Skip to main content

tv   News  RT  January 26, 2022 2:00pm-2:31pm EST

2:00 pm
ah, ah ah, breaking news on our t, the us give say its formal response to russia's request for security guarantees. i made fears of a conflict in ukraine also ahead with the country across europe, ease their coven restrictions, despite near record infection rates, while health officials gave nick signals on the threats of the army prom screen. on that 20 year old mom in the u. k. avoids prison time despite being convicted of raping a child. we'll be discussing about live with a panel of guests this hour with
2:01 pm
catching the program from today. welcome to moscow on to the news our on our team. my name's unit o'neill. let's get to our top story on it is indeed breaking news today where we began the u. s. has given its formal response to russia's request for security guarantees. the american ambassador a 100 over that document here in moscow some hours ago now. but so far, the exact content has not been disclosed. a reminder then, at russia's demands include, excluding ukraine on georgia from ne, so scaling back nato forces near russia borders. i'm the removal of american nuclear weapons from europe. well, let's cross live now to the us, where kill up my pen will join us. we'll speak to peter all over there on your
2:02 pm
screen as well, or europe correspondent a little bit later as well. but kim, just starting with you the document with 100 over here in moscow, at secretary of state blink and talked out, but it's at the lent really. but not a lot seem to come out of it. can you take us through the developments of the evening from washington? sure, anthony blank in the us secretary of state, spoke to the press at the us state department and said that this document has been prepared and provided to russia. now he emphasized that nato will be creating a document of its own, a separate document on behalf of the nato coalition. that will also be delivered to russian officials. now they are not making this document public. they have decided that they will not reveal it to the public. it will simply be given to russian officials. this is anthony blank and explaining what went on
2:03 pm
master sullivan delivered our written response in moscow. all told it sets out a serious diplomatic pat. ford, should russia choose it? the document we've delivered includes concerns of the united states and our allies and partners about russia's actions that undermine security. a principled and pragmatic evaluation of the concerns that russia has raised and our own proposals for areas where we may be able to find common ground. now also, we heard anthony blinking, going over recent events that the united states has provided javelin missiles, ammunition defense security systems, helicopters, and other equipment that is lethal to the ukranian government. i, in addition to that, was pointed out, united states is authorized, donia, and other nato countries to provide weapons to ukraine. now, in his remarks, he also talked about how the united states seems interested in selling more natural
2:04 pm
gas to europe and making european countries as he put it less dependent on russia for their energy. now, reporters pressed anthony blank about whether or not he was quote, jumping through hoops for russia. he emphasized the united states does seek a diplomatic resolution of this crisis, the negotiation. but he continued to accuse russia of somehow engaging in aggression with ukraine. that was a consistent theme throughout his remarks. that's what we heard from anthony blank and the us secretary of state. kenneth, thanks very much for bringing us through all that. while i turned now to our senior correspondent here in the studio with me, murat, gusty, of who's been listening as well for the eventful last couple of hours. murat, m. i mentioned some of the russian demands the. the reason why we were waiting to hear what the secretary of state were was going to say today, what is russia asking for more rushes demands have been, they've become demands only recently,
2:05 pm
previously they were proposals and for many years, more than a decade. russia had said that at once nato infrastructure and nato troops to stop creeping towards close and closer to russia's borders. i mean, look at it yourself. 20 years ago, russia only had one member nato member state as its neighbor. now there are 5 with potentially ukraine and georgia wanting to join. it would be 7, and russia says that patients now has, has expired, has, has snap. there is no longer any, any will to continue to tolerate this. and russia had made concrete proposals. those proposals included a need to giving it guarantees on paper that the ukraine and georgia wouldn't become needed. member states and american rockets, missiles wouldn't appear in ukraine. we're in georgia as will admin putin themselves said, because if they do the flight time to moscow of
2:06 pm
a potential nuclear miss up would be merely minutes minutes, which russia for russia is, is simply an acceptable. they had also drawn red lines. those red lines are nato infrastructure on ukrainian territory, but i've got to tell you from, from what we're hearing. this is, this is the latest we've heard a russian senator has come out, who apparently has seen the american proposal and he has said it is inadequate. and it cannot be accepted. this is only a sen, this is of the official reaction, but it ought to give you a hint because we have heard for weeks now, a news that that russia wouldn't want to hear, that is natal, same on almost every single russian a proposal. no. that is new to the closing natives doors that is new to, to removing nato infrastructure from the close proximity to the russian borders. and that is no to various other russian demands. now, at this point,
2:07 pm
demands that putin had said and that russia had said, would pave the way for a safe or more secure future for all of us. we, we've also heard the many times anthony, blinking again, describing russian behaviors destabilizing as aggressive and saying, laying out what it is america would do. in the event of a war though, i must say the i have one can't help, but get the feeling. listening to his press conference that the assemble, journalists there seemed to want a more more than russia, ukraine, and nato put together. i mean, one of the questions the person that was pitched was, why are you wasting time on talks and documents with russia? someone else had had a problem with germany sending helmets rather than rockets and missiles more rockets and misses aside from the 283 tons of miss as another weapon sent by the united states by,
2:08 pm
by other nato countries even more so. so certainly the science for now aren't hopeful, but these are negotiations and negotiations are a never easy. and certainly there's, there's a willingness to step back from the brink that will sides of demonstrated and the talk this one out though, if whether they'll be successful. well, it's hard to tell at this point near who needs diplomacy when you get so many big, shiny weapons seems to be one of the lines coming out of western media. little bit . right, thanks very much for now. let's cross live now. to peter oliver. you're a correspondent who has been following in on, i think, in stoughton berg, nate, whose secretary general has been speaking may be wrapped up. no, peter, but giving really the view on the continent in terms of international developments from, from brussels. give us a sense of what's being said, there are on watson is being demanded. well,
2:09 pm
if that's a u. s. response to russia's security demands reflects what installed in burg to say, i don't think it is going to make good reading for the russian side. and it's going to contain a lot of nose, particularly when it came to the discussion on a path to join. as nato puts it, all nato expansion is. it's called just about everywhere else. he installed in book said that they wouldn't compromise on bath. he did say, however, in a big key crux of what he had to say was about a willingness to continue talks. diplomacy very much at the, the roots of what the nato secretary general had to put forward. he said that there was a string of proposals that he had agreed along with the 30 allies of nato. that they were ready to organize meetings to discuss these with russia as soon as possible. now this could be
2:10 pm
a pretty decent barometer of how things are going. if we do see meetings, well, they may be going better than you may well think. if you listen to some of the questions you were just talking about from some of our colleagues in the west media, because we've heard from said gala, from the russian foreign minister, just recently saying that there wouldn't be any meetings for the sake of meetings that needs to be a clear agenda, if rushes to turn off and be in the room. so if we do see these meetings take, please take place between russia and nato. it would seem that there is something for them to discuss. there is going to be more contact though, certainly, between moscow, nato, and further reach out for the nato, russia dialogues, the nato, russia council, with reinvigorated just last week. it had been dormant for a while. as also talk from you installed berg about getting a civilian hotline on the way is how he put it brings back memories of what you would think of a red telephone from the days of the cold war. a hotline not sense,
2:11 pm
but it is a way of making sure that there is a constant ability for communication at the times when it is most needed. there is a lot of talk from the nato secretary general about openness and trust building. he didn't use those words, but it's what they're really intended for exercise is when it comes to military drills, basically flagging up to the other side that there is going to be military drills taking place. there's been a lot of criticism flying backwards and forwards between moscow and nato, between one another that they've been carrying out military drills without warning . the others that they were going to be happening installed and wanting to see a revamp and reinvigoration of already existing treaties. and he may be pushing against an open door because i'll go back to what we heard again from sir de la, from back in the o. s. c. meeting in stock home in december of last year, the russian foreign minister there was promoting a lack of treaties that didn't exist between nato and russia. the fact that the
2:12 pm
nato secretary general and his now is now talking about will getting some things down on paper. and getting some treaties put in place, that may well mean that we could see some things signed pretty soon, or at least some talks about getting things put in place. but all is not rosy in the near to garden when it comes to getting everybody on site. on tuesday we heard from the croatian president who said that he would be making sure that creation troops had nothing to do with any deployment. alongside nato, if there was any conflict between russia and ukraine, we've now heard on wednesday from the both gary and prime minister, who said pretty much the same thing. there was some concern from the polish side towards germany as well. no germany has said time and time again that it will not send weapons to to ukraine. it's refused outright. all of shoulds the german chancellor. absolutely adamant that this will not happen. germ on wednesday,
2:13 pm
sent 4000 helmets. ukraine turned round on wednesday and said, how go we asked for 100000 helmets. now there's been a lot of criticism of germany for doing not a lot of pressure on berlin for them to provide more. they seems highly unlikely that they're going to do anything more than that doing at the moment when it comes to that boats when it comes to to go back to get installed in burg. seems like talks could be on the agenda. certainly that is, if they saw, or if least, if russia judges that need to have anything worthwhile saying. are europe correspondent, peter, all of her with the 3rd breakdown. pete, thanks very much for all that. well, i'm happy to welcome onto the program. now scott ritter, former us marine corps intelligence officer for his take. scott, always good to see you until he blinking didn't get the exact contents of the document. but he did say quote,
2:14 pm
there will be no change on nato's open door policy. so does it sound like one of russia's key demands has been rejected? well, there's no doubt that dub all brushes key demands have been rejected. ah, it looked, this was a given when russia published the 2 draft treaties, nato in the united states made it clear that they were not going to exceed to russia's demand. and nothing has happened in the interim that that could lead anybody to think that that would not be the outcome. so, you know, we, we've reached a point right now that the o sized knew they're going to, there's no surprises here. russia knew that this was going to happen. nato in the united states knew that this was going to happen. now the, the question is, what is russia going to do? that's the, that's the ultimate question. and you know that that's difficult. the only only the currently can answer that one, right? but you don't see any movement on the demands at all,
2:15 pm
no concessions that the u. s. might be willing to offer to russia, for example, just one scott is really interested to read it by the the fact that there's an u. s. nuclear weapons in europe, germany, belgium, italy, turkey at that seems to be an on starter as well. getting those out of the continent, the united states and nato for decades. now, it said that the, the u. s. nato nuclear relationship is not up for negotiation. you know, this isn't the 1st time russia's tried to have those weapons brought into, into an arms control negotiation. and it won't be the last but for, for the time being. need on united states will not yield on this. i think the most important thing that's come out of this is that the russian actions have shown that despite the rhetoric of stolen burg, spite the rhetoric of lincoln despite the rhetoric of iden,
2:16 pm
that nato in europe or not, is unified as one might think. on this issue now, the best way to get them unified would be for russia to take a precipitous military action against ukraine. now russia has said that doesn't intend to do so. but, you know, i think a bright light for russia is that there is just unity and may be fine, n d in a diplomatic path forward that can further this, this unity is the best way for russia to get the, the kind of guarantees that it wants to, to enhance this harmony and not create the conditions for, for unification like any russian military action against ukraine. at this point, i would unify nato in a way that no other action would just on the actual documents today, scott, to be very interesting. i would suggest just to see the exact wording and you know what was rejected, how was rejected, maybe there's, there's an inkling of,
2:17 pm
of relationships there. but do you expect russia moscow to unilaterally make this document public? when the foreign minister lebrone has said that he would get us permission 1st, that in russia, i will say russia has always behave responsibly in this regard. the confidentiality of diplomacy is something that, that russia and the so the union prior to that as is always respected. so i would find it difficult unless relations are totally broken down. there is no more diplomacy, no more negotiation than russia republish the document. but so i would say the longer russia holds onto this document and doesn't make it public the better, the chances are for some sort of interesting, okay, at one line as well. a lot of interesting lines coming recently, the russian ambassador to the united states and noticed that the state department has raised the question on his departure from the country is really
2:18 pm
a sign of the upcoming rupture of diplomatic bilateral relations. we're at a very dangerous stage, right? now where these things are being considered, there was talk the other day of, of the u. s. ordering the destruction of classified material at the u. s. embassy and kim, i haven't been able to confirm that. but if it was true of that sort of the final measure taken before the u. s. embassy expects actions that could result in it. and, you know, in it's in, it's falling into hostile hands on, you know, whether or not these are, these are, you know, games, the movement of ponds on a larger chessboard. you know, trying to call bluff is, is no, but it's a dangerous game because those aren't fake troops. there. russia has a symbol hold on its territory that could rapidly be brought to bear on your cane. this is not a, an artificial crisis. this is a real crisis with real consequences on both sides have
2:19 pm
a lot at stake here. neither side can afford to lose face up. and that's the difficulty is there enough in the u. s. and nato documents that can allow russia to move forward with unsatisfactory diplomacy. let's be clear. it would be unsatisfactory diplomacy move forward in a manner that enhances rushes, security without the net the need to go to war. that's. that's the ultimate question. just to wrap up, what do you think? big question. i know, but is the u. s. n game and ukraine? us has no and gaming ukraine. u. s. has no policy in ukraine. this is make it up as you go along. i mean we, we put $8500.00 troops on short lease notice for deployment in areas that have nothing to do with the ukraine. it won't be involved. we're sending weapons to ukraine, that ukrainian army is not adequately trained or, nor does it have a doctrine for its employment, but thereby setting up any troops to use these weapons. but to be killed,
2:20 pm
annihilated on the field of battle. we don't know what we want. we, we talk about an open door policy. meanwhile, we know that ukraine will never meet the requirements for natal membership. so right now the u. s. and nate or stuff with a policy that actually backs them deeper into the corner. and that's something that russia might want to seek to exploit. you know, the problem isn't a lack of flexibility on the part of russia. the problem is a lack of flexibility on the part of nato. and what russia can do to, to find a diplomatic off ramp that nato in the united states might be willing to take because the united states and nato don't have any good cards. in this game. there, there is nothing, you know, they, they don't have any strength, all the strengthens with the, with russia. and the question is, how russia chooses use a string. he has a very similar opinion to the former foreign minister, all of austria, which she had to see on the program earlier. scott will listen to that in a few minutes. but thank you very much for your time today. scott ritter, form
2:21 pm
a us marine cord intelligence officer. live on rti. thanks me. last us politicians. they are raising the public level over ukraine. republican congressmen, ted bud sounds written to the secretary of states thing, given the fact that the biden administration stranded an unknown number of americans, enough gun that's done. i write to you with extreme concern for the faith of american citizens in ukraine. that's after white house press secretary gen sack, a rule, died on the american evacuation from the country. the idea has been widely ridiculed on late night shows. so organized, evacuation is planned. why is that? because of the last one you organized we'd love to help out. we're good going to go on expedia. thank you. well,
2:22 pm
while nato rumps up its military activity with wargames underway in the mediterranean, russia is also bolstering it's the defenses. more than 20 warships, i just said i'd from russia's southern ports for exercises in the black sea. there are also large scale russia nearby drills taking place in the bar and see in the arctic involving 30 ships and 12000 personal yes. mentioned we spoke with car in can i saw a former foreign minister of austria. she thinks that despite the alarmist rhetoric coming from washington, ukraine is not actually their top priority. i don't believe that the grain file is the only and number one priority fly from a us one such point. i mean, we all know what they really care about what they have already about. it's the situation in the south china sea, it's taiwan. it's china, it's technological edge. so these are the really, it's just for them. and not so much about ukraine joining. i'm not trying to nate,
2:23 pm
so this has been on the agenda ever since. 2008 and nobody was really and sous yes . think about it and let me refer it to a very distinguished us. diplomats will dive some time ago. george kaname. he was actually the one who had coined the containment of cold war policies in the late 1940 s and the church cannibal still live in the early 1990 s. when there are the force measures for enlarging the need to the 4th. and he said then very clearly that this is a big arrow, don't do it. i think it was a 9956, that he says, then that's a statement by canon should to be said, it should be implemented to the u. k. where a 20 year old student avoided prison time, the spike being convicted of raping a 12 year old girl. after his arrest last year,
2:24 pm
jason joshua moscow confessed to 3 kinds of rape and spent 7 months in custody. he was later released on bail on sentence to 200 hours of unpaid work, explaining the light sentence. the judge said she believed the man was not aware of the victims real age. there is no suggestion of any p to file tendencies at all. what instead, there is a young man who is relatively immature and possibly naive. miss cal met the preteen on the tender dating up and spend 3 days in london with her back in may. he claimed that that time he thought she was 16. during the trial, the c c t v footage of the pur, together was shown on the judge, concluded that the 12 year old sexualized victim acted suggestively. that's a quote. well, i'm very happy to welcome on a panel of experts to discuss this case. quality law specialist, linda bella,
2:25 pm
privacy activist, technology at bars to robert park, and excuse me, privacy activist, and technology expert bill new. you're all very welcome to the program. linda, can we start with you? are you surprised by what looks like an extremely lenient sentence from the courts? yes i am. i am now. but i do recognize that it's very it's, it's very and it's not very easy for, ah, some name to recognize a young woman when, when they see the, i don't know what they think that person is, but apparently, and i'm just really mean the press cuttings and he thought that she was 16, and in fact she was 12. and what can one say a 20 year old man have
2:26 pm
a relationship with the 12 year old girl calling to say woman and and the one thing i will say however, that if you've been sent to prison, i'm not sure you come out any better. and any more capable of recognizing when somebody's under age and our presence of dreadful britain, i loved many, many men come out of prison worse when they went in. so, as i am amused by the story, and i'm actually deeply offended by it, that there's a 20 by 20 year old man. cannot recognize somebody who is significantly, actually, you know, not an adult, not even an adult, not, not a 15 year old. somebody is 12, so that's just pretty sick making to me it's very hard reading. we will get into
2:27 pm
the issue of the turns and just a moment, but bell or can we go on to you? why is it even possible for a 12 year old to be and tender? how does that happen? like if there was any kind of really a verification, it wouldn't, i suppose? well, with the choices here were either the gentleman in question is not being particularly honest about his knowledge about the age situation, or he was genuinely naive and he didn't know and didn't realize the problem we have is that you're in no way able to judge this on the basis of the information that you see almost social ups. and it should be the case if everyone can form. so the recommended approach on all of the social media platforms that there will be nobody present under the age of 13 and good to actually, you know, be honest about their age and vote for certain graduations above. but the problem is that we have a situation where there is no aging,
2:28 pm
there is no need to show any proof of identity. and there are lots of parents to us . assume that when a child comes of age of the age of 13, and then you'd be introduced to social media only to find that the child in question has been on social media for a number of years already without that knowledge. so it is a real problem. hello, social platforms need to have a verification, an age gauging, and the parents need to be far more a while while the children are up to robert to in terms of precedence. and what precedent does this said, cut it, help other sex defenders make the same defense? that they, they just didn't know the child's age? well, no, it's all rather more complicated than that. you see once that there are 2 offenses created under the sexual fences act, which of which are played. but in this situation, the 1st place is an offense under section 5. if the sexual offenses aren't match where there is no actual parent consent,
2:29 pm
an old standing to that consent couldn't be locally given by raising the child's age and a 2nd lesser offense under section 9 of the acts at where that parent consent unlawful though it may be is given but vitiate by the age and it seems to me although i haven't been able to signs that the at the sentencing remarks that the probably be made public over the next 2 weeks or so. i generally how it works and i haven't been able to find, i mean, it doesn't pay, it's made likely this, that he was convicted of an offense on the 2nd lesser offense. i found he's right then the time spent in custody is more or less exactly that on target. there's a one year sentence of starting point. he spends 7 months inside. he would normally on a one a one year sentence, spend 6 months inside or where, where is the most serious offense? the starting point will be closer to 8 years. comes to the left is, is
2:30 pm
a conviction under the of the more serious offense. this was the bang male articles, jesse that he's right. i suspect it isn't that he's right than it that the it would play me been incorrect sentencing, likely it failed. and i don't think it's a particularly alarming present though. i do think it does raise questions about the the degree of protection that very young children have in the law that that, that there isn't as much distinction between children on the 13. and i was 13, as one might think, although there are defenses that can be run in, in the case of older children, which may get some reticence. okay, and linda, the judge also that the scribe, the girl is highly vulnerable. should questions be asked of social services or her family? does it look like she's being i don't know left on by society the best way to put it? well, i don't know all the details on.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on