell, the government in care of the smaller remarkably ukraine keeps getting in. this will happen also here. ok, i'm just let me go to your real quick here. i mean, the way it's phrased here, it's about ukraine. it's not about ukraine. it's about nato expansion. that's it. that's part of the narrative that really irritates me. go ahead real quick. well, it's more about american hedge him hedge of many,
10:15 pm
and about america as we know in the last 10 years trying to talk russia everywhere throughout the world, whether it's syria, of course, ukraine or venezuela. so this is just a situation. ukraine is just one more move in the greater well, here we go to a hard break here, and after that hard break, we'll continue our discussion about russia. nato tension stay with our tea. ah, ah, ah, ah. ah
10:16 pm
. join me every thursday on the alex simon. sure. i'll be speaking to guess when the world politics, small business. i'm show business. i'll see you then. ah . welcome back to crossed up. were all things are considered on peter labelle. this is the home edition. remind you we're discussing russia nato relations. ah.
10:17 pm
ok, let's go back to john and interrupt you. we had to go to a hard break here and what we've already went to the break i. i made it clear that this is a conflict that it entails. russia and nato and not it's not. ukraine is a symptom of the problem. that isn't the problem here. and you chimed in and said, this is about american hegemony. keep going. and most the average american, probably average european, they are not aware of the fact that there's a bigger, bigger chest game going on least the past 10 years. we're going to forget the soviet or for the moment. but does, in the past 10 years, we've seen russia and america go head to head in venezuela, of course, in syria, most prominently and now in ukraine. so we, with the question we have to ask is why, what does america hope to achieve these of you? russia and why is it doing it? why is america always trying to seek conflict with russia everywhere in the world? why is in america trying to find ways to cooperate with russia, to solve problems?
10:18 pm
because this is what's really interesting about ukraine. if the, if the u. s, i want to be proud of my country and i want to see for my president, i wanted to see, say, ok, russian ukraine. what's a doubt in, let's solve this problem. we don't see that. we don't see it at all. we see america saying, let's make this conflict even worse. let's see how we can mpeg up, but see how we can make it more intense. let's create more threats, was create more tension. and this is why i'm really embarrassed about my government . because i'm really sad to say that, but it, it, that's, that's the reality we see that it's not the, it's not the old where my father works for the federal government life. and i was a different generation where they least tried somewhat to resolve conflicts. they tried somewhat. no, i mean you had even had the um, when the berlin wall went up, they the u. s. back down budapest, 56. 68 are in process. i mean, you know, there are things that you can accomplish and things you can't accomplish here. that is a very different mindset. now, let me go back to you in london. again. what is the strategic value of
10:19 pm
ukraine to nato? other than being a weapons that po, against russia. because this is what it's really all about me. it is very rarely is . it mentioned in the media. there's something called the mens. the courts. ok meant wanting to this was back in the and in late 2014, during do to put a ceasefire to the civil war in ukraine. and the ukrainian government has and implemented it. it would solve the problem. and the western powers have never really put much pressure on give. they give them more arms than they give pressure to honor an agreement that, that they, they backed and, and russia is not part of it. this, i always say, you know, rush is not fulfilling. it, it's not even a signatory of it. this, there's a way out, but no one in the media. no one in power seems to be interested in resolving it. to echo what john just said, go ahead in london. i guess up here ukraine has
10:20 pm
a significant amount of value for the american, how germany it influences trading influence in the region. i guess the united states is not concerned about the well being of ukrainian people, the well being of the people from the eastern european baltic states. but it's just simply trying to show or encroach its influence for us on russian border. so it is unacceptable by regardless whether it the problem it, you know, some other leader is unacceptable for any country which is, you know, self respecting and trying to maintain a balance of power. as they say, it is, america again is just simply trying to put trade so as a promoter of universal values, spreading democracy all over the world, regardless the price of this democracy which is paid by blog. other people,
10:21 pm
americans, obviously, oh, you mean is it is the last stop. i mean, i can, you will never return to the ukraine. crimea will be bought over russia and we will see next couple of years of cyber right. main goal for what i was trying to achieve something or that's way russians or perhaps change a civil moves in russia, which is going contrary to the actions because there's a significant rise in americanism, in russia and also in eastern europe as well. so i'm not sure where, where they're going with this strategy. they are losing a pushing effective iraq into china. so exactly will dismiss jam and chief of maybe will say, i mean, it was a very my opinion,
10:22 pm
according to my understanding of english language is remark. rude, because he mentioned a completely different person. regardless of all this facts we have to respect him. so if the word or united states and united kingdom, either ego, the thing that they need to respect of the country, not like all law, but respect of the country, lead us. what is the way i drive one is i've said this for many, many years. countries like the united states and russia, united states, and they don't have to be friends, they should never be enemies. and that's my position here. brian, you know, one issue that he has never explained to western audiences is that, you know, sending all of these arms to ukraine who was a shipment knew over the, i mean, a shipment from the u. k. had to avoid flying over germany because the germans,
10:23 pm
their policy is not to send a weapons into a, a potential battlefield situation. that shows you what the level of unity there is in, in nato. but, you know, when sending these arms, it's not to protect from a russian invasion for me, it is being could potentially, and most likely be used as an another attack on the don bass, which of course is a trigger for russia is well made it very clear you attack the dumbass, these are most of many of them are russian citizens. now they have russian passports because they've been cut off from everything from ukraine proper. they're under blockade. no wonder they want to become russian citizens and they're ethnically, russian, the vast majority of them here. and so here's the, the u. s. and the u. k. and other nato countries egging on the ukraine government to start another conflict when we're there is a mechanism minsk agreements that i've mentioned here to resolve that this is something very maniacal. go ahead, right? yeah, it's, it's harder. and as you know, there's a balance when you're trying to think this through. is it like a maniacal design,
10:24 pm
or just maniacal maniacally stupid? i mean, you know, it's really a question in my mind when you think about the last 20 years of u. s. policy, the u. s. invaded afghanistan, and 2 months later the taliban agreed to surrender. in exchange for amnesty and the american said no, we don't negotiate with terrorists. and then 20 years later, the taliban, when the war in afghanistan, the invasion of iraq, you know, you can go through the entire history of the states and all of these endless wars. and they're marked by these catastrophically dumb decisions, really stupid decisions. so there's a maniacal stupidity that exists, but because the growth think in washington is so strong, none of the politicians can say no way. let's actually go a different path because they'll be brought down whatever the latest hysteria is. so yeah, i mean, in the case of ukraine, what does the u. s. actually gain from from it, you know, intensifying
10:25 pm
a civil war by people in the eastern part of the country? well, obviously were offended by the fact that, that a fascist lead anti russian could a tie happened on february 22nd, 2014, that this new right wing government band, russian as an official 2nd language that people in odessa in the trade union building were burned to live. i mean, like, this is scary to the people in eastern ukraine, and so there they look to russia, obviously, as you said, peter, because the russians, they've historically, always been russian. and then the u. s. as well work by having done is russia has no acted as an aggressor in ukraine. i mean, it's such an alice in wonderland. things you have to wonder, are they making this up because they're trying to do everyone? are they making this up because they're trying to do everyone, and they're also so stupid that they actually believe their own propaganda. and,
10:26 pm
well, i, me, you know, i think you remember there in with the, one of the trumpet impeachment i, testimonies is that, you know, for 14000 people have died in the don bass during this conflict, but not one person, not one democrat, 11 republican pointer, who killed those people? always the give government. they killed their own people in the down. but no one even asked that question here. i see you nodding your head there in the corner. you agree with me? what your thoughts go ahead. yeah. what you just, what you just said right now is actually scandalous, horrible that our media, our government cannot even recognize the fact that it was the printing government that killed these people are just horrible. the level of arrogance and, and this deception and propaganda is truly horrible. but just one thing i wanted to say is that, i mean, of course, we all know the business angle of american foreign policy in american military policy will know that i'm not going to repeat that. i'm, you know,
10:27 pm
hundreds of millions of dollars are spent. we always need an enemy to justify those expenditures. ok, that's good when a stand, let's look that back. awesome. look at the ideological issue here. and namely that when president trump, when trump was president, we had, there was no serious problem between russia and united states. i mean, there was an incident series of a for the most part relations or com. and you had a binding comes in a kid of it that way. go. so now everything is horrible with biting. comes in. suddenly, tensions are absolutely extraordinary in a very negative sense. so what's happening here? well, we have a self about liberal regime bivens administration, and they want to promote their liberal values all across the world. and of course, rush is what russia is, the defender of traditional values, which means if the arch enemy of the liberal group that runs washington, that runs got states. now, therefore, de facto russia must be brought to its knees. russia missed pay the price for being
10:28 pm
this defender of traditional values, which of course me, sounds absurd because i believe let people live, let each country live its life and protect its culture as they wish. but that's myself. unfortunately, people will washington d. c. thing differently. and this again, ideological components is very important to remember here. i think you, i think you're absolutely right. i've been saying it for years. i'm glad to hear someone to agree with me. i really want to be the last word here. where is this going? because i get the impression that you know, this low off chain thinker blink and things that, you know, he, the russians are just going to cave, read all concessions because america is on the right side of history or a lot of the kind of nonsense go ahead last 20 seconds to you, my friend, i think the disagreements will continue. i think the leaders in moscow will be, as they prove so far racial now because otherwise we would already have a major conflict between cher policy and on phone should be on until the leadership
10:29 pm
and policy makers in washington to see will start thinking in those messianic terms of spreading liberal international values and still acknowledging other people's rights for, i mean, the rights to have their own saying that and they own a security emotional interest. this will not go anywhere. is the issue. russia to has national security issues just like every other country. we end on a pessimistic not. i want to thank my guess in washington, new york in london. i want to thank you for watching. as here r t c and x. i'm remember across ah ah, it's a new secret that private military companies have been playing a role in om complex world wide. u. s. government doesn't track the number of
10:30 pm
contractors it uses in places iraq or afghanistan, united states army and the military in general. so reliance on the private sector, i would call the dependency, but we don't know who's the on the ground presence of these companies overseas. we just don't out west and private military companies can in their turn use so cool subcontractors from countries with trouble pass a quite good that they had also been child diligence. i was a child as well as i 12 professional growth is with the full moon, one full quote. it is $1.00 to $5.00 said that with with no flow minimum own wall shit which going to be merciless killing machines. now they fight and die in other people's was people carol, lot one or a dead soldier or dead marine shows up in this country and then we start asking
10:31 pm
ourselves, why did they die? why do.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on