but now we're getting from brussels in washington now they've reinterpreted these according to russia is a member of a party of this conflict. that's something new and very dangerous. go ahead. yeah, i agree, i agree that it's a complicated conflict, i mean was in 2014 with the roku. and then they refused to recognize the legitimacy and then came last, terrorist operations out, obviously the, with the backing, the government installed in the west, in answering key and russia, you know, getting a support for rebels now, as a bus always have to live constantly and has to be dealt with the western russia to deal with how to organize your team agreement, which means agreement in terms of how to resolving the conflict with the internal conflict in parties. so keep and is very, very explicit. and this is the foundation for how to solve it. and not only about the miss is quite explicit that it makes clear. and this was written 6 years ago more the 6 years ago on the one. he was also established dialogue with don't boss and to work towards a certain degree of autonomy for them. but now everyone signed this agreement that runs in full consensus. now the problem is that the west, it says that officially support and they wants to honor it. but at the same time, in work stores, 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, and germany as our medical of germany, the cold moscow. and the fully firm their support for the means going agreement and says, keep must abide by it. which means talking to them bus, which to have refused to do. and then also recognizing that russia is not part of this deal. that however, thereafter, i mean even immediate to have her after the u. s. meeting with philips give you credit, the healing for how he has carried out obligations of the team agreement. then that you signs a common statement, naming russia and aggressor, those effectively reject thing, been taught him. these agreement is quite extraordinary. so the next step now for you is pushing, including to meet with zalinski, to move the green forward. but again, this is only a way to remove it from the internal issue between even bus instead percent as a conflict between ukraine and russia to deprive you know, on legitimacy, away from the bus. and the, and this is their direction, we're going and meanwhile, the target needs to be means as throw out the window. so, rushes quite befuddled. what is it supposed to do? i mean, they haven't done hello to the commitments of the previous agreement. and now that you're suggesting, we have to move forward with what the really things of build on the past they're saying must throw at the old agreements. and let's begin with an entirely new script. so it's, they're sending all this barry, hey, conflicting messages. so in mosque was beginning to see the ear up beginning accessing the more and more as a somewhat unreliable partner, because they're not doing what they're i want to say it in the same time. they are encouraging kids. ok, george, i mean this has been the fundamental problem because if you look at western analysis and analysis and western media coverage, what's going on in your grade, 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 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 a very destructive way. so essentially, it can't be resolved except for maybe 2 conflict which, you know, this is something the russian side says, i don't want in all other parties to one degree. another camp is in a different category, but europe has said the same thing. so, you know, glen glen is right here. i mean, the, the contradictions here create uncertainty. uncertainty gives the potential for conflict. go ahead, george. all right, i completely agree with you because as you say, this is a conflict with in ukraine, between here and the dom bus. and it flows directly from the events of february 2014, when the legal, legitimate government was overthrown. and the people who had supported those, the government with the people in the dumbass rejected the illegal regime. but as far as the mens go, russia is one of the guarantors as is germany and france and the germans. and the french know is that everybody knows this, and you know, they go on rich ending, the russia is a party to the company that this, what's going on in the dumbass is a constant russian ukraine. and so that's all busy how of the media presented. that's all, that's 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 of zalinski was threatening and offensive against the done by the germans and the french on the go, very anxious that there's a conflict and then you know, they have the telephone conferences with and, and make play. yeah, we're right with the board. we believe that the minutes because a should be supported and then, you know, the very next day they go back on this. but what is happening now is the ukraine is in effect 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, zelinski good. i have a good reason to saying, hey, we keep pushing this on pushing a little bit further. eventually, nato is going to get involved in that side because increasingly, nato is getting involved on this side. and so, you know, it's in their interest to keep escalating them off like so. last week they used a drone that they purchased from turkey against the other don't last. what? so? nature's response. they do. ok, well it was a russian to start that 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. so that is, that is, that is the recipe for an explosion that we saw in potentially happening in the spring. here. the russians have made it very clear that there are red lines here and the consequences of i'm, i'm paraphrase the russian foreign minister loved off. he said that this couldn't spell the end of ukraine. the in those are not words spoken lightly. i mean, it, you know, we, when we had the defense secretary, us defense secretary and go, he was in what, in georgia he was in ukraine, went to brussels and then we and 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 while it is kind of problematic, because on one hand, they have to tell the russians didn't we are by the agreements. but at the same time, the, the, the mission will go on as to keep it popping up and push it towards that are changing the means agreement. i mean, the policy or the spot 7 years has really been pushing 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 and hope that same time popping up. and then at some point, they should be able them to change the power balance and them 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 border. as you know, the west comes with stern warnings, you know, nasal says do not there to do anything. russia and then russia mobilizes and a 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 or experienced between russia made or all along. nato's continues to tell russian, 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 to have all this agreements and begin to make incremental changes on the ground and step by step and one day the saying, well is agreement belong to reality let's you know, let's deal with the present. and this is going to why russia kind of have fed up. and the also doesn't seeing more, it pointed is, doesn't want to start to renegotiate from scratch on the old agreement. so it's kind of drawing this clear red line. i mean, you're going to agree or disagree with the russians, but, but this is kind of, it's not going to move any more on this because i don't know when, why should they, i mean, if you're going to constantly be changing your mind and what is the value of your current position at this moment. you're george. what the dangerous thing is, 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, what do you 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 image on let's get, this is the way to turn the corner. he'll do it. yes. yeah. i think that's right. and it's clear that had europe made clear zelinski at an early stage, that you're the only possible it is for you to abide by them in the course to change the constitution to give the dumbass special state to see better relations with russia. zelinski would have had no choice, right? lensky thinks that he has a choice that he can't 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. a you know, when the russians say, hey, we have an agreement, you know, we, we signed this agreement as 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 said, hey, you made all sorts of commitments to go much of that nature would not expand these . and what happened to that was a, well, it wasn't on paper. we never wrote anything down. is it any kind of an argument i know for you for believing us as a but that's kind of the way they're operating now. and i think that so, you know, you make sure that your brain is increasingly becoming a defect. member of nato. you sort of say, if we continue with this, then at some point made those all the go 5 who come into operation. georgia is the scary thing is for you. credit is that they put themselves on the front line. they want to start to come like they're going to be on the receiving end, a bit more than anyone else here. again, this is playing with by 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 that short break. we'll continue our discussion with somebody needs. thanks r o we're allowing ourselves to be more efficient or quicker with our transactions. we can make mobile payments from our phones. the truth is that every device is a potential entry point for security attack. i think a eventually there's a thousands, maybe sometimes millions each day they use or they use the technology as an extension of traditional official intelligence has not many main threat. this is due to the 3 laws of robotics. one of the things that the mini cyber plans right now, i'd be where you're really worried about it. most people would really be coming from a chip in my brain. so there has been a lot of progress from the hacker side using ai and using other advanced technologies. there has been on the defensive slayton who welcome to cross stock where all things are considered. i'm funeral bell. this is the home addition to remind you were 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 to 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 of strategic ambiguity . i seem to have gone up into smoke as it were. of course, later his handlers talked it back. 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 blinking is saying that be the taiwan should have a higher profile in, in you and institutions and things like this. this is completely counter what was agreed to do exchanging diplomatic relations. this issue with taiwan interest teaching ambiguity. i want to be clear with everyone. it's worked for everyone since they recognize that the united states 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 on the spot is mouthpiece global times recently referred to the bite administration as the most degenerate and incompetent in us history. so my talk america is back and you know, 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 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, it, there are times when they thinking, well, what we need to do is to do a kissinger and reverse. we need to align ourselves. 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 a global democracy summit, which we can feel good about ourselves, that we are now dead set against the on democratic enemies. it is 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 millis, famous, or infamous, a telephone call to the chinese leaders during the lack of days of the trumpet, ministration, telling them, well, don't worry, we're not about to attack you. but if we do it like you, i promise, i'll give you a phone call ahead of time. so the chinese leaders really don't know what it is doing. and i think that's why there is furious as they are. you know, kind of what i find really perplexing here is this policy of strategic ambiguity is actually work for everyone. type one has everything but independence. ok. it was agreed that there is a one china policy, the west particular united states recognize that of which actually means that they recognize that taiwan is part of china. though it has a special status unspoken, but it obviously exists here. so it, it has worked for beijing. ok, and as much as they may rhetorically lash 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, at the cynic in me, in revenue, we can talk about this is a, 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 in the distribution of power now for washington, obviously don't want more with china, but not the record. so keeping disagreements by the same time, they want to enhance their strategic justice against china, which means ripping off disagreements. so they want that in both ways. as part of the main problem with taiwan is the status of the china. so for more than 40 years, the us more than 4 years, i was like that 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 is capitalism aging? so this is very explicit and this has worked for 40 years and from china's perspective, obviously it wants to have pie one back. but you 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 really oh, as a resultant the use it's time is melting on the side over the past few years to see it's beginning to chip away than the one china policy upgrading official status. 1 referring to morrison and state, also the boldly reply one is to maybe seek independence. so if the govern dependents, this is the one scenario where china will intervene militarily. so if you want to the fuel situation, just the 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. well, they don't repeat the rich rhetoric international community. one days after getting off the call with china, america begin suggesting pie one must have an independence or presentation in the room, which isn't just a stepping stone, but it's like the last that before the session. so it's know, it's a little bit like you're going to want to have both ways to say we're going to live by the agreements. but at the same time that you throw them away, you know how to 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 professionalism? well this, i mean, anyone that knows anything about american policy in the pacific is so preaching 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 says if the these agreements never existed, this understanding never existed. if i were in beijing, i would be extremely nervous. right now you have mark miller making that crazy asinine phone call. then you have biden just say, you know, we will go to war over time want, i mean, i did that in beijing. the mostly think these americans must have lost their mind. yes. yeah, 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 engaging 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 co with join. i know we want to 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, you know, we don't know what's going on here. let's just put that on back bullet. so this is getting itself into an 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 settle it. it is several. and that's why the so strange as to why exactly is suddenly brought this up. i mean, this is, and that 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 has created a conflict over an issue that is 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 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 a, it's under threat. it's under pressure and is this by the u. s. is reacting the way it is, because when you, when you feel your should be chicken ports and, and weight begin to dissipate, it creates a potential 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 can be resolved in your brain, it's a ukrainian problem. we have the situation with 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, a geopolitical thinking in washington about. it's relative decline in the world. am i wrong? i'm quite comfortable in its own position in the world. that is the global dominance or stable then obviously it wouldn't go in the center change of international agreements and risk 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 no take a position to morrow that is to day. so it's better to start changing a reality on the ground. you know, bring the ukrainian to nato and get independence for taiwan. so you can use a permanent or like an aircraft carrier which is sunk so. so this is the main goal or going for but, but there is no great genius plan behind this. i mean, because of the end of the day for russia, ukraine is next substantial director for china is goes back to the opium morrison. this is how they were there in the territory was split from them. i know one obviously left off the dilution in $9061.00 but, but the point is this is being especially a remnant of a with their power. so when interfering and they're 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 the government themselves, but don't go for that last i've gone, don't try to seek independence. and if they do, china will, and that i'm a 100 percent sure of will use military force to get it back. and within that closer proximity of china, there's nothing that you can do to really win. i'm like all, all scenarios to just the china will come up with up. so it they are. this is not a great plan. this is going to cost, but you're not going to win it. we're rapidly running on time. george, me. glenn brings up such an important point here. ukraine, because is 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 of true teaching value for the united states. go ahead. yes, exactly. so these are both of great importance to those do, do great power. and if the united states, that is provoking a conflict over something that's of no importance to the united states, there's getting involved in ukraine who's and hadn't no other strategic purpose then to antagonize russia and the same with i one, there's no reason for any 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 hours and that's why this policy is both foolish and dangerous. for payment though, that's the one interest. actually we call the program gets a friend, joe. ok, that's all the time we have the gentleman. i want to thank my guest now slow in budapest, one thing our viewers for watching and c r t c. see you next time remember across ah ah ah ah, ah oh, is your media a reflection of reality? in a world transformed what will make you feel safe? isolation or community? are you going the right way or are you being led somewhere? direct. what is true? what is faith in the world corrupted? you need to descend a join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. it's been 30 years as the soviet union collapsed. mom miss gov law. got a chill, the one to walk up on getting a little talk, so shown where your 4 trust them with all of them. ukraine was one of the independent states that emerge from the ruins of a super about new or someone. would you also get on greens? come a little more, surely, she was a better one more law or else what is a is a social for you? the business is are service, but it is free and finish out the ship. a watch of the past 3 decades been like for ukraine, eye witnesses, recall the events. this will be more or less so judiciary in a deficiency of chipotle. what are you 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 in sure machine, those them you are in the kid what it would occur when you this is shows us the most of us until at least take a look at ukraine. 2 years out, the gaining independence school. got your phone with us for dinner unless you mean . yeah. with unity reported mostly will, will, will, will it lindsey provision opium, lateral, hostile holding store for a well, i don't think i know i told ladies, move on them for the g. 20. it isn't all smiles. the french president claims is a strolling candidate, probably lying about the trouble, the deal for submarines, the o. casteel mean time delegates gather and scotland today for big you and climate summit with kohls to have a missions, but already the recruit. um had put chris safe as around $400.00 private jet, so reportedly fly in vi pays for the event for a decade loan case, a canadian court. those are the comedian didn't cross the line. when you make jokes about a disabled child cigna, we put that up for debate. the must be a stop between hatred and comedy between violence and free speech. no one saying there shouldn't be cons.