ah ah ah ah hello and welcome to cross talk. we're all things are considered on peter lavelle for almost a year. it was not allowed to challenge the west. ukraine is winning narrative. that is beginning to change a military math will always trump the most sophisticated and well funded propaganda . wasting another $100000000000.00 will not change the outcome. ah, to discuss these issues and more, i'm joined by my guest, 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 wiley. he's a podcast to read the goggle, which can be found 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 glenn and also also i think you'd both that 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. they came, 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 past when it comes to a 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 to read and reassess this policy, but they're not glad. 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 stories, especially in the electric grants, you know, the economies in shambles. so it's gonna be hard to recover, love this because a lot of planning somehow to 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 mine. now continuing this or only because they know this is interesting because because it creates a dilemma of narratives. because on one hand, we're told that, you know, ukraine is winning its winning. anyone or 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 market. ukraine is losing, losing, we need more weapons. but the objective is obviously the same. it's more and more weapons. but overall the, the fundamentals of the article i found that we can assume this is that the, as you said, there's no reassessment. the only solution is more, more, despite is not going forward. and i don't think they think that you can we neither again is a war of attrition. i think that the purpose of this is to weaken russia longer to keep and then we're going and again throw more ukrainian this and destroyed the country more. and you know, it doesn't matter. we're not fighting alone for ukraine. is we fighting out? i hated for the russian. so i think it has to be some acceptance of the us. created a lot of the situation for this war. and again, that can cause many directors and us leaders to confer us create a situation. and then us blocked all paths to peace ever since 2015. and now then keep insisting that the military victor is the only solution, even though they kind of realize that this is not even possible. and there's a warrant for this is a proxy war. and this is again what we're fighting. and i just resent that we're doing any of this for your cranium, 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 that the american leaders, the director of all argued in the past as well. so it's a very the whole situation or thought. and i think this article by gates and rice exposes this. yeah, georgia in the article referring to your grade, the economies in shambles. and the country is entirely reliant on board and age. but nato is not a co belligerent in this conflict. i mean, how much longer can you keep up this fiction? ok, i mean, if glen isn't here without the resources, intelligence and etc, money, ukraine. what would have signed some kind of terms of termination of this conflict? george? yes, little question about that. the article is, it was very interesting because as you saying, the premises are a little different, but the conclusion is exactly the same. so most articles ukraine's winning. so let's and then even more and better weapons so they can achieve victory. yes, you agree is losing. so we must then the more embedded weapons in order to ensure ukrainian rhetoric. 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, well, this is the same as america before world war warm and american before world war 2 and 911, which is that america was delaying entry into conflicts 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, he's losing and ukraine to 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 poland, the more likely to win against nazi germany, nobody would have made that argument. but that's the logic of what gates and right to saying. and that was 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 in a very big way and lead to a very serious military confrontation with russia. glen george said something is very important here in 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 is you, you quite correctly pointed out, you know, for, for the last 8 years, the in 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 from for francois on and other finishing up a former ukrainian president. so that, and the more they up, the stakes to actually it does become more existential lease from a reputational 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 there were that 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, 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 $54.00 for freedom of the world. so, so effectively, we're making this a need to war in rhetoric walls and the same. i'm 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 cost a 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. it wasn't constitutional, but to say, oh, we were helping ukraine. so we supported the crack on russia, speakers, the political opposition, the media, and we said, well, this was to help ukraine. and again, finally when do cranium 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, a ca, you gave an in rated 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 rush 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 the cons when this more later, but again, we keep calling it is helping you are just not to hammer on the when it did take and take a swing at that george, because i, you and i talk 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 follow 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 have sent 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 from plato, the logic of nato, and the need for constant nato expansion, because it was things back when a victim ago, which won that election in 2010. he did it on the platform of saying neutrality. ukraine and ukraine will not join any military alliances. and diana copays change the constitution. i mean, the basic isn't but ukraine will be a neutral country. you want an election on that, because then he was overthrown. you know, thanks to leave assistance of nato member states and one of the 1st acts of the new regime, the think about as a result of the code was to change the constitution. and then the constitution now states that ukraine will be a member of later that, but it's, there, it is at 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 russia's influence in the world and, and russia's 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 the supper club or everybody can join. and you know, we'll have a good time. it was, it was done in order to in the book, right. i guess, i guess the, 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 estate with ah ah, ah ah, the only one main thing is important for not ism internationally speaking to that is that nation's allowed to do anything, all the mazda races, the reason us, hey jim, it is so dangerous, is it deny the sovereignty of the country or is business and business is good and that is the reality of what we're facing, which is fashion and a welcome back to cross stop where all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle. this is the home edition 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 con, to lease arise, and 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 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? no, i think i agree. i think that the russian trust in a lot of this piece agreements now has been lost. 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 are. and teeth, 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 hard 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 intention of doing this. so i think a lot of, i think that the russians they, they do realize what the american strategy has been. i mean because. ready for the americans, what like, we will play this movie before in 2004. i remember you had the western back this orange revolution in ukraine to stone out the russian government. but then you had, you know, democracy, 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 and the tragedy. and what is 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 of your cravings. 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 on rational. sure language while 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, treatment the french into moving 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 to this, but much 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 to encourage his conflict. and that's reflective in all other actions, all 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 ukrainians to fight a very bloody entrenched door. 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 that speak russian, russian heritage, they didn't think about 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 was that surprise? 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 russia. and they tried to do that with bella ross as well. i mean, i was, you know, that's part of the story. israeli told the princess george sorrow was very actively involved in the early nineties in bella was promoting the bell arossi and language and culture of the separate most of the. so from the united states perspective, i think russia and ukraine, why thing a war? and i say this is great. this is, this is one of them because it's obviously very painful of the one hand. but it's also, militarily, you know, great. so, you know, russia is being debilitated and if we're not losing any lives, sell doing this, the ukraine. so doing this is, this has been, the argument comes up in the gates right article that we were talking about in the saying, well, essentially have ukraine is willing to do the fighting when they, you know, you know, what, a wonderful stroke of luck to that we have a country that is willing to doing the native heavy lifting forest. so it's been a very cynical policy. and of course, there's no real pretense any longer that it has anything to do with ukraine. it is all about, you know, trying to weaken, debilitate and ultimately destroy russia. 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 it more nato gets itself involved in ukraine? the more it's quote unquote helped ukraine. the smaller impor in the populated, the place becomes boss. yeah, well this is the price we're paying again, this goes why they're paying which goes against all identity, helping them because that's what i find so grotesque that 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 at esco spirits if you look through the american thing tank reports over the past few years like around corporation and we're open the state. this is a great opportunity. now we can just pump in weapons and can some believe the russians for their lives and their treasury 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's give prompts to send older young men to the front in the war of attrition, work in the week and russia like for in perpetuity and the same with senator don crenshaw, he called his great opportunities, we can, we can key other things without sacrificing a single us life, i mean, it's amazing. and then they 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 escalade is done 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. 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 independently. and are you what are our motivation in this hour? because in any conflict, you want to give people the roles, you 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 u. s. it has not been a hero. i think this has been cynical way were helping ukraine 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're 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 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 trained? if there's no infrastructure in the country, this is, this is really great. really? mean we're, we're doing this with facing a failed state. again, a failed state in the center of your last 30 seconds. go to you, george. go ahead. oh, it's a failed state 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 going to fork 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, the absence of europe but, you know, george m, i 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 they are going to have an immigration migration problem in the center of europe for a very long time to come with very, very well into ukrainian 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 when i think are viewers for watching us here in our t. c. and next time, remember across cycles. ah ah ah, the claims of the king of the belgians leopold the 2nd to the congo were finally authorized by the leading european countries in 1885. in the very heart of the african continent, a state under the rule of the belgian monarch was declared. since the beginning, the congo free state was total may him for the local population and functioned as a universal concentration camp. the majority of the population, including women and children, were forced to work on the rubber plantations. those who failed to fulfill their quota were beaten and mutilated to keep the congolese people under control. the king set up the so called forest bleak which were punitive detachments that cast terror on the captured country and its inhabitants, fearing that their subordinates would simply waste bullets hunting for wild animals . the officers demanded that the soldiers gave an answer for every bullet used, and as proof presented a chop hand of an african, it was not uncommon when trying to justify the use of the ammunition. the colonist amputated the hands of not only those who were dead, but also of those who were kept alive. the atrocious exploitation of the congo turned into a real genocide. in only 20 years, the policy of the belgian lead to the death of nearly 10000000 people alongside the holocaust. that genocide of the congo population is considered to be one of the grimmest pages in the history of mankind. with ah, on november the 3rd 1945, just a month after the war ended, the u. s. joint chiefs of staff receive report number 3 to 9 select 20 targets to attack in the soviet union with nuclear bombs. the time was right. as the u. s. s all was devastated by war the united states lost about 400000 people at the brits last lesson. the americans did. and the soviets suffer 27000000 deaths. mm mm.