ah, to discuss these issues and more, i'm joined by my guess, glen deason in our slow, he's a professor at the university of southeastern norway as well as author of the book, great power politics in the 4th industrial revolution. and in budapest we have george samuel lee, he's a podcast or at the goggle, which can be val, on youtube, an locals, or a gentleman, crossed up rules that affect, that means you can jump any time you want. and i always appreciate it. i like start out with good enough love also. i think you'd both. well, all of us would agree the robert gates and kind of lisa rice, essentially speak for the foreign policy blob of the united states. the case they co authored an article which it was title time is not on ukraine side, which i think all of us would agree, but for very different reasons. basically, both of them with their very i would say flawed foreign policy pass when it comes to foreign military adventures are essentially saying the united states has to escalate with more money, more troops, more material. how do you take that? because you could say you can take the exact opposite position. yeah, it's not, they're not waiting. maybe we need read it and reassess this policy, but they're not glen. well, it is an interesting article because again, time is not on the crane side. it's another way of saying ukraine is losing and, and also that's what they are outlining in their articles. so militarily, their thought they have suffered heavy losses and infrastructure, the stories, especially in the lecture grants, you know, the economy some channels is going to be hard to recover. a lot of this because a lot of ukrainian somehow flipped the country except for the men who are not allowed to leave. and you know, it's an interesting admission that the war is still going on because it's completely funded by nato countries. now this is not my words, this are there or stat saying this is the only reason they're being kept on mind. now continuing this war only because they know this is interesting because because it creates a dilemma narratives because on one hand, we're told that, you know, ukraine is winning and swimming. you know, anyone that disagrees are russian propaganda. and this is a way of encouraging to send more weapons to get them to the goals, but this is a did, this is the same objective, but a different narrative. ukraine is losing, losing when they have more weapons. but objective is obviously the same. it's more and more weapons, but overall, the fundamentals of the article lives. i find the weakness and this is that the, as you said, there's no reassessment. the only solution is more wor, despite is not going forward. and i don't think they think that you can win either . again, it is a war of attrition. and i think that the purpose of this is to weaken russia longer to keep their war going. and again throw more ukrainians this and destroyed the country more. and you know, it doesn't matter, we're not fighting alone for ukraine. is we fighting for the russian. so i think there has to be some acceptance of the u. s. created a lot of the situation for this war. and again, that can cause many ca directors, and us leaders to confer this credit situation and then just blocked all paths to peace ever since 2015. and now they keep insisting that military victory is the only solution, even though they kind of realize that this is something possible. then there's a warrant for this is a proxy war. and this is again what we're fighting. and i, i just resent i did that, we're doing any of this for ukrainian discuss, this is not if you want to help your cranium, we would have given russia security guarantees which wouldn't have created the situation again, something about american liter, see, i, director, assemble are you in the past as well, so it's sort of there, their whole situations are side. and i think this article by jason rice exposes this. yeah, george, in the article referring to your grade, the economy is in shambles. in the country is entirely reliant on foreign aid. but nato is not a co belligerent in this conflict. i mean, how much longer can you keep up this fiction? ok, i mean is glen, is that here without the resources, intelligence and etc. money, ukraine with sign some kind of terms of termination of this conflict. george? yes. the question about that, the article is, of course, very interesting because as you say, the premises are a little different, but the conclusion is exactly the same. so most articles are ukraine's winning. so let's send in even more and better weapons so they can achieve victory. ukraine is losing, so we must send in more and better weapons in order to ensure ukrainian victories. but what's unusual about this article is that even raises the stakes because the analogy of russia and hitler is made explicit in the article because and well, this is the same as america it before world war one in america will go to and $911.00, which is that america was delaying entry into a conflict, and then it got much worse as a result of this delay. so if you follow the logic and then you say, well, if the stakes are so high, and if for ukraine is losing, and ukraine really has no hope of winning, then what's the next step? the next step is that america has to get involved directly because it will be like saying that, well, i, poland is doing a great job against hitler. let's keep assisting poland so that we can stay out of the school. because if the more recent poll in the more likely bonus to when they get nazi germany, nobody would have made that argument. but that's the logic of what gates and rights are saying. and therefore we're still in this rather dangerous situation. that as long as the united states keeps escalating, as long as the united states keep saying that this is a existential matter for the west, which of course it isn't. then there really is still a danger that they will get it all in a very big way and lead to a very serious military compensation with russia. you know, glen, george said something is just very important here that the west says, this is an existential threat. it isn't, but the policy that they can sit, continue to pursue, in fact creates those conditions where it's existential, because it's all or nothing if you quite correctly pointed out, you know, for, for the last 8 years the, the west, under the auspices of nato, has been driving towards this conflict, quite, you know, intensely deliberately, we know this from england merkel. we know this for a long and other a proportion called their former ukranian president. so the more they, they up, the stakes to actually it does become more existential lease from a reputation or point of view. the humiliation of losing this conflict, which is completely unnecessary. they, ukraine has no strategic value to, to nato as it stands right now. and certainly not to the united states. well, that's what's interesting in this conflict. now, because us, we see that the, there were sent, the ukraine is being torn completely apart. and the only rational argument is, you know, let's find a negotiation and the human suffering. and the, and the session. now the argument coming forward is snowy. we can't do this because it's much greater than the ukraine. it's a $54.00 for freedom of the world. so, so effectively, we're making this a need to war in rhetoric walls on the same time saying this is nothing to do about nato. but this is, this is how it conflicts and built up over all this time. and i think it's interesting because undermines this narrative that we are helping you credit this was ever about helping you create, i mean, people can irrespective of what the people think about the rush us military action . i think i would encourage people to think about whether or not we are helping you can keep in mind that we are the ones who pushed neighbor expansion for you know, as in 2008. and despite only in a small minority of ukrainians wanting it, but we're saying we're helping ukranian despite the burns, arguing that this would cause the civil war in the russian intervention. but still we're saying we're helping, you know, we toppled the government in 2014, to install and the russian government, you didn't have a majority support, wasn't constitutional, but to say we were helping ukraine. so we support the crux on russia. speakers, the political opposition, the media, and we said, well this was to help ukraine. and again, finally, when do crating in 2900 voted for landscape piece platform to men, ties with don, boss and russia. we were able to pressure him to reverse it. why, why did we undermine their democracy again, or what we're helping ukraine? and then again, we're charging the frame that ignore that means peace agreement. we're going to settle this for 7 years and instead we arm them and train the army, why we're helping them. and this, and the worst of all 3 months before russia and they did in december of 2001, the former head of russian analysis. ca, you gave an in you to rate it for europe. we argue that the risk for russia lock on the risk of not demanding is becoming greater than the risks of admitting. why will the said because the u. s. is now immersing itself so heavily in ukraine training is army. it is funding it, but also the u. s also modernizing the ports in your current to ship american worships. so they rushed forward. this was going and he warned, well actually time is not on rush. a side note, we're forcing them to intervene now because they can't win this more later. but again, we keep calling it is helping your current and just to hammer on the when it did take and take a swing at that george, because i you and i talked very often. i've always been very, it's very bewildering to me that you have in glenn just did a wonderful introduction here. i mean, the, 1st of all, the, well after the coup in 2014, that was scanned support for nato membership among ukrainians and consistently they say, neutrality is kind of the best for us. all right. but you have these, the leads that have been installed in the people that are followed them constantly backing western or fulfilling western demands. and you and i been watching this ever since the very beginning and just been bewildered about how does this really further ukraine's interest in the interest of the ukrainian people. you and i've said it from the very, very beginning. and i still can't understand maybe future historians will be able to explain it why these lead to it because they're getting negative returns. unless you take into account, maybe their personal wealth that they have accumulated. i don't know, george, this is an excellent question and the future historians will indeed wonder about this. and ultimately, the answer has to be something involving nato, the rationale nato, the logic of nato, and the need for constant nato expansion, because it was things back when victor amaco, which won that election in 2010. he did it on the platform of saying neutrality. you, crane and ukraine will not join any military alliances and you're young copays, change the constitution. i mean, the basic isn't that your grain will be a neutral country. you want to election on that because then he was overthrown. you know, thanks to leave the assistance of nato member states and one of the 1st acts of the new regime that came to fires. there's also the code was to change the constitution. and then the constitution now, states that, you know, ukraine will be a member of nato, that it's, there, it is of the constitution. so what was this really about? well, data was absolutely determined to expand and to surround russia with a literal of nato state. so essentially to minimize rushes influence in the world and, and rushes potential to be a great power when you, when they were doing, i mean, that was the goal of nato expansion. it wasn't just a supper club or everybody could join. and you know, we'll have a good time. it was, it was done in order to get in the book. right. i guess, i guess the only other thing we need to know is that how many ukrainians are they were willing to die to for this plan to come to fruition. ok. and having a, essentially a failed state in the center of europe. gentlemen, i'm going to jump in, we're going to go to a short break. and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on some real new stake with our tea. ah, a oh, seem wrong, i just don't know. i mean, you won't have to shave out disdain, because the attitude and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground with welcome back across the top where all things are considered on peter lavelle. this is the home addition to remind you were discussing some real news. ah . okay, glenn, also. so, you know, i said in my introduction, you know, the, you know, the, the narrative value pain is winning. people are beginning to realize. it's a lot more complicated than that in problematic. but what i think is very interesting is that, you know, when these articles come out with kind of lease arise from robert gates and all that, people in the kremlin read these articles, do they tend to forget that kind of thing? and i tend to think now in my, my thinking is changed obviously since it started this part of the conflict almost a year ago, is that there was a, a peace process that the turks volunteered. we know that in march of last year, it seemed to get a lot of traction. i actually had a lot of hope that maybe there could be some kind of resolution to the conflict, but then it was a put to, it was in the through the good services of boris johnson than the prime minister of the you can put that to and to and my question, do you, glenn, is that that is a one and only opportunity and it's not going to return because we have, we had the countries that were part of the mince process. they didn't keep their word, they lied. and then you have a possibility of ending the conflict early again, the nato country comes in and says, no. so i don't see why the russians would have any interest whatsoever. and negotiating anything with any of these people they have to they, they've made it very clear that they will the end of this conflict when russia feels that security has been guaranteed, irrespective of other players in europe, your thoughts? i agree, i think russian trust in a lot of this piece agreements now as been last, keep in mind that after when the, when the rise was going on in 2000, 1314 against the college and europe and negotiate and unity government, which they guaranteed. and then as soon as there was toppled right out there they, they abandoned this. and then of course your, this is leading to a conflict you having and uminski agreement and, and again, it's not just the us us a new case in pushing hardest to sabotage this all the french and the germans were trying to hold it. but as soon as you correctly pointed out to what we learned with the interview. so medical and alumnus both the french and the germans apparently have no intentions on the at least a claim that no intentions are for, for doing this. so i think a lot of, i think that the russians, they, they do realize what the americans strategy has been. i mean, because for the americans, what like, we will play this movie before in 2004. if you remember the western back this orange revolution in ukraine just on the russian government, but then you had, you know, democracy in the ukraine, essentially resisting this. and keep in mind that in 2009 later we helped install, you shouldn't go yet. it's 2.7 percent approval rating, also least popular leader in the world. and that's when they voted in the corporate . and he, he went for this atrocity and was interesting. they would ask people to read a report by nato in 2011 where it was that are, we have no problem. they call it the article they published ross post or into the problem now is we have a government which doesn't want, which isn't the antibiotic pro nato and even the public. we can hardly find any pulse which give more than 20 percent. that ukraine is wanting to join at all. how can we change this? and again, the americans have been, have play just different time they, they worked very hard to 1st topple the government. and once it was done to changed institutions within, so again, immersing themselves heavily in ukraine. something out, anything rational, sure, and language wild putting in russia, american weapons and that, you know, not to go on, but it does remind me a little bit about the 1870 franco proxy works. when you know, it's argue that, that, that's bismark, he provoked or, you know, trip the french into needing because my doing so, you know, you would have this in unity with him. and this is what brought germany together. and finally 1821. and i'm not going to wait for this, but my, my, my, my point is encouraging a conflict between the russians and ukrainians. if a good strategy for nato, because for the next decade now, you nationalism will be heavily anti russian. so my, my point is, has been very from beginning, very strong interest in the united states encourages conflict and that's reflected on the axis alone. i think that is such a very seminal point, george, because, you know, all 3 of us have studied eastern european and russian history quite intensely. and if someone were to say to me, 10 years ago that the, the americans would eventually get the russians in the m the ukrainians to fight a very bloody entrenched. or i wouldn't be very surprised because you know, that is that with that kind of cultural bond has been very long standing it even for most people in russia, they don't really think of what is the difference between us and ukraine. the only only recently is that now and okay, and i would say a good part of the ukrainians, but the speak russian were brushing heritage. they wouldn't, didn't think of it until the orange revolution was being forced. you must make a choice. you must make a choice and alter ukrainian history. the point is you really don't have to make a choice, and the americans were able to pull it up. it's amazing, george. yeah, i think it's even predates the orange revolution. i think it goes back to the 1990 is when in the big, the beginning of the nato expansion movement in united states. they sold the prize was ukraine. i mean, it was where i was, that's surprised. we need to get ukraine into later because that's really going to give evix to russia. and along with this was the soft, which is to promote your brain and nationalism, the brain, the language of brain and culture, everything to suggest that he had really nothing to do with roger. and they tried to do that with bella ross as well. i mean, i was, you know, that that's part of the story. israeli told the princess george starr was very actively involved in the early ninety's in bella was promoting the, beller, mostly in language and culture separately. so from the united states perspective, i think russia and ukraine whiting a want to say, this is great. this is, this is one of them because it's obviously very painful of the wind. but it's also, militarily, you know, great russia is being debilitated. and if you know, we're not losing any lives, sell doing digital ukraine, so doing it. this is, this is been the argument comes up in the gates rights article that we were talking about. and the saying, well, eventually have ukraine is, is willing to do the fighting when they so, you know, you know, what, a wonderful stroke of luck to that we have a country that is willing to doing nato's heavy lifting forest. so it's been a very cynical policy and of course, there's really no real pretense any longer that he has anything to do with ukraine . it is all about, you know, trying to weaken, debilitate and ultimately destroy russia. you know, going ever since the, the, the co, back in february of 2014, i've been observing and saying very, very publicly to the grain of a lot of people is that the more nato gets itself involved in ukraine. the more at quantum helped ukraine, the smaller impor in the populated, the place becomes boss. yeah, well, this is the price, so it would pay and again, this goes why they're paying, which goes against all the idea that we're helping them because that's what i find . so grotesque about what i think we've been exploiting using them and again stress and again we've been quite open about this. i mean is some people dismiss esco spirits if they look through the american thing. tank reports over the past few years like around corporation and they're open the state. this is a great opportunity that we can just pump in weapons and can some believe the russians for their lives and their treasury, which can escalate as much as will up or down and, and then we can exhaust them and then off the russia and they did you have people like senator lynch, great him saying or the structure of this war is great. we the u. s. has promised to give all the weapons they need. and so let us give prompts to send older young men to the front in the war of attrition work in the week and russia like for infertility. and the same with senator don crenshaw, he called us a great opportunities. we can, we can keep us there without sacrificing a single us life. i mean, it's amazing. and then you have all this other american politicians and scholar saying, listen group and reaching this consensus that this is best of a strategy of making ukraine into a new african histone for russia to week. and russia look at no point. does anyone explain why making you cry into enough? gone is done, which is the destruction of the whole country is in your client's interest. it's i mean, i don't know how else to see this. and p. p people, they shift americans. so either you have to before the russian nation, or you believe we're helping ukraine and then you create this faith, fuller position. but it's important for people to be able to think of it independent lives. are you? what are our motivation in this our? because in, in the conflict you want to give people the role they have the victim. you have the bill and then you have the hero coming in. my simple point, nato is not the hero here in the us, it has not been a hero. i think there's have been cynical way we're helping you crank just like we're helping the curbs. you know we, we, we use them as our frontline fighters and when we're done with them, we throw them away. that is a proxy worse work in george something you and i've talked about at great length, is that, you know, over the last and 2 new cycles, there's been a russian debilitated even more of ukraine's infrastructure. i mean, at what point can it can a modern military fight, even if it's nato armed and train, if there's no infrastructure in the country, this is, this is really great, really. and i mean, when we're doing this with facing a failed state, again, a failed state in the center of your last 30 seconds. go to george, go ahead and it's a failed say that somebody's gonna have to pick up the time eventually to bankroll and of course is going to be the europeans because the united states isn't gonna fall over any money, never has in the past. and so what, what the russians have hopeful for decades, which is that they're going to get some sensible policy from france and germany and europe. the say no, no, we want stability in europe. that hasn't materialize. and that's really will be the lesson of this war, which is the complete failure, an absence of europe from any kind of strategic spacecraft. yeah, the absence of europe, but you know, george is considering however you want to find a failed state. there's going to be millions and millions of ukrainians that will not return to their home country. ok. and then you're going to have an immigration migration problem in the center of europe for a very long time to come with very, very little ukranian nationalism which added together. very bad news gentlemen. that's all the time we have. i want to thank my guess and i'll slow and budapest. so i think our viewers for watching us here in our tea. see you next time remember? ah ah ah, ah a you know, a community like oh i, i don't them for a diesel with a with a welcome to was a part the east west power struggle accentuated by the war in your brain and rising tensions over taiwan has temporarily leaves. and now the access of swelling is balances and potential troubles this time between the global north and the global south, given how dearly developing countries have been paying for the decisions made in the sub will develop world, isn't the time right? to break this exploitative arrangement. well, it's got that i'm now joined by some jaya, barrow, distinguished, and the united service institution of india, mr. barrow and great pleasant, great honor for me to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. my pleasure. delighted to be on the show. now. thank you, i once heard from a prominent european politician that it doesn't matter whether allison's a fighting or making law, the grass underneath them gets chuckled. and if we extend that matter for a to the geopolitical situation in the world today, it's not just the grass that underneath them that gets affected. it's the valley sending villages' inner worlds apart, miles away. g, 3 russian to west are fully aware of the, of the kind of damage that, that confrontation is visiting up upon 3rd party. well, i'm pretty sure they understand the question is what they're doing about. the fact is that they don't know if anyone has been a billing with a very difficult global environment for a long time. i would say for 300 years, i think we have been a colony of the british for a long time. and then we had a little system dominated by the rest of the 2nd world war is traditionally dominant also by the rest. but even in multilateral organization, so dominated by major us. so what does luck on the global.