the stop the worst part of the hostilities after the illegal takeover of power. in 1900. i'm sorry, 2014. we have the mens cords and russia is not a part of the conflict, but now we're getting from brussels in washington. now they've reinterpreted these records that 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, it was in 2014 with the roku, and then they refused to recognize the legitimacy. and then came last, terrorist operations out. obviously the with backing the government installed in the west in the are in cave and russia. you know, getting support or rebels now as always, to layer counseling. and it has to be done with the western russia deal with all during last year. but the key agreement, which is in minsk agreements in terms of how to resolving the conflict deals with the internal conflicting party. so keep and on boss is very, very explicit. i saw and this is the foundation for how to solve it. and not only that, the agreement means is quite explicit, but it makes clear. and this was written 6 years ago more than 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 the bus. now, everyone signed this agreement that runs in the esl 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 stores, undermining him a he mentioned the, the u. s. but we recently have the same case now of the you as well. so you know, the macro, the 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 the bus which to have refused to do. and, and also recognizing that russia is not part of this deal. that however, thereafter, i mean, even needed to have her after the u. s. meeting with cylinder give you credit, the hail him for how he has carried out the application of the key agreement. then that you signs a common statement. naming russia as an aggressor. those effectively reject thing then taught him, disagreement is quite extraordinary. so the next that now for you is pushing, including to meet with zalinski, to move the green the 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 the direction we're going in. meanwhile, the target means to me means as throw out the window. so rush us quite befuddled. what is it supposed to do? i mean, they haven't done followed to the commitments of the previous agreement, and now that you suggesting we have to move forward. but what the really things of build on the past they're saying throw up all agreements and let's begin with an entirely new script. so it's sending all this very conflicting messages. so, you know, most was beginning to see the 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 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 and you can, 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 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 camp is in a different category, but europe is set 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, and the dumbass on it flows directly from the events of february of 2014, when the legal, legitimate government was overthrown. and the people who are supposed to go with the people in the dumbass rejected the illegal regime. but as far as the mens go, russia is one of the guarantors as germany and france and the germans and the french, you 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, 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 that seemed like it was going to be an explosion in ukraine because of zalinski was threatening and offensive against the dom bus, 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 play. yeah, we're right with the board. we believe that the minister orders 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 ukraine is now taking part in nato meetings. so in fact, the, the billing here, zalinski 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 major is getting involved on this side. and so, you know, it's in their interests to keep escalating the conflicts last week. they use the drone that they purchased from turkey against the don't last on what so, nature's response is broken. what was the russians who started it? ukraine is being acting defensively. so ukraine is making your 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 the, it, that means we're gotten down to a game of playing, playing chicken or bluff. and then is that is, that is the recipe for an explosion that we saw in potentially happening in the spring. here. the russians made it very clear that there are red lines here and the consequences. i'm paraphrase the russian foreign minister lover. he said that this couldn't spell the end of ukraine, and 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 end victoria new and show up here with a very bizarre meeting. here is any game of chicken that they're playing, glen, all it is because the role 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 asters keeper popping up your grant, push it towards that are changing. that means agreement. i mean, the policy over this past 7 years has really been pushing in this direction. so over the past 7 years, the west coast all is anti russian sanctions and weakening, trying to weaken russia, obviously didn't go ask them hope and at same time popping up your grades. and then at some point, they should be able them to change their power balance and then being able to renegotiate. and this was supposed to be back in april and you know, you credit again, mobilizing his troops or along the us border us, you know, the west comes with stern warnings, nasal says do not there to do anything. russia and then russia mobilizes and ups in 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 in europe and then gradually they have all this agreements and begin to make incremental changes on the ground and step by step and one day the saying, well, these agreements belong to reality let's you know, there was the and this is kind of why rush is kind of fed up and the whole doesn't seem or are going to do so doesn't want to start to renegotiate from scratch on the old agreement. so it's kind of drawing this clear red lines. i mean, you're going to agree or disagree with the russians about, but this is kind of not going to move anymore on this because i mean, you 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 of this moment? here, george, with 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 the zalinski. this is the way to turn the corner. you'll do it. yes. yeah, and 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 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. the writer's zalinski thinks that he has a choice that he can just continue to aggravate the situation. mean the 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 a, we have an agreement, you know, we sign 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, i know you made all sorts of commitments to gorbachev. they do not expand east 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 more for you for believing us. so that's kind of the way they're operating now. and i think the zalinski now see the need, you know, you make this clear that your brain is increasingly becoming a faculty member of nato. you sort of say if we continue with this, then at some point they goes all to go 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 a company. they're going to be on the receiving end, a bit more than anyone else here. again, this is playing with buyer hearing that it's a conflict that i hardly anyone wants except for maybe the training. so i 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 some real mistakes. ah, ah, a final survival guy looking forward to your account. yeah, this is what happens dimensions in britain. does this have you watch kaiser report? the british and american governments have often been accused of destroying lives in their own interests. while you see in this, these techniques is the state devising methods to essentially destroy personnel to that individual by scientific means. this is how one doctors, theories were allegedly used in psychological warfare against prisoners deemed a danger to the state. that was the foundation for the method of psychological interrogation, psychological torture, this year, disseminated within the us intelligence community, and worldwide among allies for the next 30 years. and how the victims say they still live with the consequences today. ah, and i make no, no borders line to nationalities and you parish as a merge, we don't have a charity. we don't have a vaccine. the whole world needs to take action to be ready. people are judgment. 2 common crisis with we can do better, we should be doing better. every one is contributing each in their own way. but we also know that this crisis will not go on forever. the challenge is great, the response has been massive. so many good people are helping us. it makes us feel very proud that we're in it together with ah, well to make the cross stock we're all things are considered. i'm funeral 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 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 was cnn. and he was asked about taiwan the 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 is just 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 new spot is mouthpiece global times recently referred to the bite and ministration 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 i. so all the administration officials, including the defense secretary, they're also committed to going to war for these uninhabited rocks and 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. 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 is a policy that is guaranteed to create a you no 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 days of the trumpet, ministration. telling them, well, don't worry, we're not about to attack you, but if we do it to you, i promise i'll give you a phone call ahead of time. so the chinese leaders really don't know what i was 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 a type one is part of china, though it has a special status unspoken, but it obviously exists here. so it, it has worked for beijing. ok. they 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 been the 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 the china, but up the record keeping disagreements by the same time they want to enhance their strategic vantage against china. which means wrapping up 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 is 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 every year. so at some point they can, you know, gradually bring them in with economic incentives or however it is fun, but time is on china side. so really oh, as a result in the use, it's time is melting on the sides 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, if 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 rich rhetoric towards the national community in days after getting off the call with china america begin suggesting i one must have an independence or presentation in the room which isn't just a stepping stone, but it's like the last 4 sessions. so in this, no, it's a little bit like you're going 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 professional isabel this? i mean, anyone that knows anything about american policy in the pacific is so preaching, ambiguous, 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 bite and just say, you know, we will go to war over time want, i mean, i think 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 good relations with china. and then when it comes to something like a on that issue, which actually doesn't say 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 the back left. 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. it's a matter that's essentially settle it. yes, 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 has created 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 if we step away in the 1st part of the broken, we talked about the frame and now 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 strategic importance 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 could be resolved and you great, it's 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 in a week or in tomorrow that is today. so it's better to start changing a reality on the ground or, you know, bring the ukrainian to nato. this is to get independence for taiwan so you can use it as a permanent or like an aircraft carrier which is sunk so. so this is the main goal is going for, but, but there is no great genius plan behind this. i mean, because of the end of the day or, or russia, ukraine is next suspension, right before china is goes back. you know, to the opium morrison. this is how they were there and the territory was split from them. i don't, i one obviously left off the dribble, lucian in 1951. but, but the point is, this is being especially a remnant of a, with their power. so when interfering, and the not going to give up their own territories 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 loss. they'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 to us can do to really when, like all, all scenarios suggest the china will come out to the top. so it, they are, this is not a great plan. this is going to cost, but you're not going to win it when rapidly running on time. george, me, glen, 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 of that of no importance to the united states, there's getting involved in ukraine who isn't, has no strategic purpose, then to antagonize russia the same which i want. 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. how was it in your interest to antagonize rival great hours? and that's why this policy is both foolish and dangerous for containment. so that's the one interest. actually we call the program, gets a friend of joe. ok, that's all the time we have gentlemen. i think my guests in oslo in budapest, one thank you for watching and c r t c. so you next time remember across ah, ah ah russia this class of car was discontinued more than 20 years ago. even though say more of the move um well so you know what was the model of the sort of can you sell it to proposal that sure. dealing with them for the practice. it took 5 years to close the gap on the world car industry from the drawing board to the 1st finished model. skip sister will over show the fire force can you deal with with the law firm? all worship from a small school different well would flow here from much lenient luca crockett. the 1st one was pretty much it was the only marshall. oh is your media a reflection of reality in the world transformed what will make you feel safer? isolation, whole community? are you going the right way? where are you being led to somewhere? direct? what is true? what is faith? in a world corrupted, you need to descend her join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. ah ah ah, i don't think i know those world leaders move on from the g. 20. it isn't all smiles. the french president claim see australian p. m was lying about that trouble deal for submarines while delegates gather in scotland for the u. n's, climate summit with colds to have the emissions for the reprise of hypocrisy as around 400 private jets reportedly flying in v i. p for the event and that american pilot, who told passengers the anti biden catch phrase. let's go brandon. gets us democrats in the mainstream media flying into a rage. ah .