in our own giving support for intervals. now, as a bus, always a truly a conflict and has to be dealt with the western russia to deal with how to organize your came agreement, which is for minsk agreements in terms of how to resolving the conflict deals with the internal conflicting parties. so keep on boss is very, very explicit. i saw, and this is the foundation for how to solve it. and not only about the agreement, that means is quite explicit, but it makes clear. and this was written 60 years ago, more than 6 years ago on bay one. he was also established dialogue with don boss and to work towards a certain degree of autonomy for them, bust out, everyone find this agreement that runs in full consensus. now the problem is that the west and it says that officially support and they wants to honor it. but at the same time, in work source, undermining him. a he mentioned the, the us but we recently have the same case now. you as well. so, you know, the macaroni, france, germany o, as our medical germany, the cold moscow, and the fully firm their support for the means agreements and says keep, must abide by it. which means talking to the bus which to have refused to do. and, and also recognizing that russia is not part of this deal. and that however, thereafter, i mean even needed to have her after the u. s. meeting with philips give you the hailey for how we have carried out. 1 the application of the team agreement that you signed a common statement, naming russia and aggressor doesn't really reject thing been taught in these agreements. it is quite extraordinary. so the next step now for you is pushing, including to meet with zalinski, to old agreement forward. but again, this is only a way to remove it from an internal issue between human boss instead presented as a conflict between ukraine and russia to deprive you know, on legitimacy, away from the bus. and the, and this is the direction we're going. and meanwhile, the target means to me means as throwing out the window, so no rush is quite befuddled. what is it supposed to do? i mean, they haven't done followed the commitment of the previous agreement. and now that you suggesting we have to move forward. what are the really things of build on the past? they're saying must throw it all agreements and let's begin with an entirely new script. so it's sending oldest, very conflicting messages. so you must was beginning to see the year beginning assisting you more and more as a somewhat unreliable partner, because they're not doing what they're promising. want to saying in the same time they're encouraging kiff. ok, george. i mean, this has been the fundamental problem, because if you look at western analysis in analysis, in western media coverage, what's going on and they always conceptualize it as a conflict between russia and ukraine. when in fact that is an internal conflict that needs to be resolved and rushes up because it's on the border because of the, the ethnic makeup of the dumbass, primarily russian. they've had very little choice, but to get involved, a particularly after up to 14000 people who have been killed in the dumbass by the key of government. so it's the conceptualization of this problem. that is the fundamental issue here. and it is, it is being framed in the very destructive way. so essentially, it can't be resolved except for maybe through conflict which, you know, this is something that the russian side says they don't want in all other parties to one degree. another kid is in a different category, but europe is sent the same thing. so, you know, glen glen is right here. i mean, the, me, the contradictions here create uncertainty. uncertainty gives the potential for conflict. go ahead, george. i completely agree with you because as you say, this is a conflict with ukraine between here and the bus. and it flows directly from the events of february 2014, when the legal, legitimate government was overthrown. and the people who had supported the government with the people in the dumbass rejected the illegal regime. but as far as the mens go go, russia is one of the guarantors as is germany and france and the germans in the french know is that everybody knows this and you know, they go on attending the russia is a party to the conflict of what's going on in the dumbass is a conflict between russia and ukraine. and so that's all to see how the media presented us all the how the united states presented as gland points out, the europeans go from one to another. so, you know, when, when the last april seemed like it was going to be an explosion in ukraine because lindsey was threatening and offensive against the dom boss a, the germans and the french on the go, very anxious that this will provoke our conflict. and then yeah, they have the telephone conferences with and, and make yeah, we're right with the midst of course we believe that the minister or the should be supported. and then, you know, the very next day they go back on this. but what is happening now is that ukraine is in effect, if becoming the fact. so a member of nato, when you grade is not taking part in nato meetings. so in fact, the, the billing here, zalinski good. i have good reason to saying, hey, we keep pushing this on pushing a little bit further. eventually, nato is going to get involved in our side because increasingly major is getting involved on this side. so, you know, it's in their interest to keep escalating the conflicts last week. they use the drone that they purchased from turkey against the don't boss. and what so, nature's response is broken. what was the russians who started it? ukraine is being acting defensively. so ukraine is making a calculation that you know, we can keep aggravating and aggravating sooner or later. they're going to come in on our side. well, glen, that is a, a preposterous proposition because that means we're gotten down to a game of playing, playing chicken or bluff. that is, that is, that is the recipe for an explosion that we saw in potentially happening in the spring here. so the russians made it very clear that there are red lines here and the consequences. i'm paraphrase the russian foreign minister lobby said that this couldn't spell the end of ukraine, and those are not words spoken lightly. i mean, you know, we, when we had the defense secretary, us defense secretary go, he was in what, in georgia he was in ukraine, went to brussels and then we had victoria new and show up here with a very bizarre meeting. here is a game of chicken that they're playing, glen all it is because of all it is kind of problematic because on one hand, they have to tell the russians, you know, we're buying by the peace agreements. but at the same time, the, the do, the mission will go on as just keep it popping up and push it towards are changing the means agreement. i mean, the policy or the specific nero's has really been pushing that in this direction. so over the past 7 years, the west coast all is anti russian sanctions weakening, trying to weaken russia obviously didn't go aston hope and that same time popping up grades. and then at some point, they should be able them to change to power balance and then being able to renegotiate. and this was supposed to be back in april and you know, your credit again, mobilizing his troops are along the borders. you know, the west comes with stern warnings, nasal says do not there to do anything. russia. and then russia mobilizes an ups. you know, get alternative to means is more. so then have to step back and say ok we, we will follow it, but nothing changes. this deal with your credit, and this is kind of in the post cold war experience between russia they don't, all along. nato's continues to rush. you know, we're not going to expand and insure we're not going to put the new troops in eastern europe and then gradually they have all disagreements. but then they begin to make incremental changes on the ground and step by step and one day the saying, well, these agreements belong to reality. that's, you know, there was the person, and this is going to why russia's kind of a fed up in the also doesn't seeing more, it completed it. so it doesn't want to start to read this because it is running, you know, when, why should they i'm, if you're going to constantly be changing your mind and what is the, the value of your current position of this moment. you, george, with the dangerous thing is that you're getting into a wag, the dog situation. i mean, is kept going to be determining nato's policy. and it's a very dangerous proposition. and i think, you know, the, remember, the adults were supposed to be coming back in the room. i mean, this is, this is, this is a very, very dangerous path because it is a wag the dog situation, and i wouldn't put it past the landscape. this is the way to turn the corner. you'll do it. yes. yeah, i think that's right. and it's clear that had europe me clear to zelinski at an early stage that you're the only pass code is for you to abide by them in support. to change the constitution to give the dumbass special state to see better relations with russia, zelinski would have had no choice. but why does the lensky thinks that he has a choice that he can just continue to aggravate the situation? means a recycling your hasn't told him that and as glen pointed out, that that's the europeans position that they keep pushing and pushing and pushing. and then, you know, when the russians say we have an agreement, you know, we, we signed this agreement. ok, well that's, that's all news. you know, let's get on with new use. i mean, they use the same argument whenever the russian says, hey, you made all sorts of commitments to gorbachev. they would not expand these words and what happened to that? well, it wasn't on paper, we never wrote anything down. is it any kind of an argument? no more for you for believing us as him, but that's kind of the way they're operating now. and i think that zalinski now season, you know, he makes this clear that ukraine is increasingly becoming a de facto member of nato. is sort of say, if we continue with this. but then at some point, they chose article 5 who come into operation, ga, ga. the scary thing is for you credit is that they put themselves on the front line . they want to start account like they're going to be on the receiving end, a bit more than anyone else here. again, this is playing with fire. hearing that it's a conflict that i hardly anyone wants except for maybe the ukrainians are gentlemen, i'm going to jump in here. we're going to go to what you're breaking up to that short break. we'll continue our discussion. a middle mid state. oh, join me every posted on the alex simon. sure. well, i'll be speaking together from the world politics sport. business. i'm sure business. i'll see you then. mm. ah ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, a ah with i look forward to talking to you all. that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except when such order is a conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about our personal intelligence at the point, obviously is to place trust rather than fear a job with artificial intelligence with most protective own existence with welcome to cross stock. we're all things are considered. i'm peter bell. this is the home addition to remind you. we're discussing some real news. ah, let's go back to george in budapest year. let's talk about some more ambiguous foreign policy. let's shift gears the asia. a lot of people, of course, you saw it in our view or saw it as well as that when joe biden had his town hall with cnn. and he was asked about taiwan longstanding policy and strategic ambiguity . i seem to have gone up into smoke as it were. of course, later his handlers talked in. but you know, we're getting more and more of this ambiguity is not being ambiguous at all. i mean, just in the last few days, secretary blanking is saying that be the taiwan should have a higher profile in, in you, in institutions and things like this. this is completely counter what was agreed to do exchanging diplomatic relations. this issue with wanting to see chick ambiguity . i want to be clear with everyone. it's worked for everyone, essentially breaking the united states to recognize the government in beijing. it's worked for everyone. and now we have this administration fiddling with again, as we said in the 1st part of the program. this is playing with fire. go ahead, george. you're absolutely right. and, you know, the chinese new spot is mouthpiece global times recently referred to the bite administration as the most degenerate and incompetent u. s. history. so much for america is back and you know that the foreign policy professionals back, you're absolutely right. i mean, not only has now the united states twice, twice on with biden committed itself to going to war on behalf of i, one of the administration officials, including the defense secretary, they're also committed to going to war for these uninhabited rocks in the china sea . so it's very, very strange. what exactly the united states is doing here in provoking china. and at the same time, they're trying to provoke russia. so, you know, the, there are times when they thinking, well, what we need to do is to do a kissinger and reverse. we need to align ourselves with russia and china get separate the 2 great powers. and then they go back to no, no, no, we prefer to confront russia and china together. let's have our global democracy summit, which we can feel good about ourselves, that we are now dead set against the on democratic enemies. it's a policy that is guaranteed to create a, you know, doubt in the mind of the chinese leaders, and therefore it is extremely dangerous. and that goes along with milly's famous or infamous, a telephone call to the chinese leaders during the lack of days of the truck administration, telling them, well, don't worry, we're not about to attack you. but if we do attack you, i promise i'll give you a phone call ahead of time. so the chinese leaders really don't know what the washington is doing. and i think that's why there is furious as they are. you know, glendon when i find really perplexing years, it's no policy. if strategic ambiguity is actually work for everyone, type one has everything but independence. ok. it's when it was agreed that there is a one, china policy, the west, politically, the nonsense recognize that which actually means that they recognize that tie one is part of china, though it hasn't special status unspoken, but it obviously exists here. so it has worked for her for beijing. ok, they and, and as much as they may, rhetorically, last out from time to time, at the end of the day, this current situation is working for everyone. why is the administration doing this? i mean, the syndicate, me in, i mean, we can talk about this, you know, the intelligence that have community, they want threatened place and they want more money. they need, you know, budgets and all of that. we don't want to go to war. we just want to prepare for war. ok. what are your thoughts? go ahead. i guess the main change happening is the, is the change of the distribution of power. now for washington, i was gone for with china, but up the record keeping disagreements by the same time they want to and has their strategic justice against china, which means ripping off disagreements. so they want on both ways. those are part of the main problem with taiwan is the status of the china. so for more than 40 years that us more than 4 years on the youth accepted the so called one china principal. and it's very, very clear. there's only one china, taiwan, it's a part of it and it's capitalism, aging. so this is very explicit and this has worked for 40 years. and from china's perspective, obviously it wants to have one back, but it can do this by peaceful means because it's power girls relative to us every year. so at some point they can, you know, gradually bring them in with comic incentives or however it is fun. but time is on china side, so oh, as a resultant they use it's time is mostly on that side over the past few years to see it's beginning to chip away at the one china policy, upgrading official status. 1 referring to morrison and state, also the from boldly to taiwanese to maybe seek independence. so if the govern dependents, this is the one scenario where china will intervene militarily. so if you want to fuse the whole situation, just a found china, you know, we will stick by the one china policy. and this is where the implicitly comes in, because it's a button that he calls china explains, we're fully committed to one china policy just combo. but they don't repeat the rhetoric towards the international community. after getting off the call with china, the americans begin suggesting by one must have an independent representation in the urine, which isn't just a stepping stone, but it's like the last that before the session. so in this, no, it's a little bit like your credit. you want to have it both ways. you say we're going to live by the agreements, but at the same time that you throw them away in order to and how's your strategic advantage? so it's very, how can you have diplomacy or, or is it must be very frustrating. well, in it but georgia, me, where's the, where's the gray hairs in the professional isabel this? i mean, anyone that knows anything about american policy in the pacific is soupy chic ambiguity. that that's the corners, the corner stone of it. ok. and that is before the quote unquote rise of china. it's been that way here. and it's as if the these agreements never existed. this understanding never existed. our invasion, i would be extremely nervous. right now. you have mark miller, making that crazy asinine phone call, then you have bite and just say, you know, we will go to war over time want, i mean, i keep in beijing the mostly think these americans must have lost their mind. yes. yeah. i know. i think they up and i think that's why that's reflected in that global times. editorial. but this is the point is usually why exactly is the united states in gauging in this kind of pointless of blankenship on a matter that is really of no strategic importance to the united states. i mean, you know, i want nothing hangs on. i want one at the same time a no, no, no we, we don't want to call with china. no, we want good relations with china. and then when it comes to something like a on that issue, which actually doesn't affect united states, the origins of the virus that again, no, we don't know what's going on. let's just put that on the back burner. so this is getting itself into unpleasant conflict with china over a matter that isn't of any strategic importance to the united states. and it's a matter that's essentially settled. it is several. and that's why the so strange as to why exactly is certainly brought this up. i mean, this is a really, was no, it's not like china was threatening taiwan or, you know, saying we're going to settle the matter at the, by the end of the year or anything like that. so this was not necessarily provocative and create a conflict over an issue that is a no really united states. and as you say, it was just no need for this. you know, glenn, you know, you're a big geopolitical thinker. ok, i mean is if we step away in the 1st part of the problem, we talked about the frame and then we're talking about china. is this the american hegemony? it's, it's under threat. it's under pressure in this by the u. s. is reacting the way it is, because when you, when you feel your strategic importance and weight begin to dissipate, it creates of potentially aggressive behavior. so it's looking for a conflict. we're really doesn't need it that we don't need a conflict in ukraine. it could be resolved in ukraine. it's a ukrainian problem. we have the situation with her one. the situation that was agreed to decades ago has worked for everyone. so it tells me it's a, it's a, it's a, or a geopolitical. i'm thinking in washington about. it's relative decline in the world . am i wrong? go ahead and the oil, if theorist was quite comfortable in his own position in the world, that is the global dominance was stable, then obviously it wouldn't go in the center change and of international agreements and risk. you know, or with major powers, as mentioned, it is the relative decline of the u. s. a feeling is time is not on its side. in other words, it will be in a weaker position tomorrow than it is today. so it's better to start changing a reality on the ground, you know, bring in a ukrainian to nato. this is get independence for taiwan. so you can use as a permanent, like an aircraft carrier which is sunk so, so this is the main goal going for, but, but there's no great genius plan behind this. i mean, because of the end of the day for russia, ukraine is next essentials right before china is goes back. you know, to the opium morrison, this is how they were there in the territory was split from them. i know taiwan obviously less of the revolution in 1951. but, but the point is this is being especially remnants of the, of, you know, with their power. so when interfering and the not going to give up their own territory. it's just, you know, they, they made their peace with the fact. you know, this, they have autonomy. they sit there to govern themselves, but don't go for that last, go, don't try to seek independence. and if they do, china will, and that i'm 100 percent sure of will use military force to get it back. and within that closer proximity of china, there's nothing to us can do to really win. i'm like, oh, all scenarios to just the china off the top. so if they are, this is another great plan. this is going to hope that you're not going to win. it went rapidly running on time. george glen brings up such an important point here. ukraine because the location is very important to russia. taiwan, because of its location in history is very important to beijing, but the ukraine and taiwan are of marginal significance for strategic value for the united states. go ahead. yes, exactly. so these are both great importance to do great power. and if the united states, that is provoking a conflict over something of that of no importance to the united states, that is getting involved in ukraine isn't, has no other strategic purpose than to antagonize russia and the same with i one, there's no reason for any of this other than to antagonize the chinese and therefore, it seems very strange because it has nothing to do with the real us national interest. i was in your interest to antagonize rival great powers, and that's why the policy is both foolish and dangerous for containment. so that's the one interest i will call in the program gets a friend of joe. ok, that's all the time we have gentlemen. i want to thank my guest now slow in budapest, one thank you for watching and c r t c. so you next time. remember across ok, roles. ah ah, it's been since he is the soviet union collapsed. a lot of literature going to work with social wheels for trust on ukraine was one of the independent states that emerge from the ruins of a supervisor or somebody. would you also get them green? come a little more on the shelf confusing and less new lease in west new year. better one more law or else what is a is there is a surface, a finish with water. the past 3 decades been likely ukraine. eye witnesses would call the events. this would be more or less of judiciary wilson, a deficiency of chipotle. what i knew the more familiar with that order. i'm not sure, but i did that for months with no idea what else and what other forces were at play, the producer to whom you show engine mushy in those them you problem the kid what it i'm going to consume many of the shows up in the most of the versions or at least take a look at ukraine. 30 years after gaining independence. you don't get a phone with us unless you mean like unity recorded live, but a will. it could be issue ok of lush williston open for oh, is your media reflection of reality? in a world transformed what will make you feel safer? isolation for community. are you going the right way? or are you being that somewhere? direct? what is true? what is great in the world corrupted. you need to descend a join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. ah, in russia this class of car was discontinued more than 20 years ago. even lost a more than the move um. so in the world, the model will sort of in itself is to propose alicia, learn to produce them for the purchase. it took 5 years to close the gap on the world car industry from the drawing board to the 1st finished model. scripts as her will over show the excellent tools, key of dealing with the law firm ocean is miss lawfulness on hold for shift or commercial building. america was crockett the customer little where the pretty much it was the deal with mercer ah, i don't think i know. as world latest move on from the g. 20 isn't all smiles. the french president claims his australia and canada plot was lying. but that troubled deal for submarines he tongue delegates gather in scotland today for the u. s. crucial climate summit with calls to ha of admissions that there are cries of hypocrisy as around $400.00 private jets who reported the fly in vi pays for the event. and in a decade long case, a canadian cold so that the canadian didn't cross the line when he made jokes about a disabled child. cigna must be a stop between hatred and comedy between buyer landscape and free speech. no one saying there shouldn't be consequences. but the argument is the consequence should.