ukraine is a good example. does washington in brussels one piece? the same applies when it comes to china. where are the stable and predictable policies we were told about? ah, to discuss these issues and more, i'm joined by my guess, jordan, samuel in budapest, he's a podcast to read the gambling which can be found on youtube and locals. and in also we have these and he is professor at the university of se or norway as well as author of great power politics in the 4th industrial revolution. hi gentlemen, crossed out rules and effect. that means you can jump any time you want. and i would appreciate it, it was good glen in our slow glenn over the last couple of weeks we're getting a lot of different conflicting signals. let's focus in on the, from the bite administration on foreign policy. this focus in and ukraine here. um, as its well known as the the, to stop the worst part of the hostilities after the illegal takeover of power in 19, i'm sorry, 2014. um we had the minsk accords and russia is not a, a part of the conflict. but now we're getting from brussels in washington and now they've reinterpreted these records in russia. is a member of a party of this conflict. that's something new and very dangerous. go ahead. yeah, i agree. and again, i agree that it's a complicated conflict. i mean, it was in 2014 the with roku and then the east on a mazda refused to recognize the legitimacy, and then came horse to manpower terrorist operations. so obviously the west is backing. the government has told in the west, in his are in cave and russia are getting a support foreign to rebels. now, as a bus, always a truly a conflict. and has been dealt with the western russia to deal with how to organize your team agreement, which is it's our minsk agreements in terms of how to resolving the conflict deals with the internal conflict in parties. so keep 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 bay one. he was also established dialogue with don boss and to work towards a certain degree of autonomy for them. but now 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 it worked source, undermining 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 coal, 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, good. and then also recognizing that russia is not part of this deal that however, thereafter, i mean, even if you have half the u. s. meeting with philips give you the hailing for how he has carried out. 1 publications on the team agreement, then that you sign a common statement. naming, rush us in, aggressor, most effectively reject thing then talk 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 bus instead percent as a conflict between ukraine and russia to deprive you know, legitimacy away from the bus. and the, and this is their direction, we're going and meanwhile the target means to be means as throw out the window. so no rush of quite a bottle. what is it supposed to do? i mean, they haven't done followed to the commitments of the previous agreement, and now you're suggesting we have to move forward. what are the really things up build on the past? they're saying must throw at all agreements and let's begin with an entirely new script. so it's, they're sending all this barry conflicting messages. so mosque was beginning to see the ear up 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. give ok. george. i mean, this has been the fundamental problem, because if you look at western analysis in 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 because it's on the border because of the, the ethnic makeup of the don't best, 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 to conflict, which, you know, this is something that the russian side says we don't want in all other parties to one degree. another kid is in a different category, but europe isn't 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. i completely agree with you because as you say, this is a conflict with in ukraine, between here and, and the bus. and it flows directly from the events of february 2014, when the legal, legitimate government was overthrown. and the people who supported 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 them somehow. russia is a party to the conflict. and that this, what's going on in the dumbass is a constant russian ukraine. and so that's obviously how the media presented, the, how the united states present, that ellen is. glenn 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 dom bus, the germans and the french. and they got very anxious that this will provoke our conflict. and then, you know, they had the telephone conferences with and, and make play. yeah. we're right with the board. we believe that the minutes go should be supported and then you know, the very next day they go. busy back on this, but what is happening now is that ukraine is in effect becoming the fact. so a member of nature when you grade is not taking part in nato meetings. so in fact, the, the billing here, zelinski, quoted, i haven't gotten reasons 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. and 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 other don't last i. what so nature's response is for what was the russian to 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 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. busy 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. i'm paraphrase the russian foreign minister love it off. he said that this couldn't spell the end of ukraine. so the, in those are not words spoken likely. i mean, you know, we, when we have the defense secretary, us defense secretary and 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 while it is kind of problematic, because the one hand they have to tell the russians are, by the same time the, the mission will go on as to popping up. you can push it towards set or changing the means agreement. i mean, the policy or the spot 7 years 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 and hope and at same time popping up. and then at some point they should be able them to change to our balance. and them being able to renegotiate, and this was supposed to be back in april and you know, your credit again, mobilizing us troops are along the border. as you know, the west comes with stern warnings. you know, natal says do not there to do anything. russia and then russia mobilizes. an alternate victims is more so then they 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. they don't all along, it 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 they have all this agreements. 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 let's, you know, let's deal with the present. and this is going to why russia kind of have fed up in the also doesn't seem or it is. so doesn't want to start to renegotiate from scratch from all the old agreements. so it's kind of drawing this clear red lines. i mean, you can agree or disagree with the russians, but, but this is kind of, it is not going to move any more on this because i need to go 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're 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, 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 too, because it is a wag the dog situation. and i wouldn't put it past image, 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 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 special state to see better relations with russia. zelinski would have no choice, right? lensky thinks that he has a choice that he can just continue to aggravate the situation. means 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 say, hey, we have an agreement, you know, we, we signed this agreement. okay. 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. they would not expand these words. 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? well, i know 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 us clear that your brain is increasingly becoming a de facto member of nato. you sort of say if we continue with this, then at some point they chose article 5 who come into operation with 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 about short break. we'll continue our discussion on some new ah, 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 the personality of an individual. by scientific means, this is how one doctor's 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, tortured jace, disseminated within the u. s. intelligence community, and world wide among allies for the next 30 years. and how the victim say they still live with the consequences today. ah . welcome to crossed out. were all things are considered. i'm funeral bell, this is the home addition to remind you. we're discussing some real news. ah, i mean, let's go back to george in budapest year. let's talk about some more ambiguous, foreign policy le shipped to years, the asia. a lot of people i'm of course you saw it in a our viewer saw it as well as that when joe biden had, is a town hall with cnn. and he was asked about taiwan the long standing policy of strategic ambiguity. i seem to have gone up into smoke as it were. of course, later his handlers talked it. 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 the, the taiwan should have a higher profile in you, in 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, 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 on the spot is mouthpiece global times recently referred to the bike and ministration as the most degenerate and incompetent in us history. so much for 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, one of the administration officials, including the defense secretary, they're also committed to go 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 and shine. they get separate the 2 great powers. and then they go back to no, no, no, we would prefer to confront russia and china together. let's have a global democracy summit which we can go about. also, we are a democratic and i mean, it is a policy that is guaranteed to create a doubts 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 days of the trumpet ministration, 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 washington is doing, and i think that's why there is furious as they are. you know, glenn, 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, pretty clean united states recognize that 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 is works per beijing. ok, 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 is that, you know, the intelligence that have community, they want threat in 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 change of the distribution of power. now, washing a china, but that requires a keeping disagreements by the same time they want to enhance their strategic vantage against china. which means wrapping up disagreement. so they want that in both ways. as you point out, the main problem with taiwan is this status. this is 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 it's capitalism, aging. so this is very explicit and this has worked for 40 years and for 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 result in the use, it's time is melting on that side over the past few years. you see it's beginning to chip away then 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 the found china, you know, we will stick by the one china policy. and this is where the implicitly comes in because that's what button did he calls china. explain. we're fully committed to one china policy just combo, but they don't repeat the rich rhetoric towards the international community. indeed, after getting off the call with china, the americans begin suggesting pie one must have an independent representation in the un, which isn't just a stepping stone, but it's like the last that before the session so that it is no, it's a little bit like ukraine. you want to have it both ways to say we're going to live by the agreements, but at the same time, you throw them away in order to and how's your strategic advantage? so it's very how can you have diplomacy 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 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 biden just say, you know, we will go to war over time want, i mean, it in beijing the most you 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 in the 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 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 it, 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 it is so strange as to why exactly is certainly brought this up. i mean, this is a, 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 unnecessarily provocative and has created a conflict over an issue that is of no really import united states. and as you say it was just no need for this. you know, glennie, you know, you, you are a big deal political thinker. ok, i mean it is, if we step away in the 1st part of the program, we talked about the frame and then we're talking about china. mean it, is this, the american hegemony? it's and it's under threat. it's under pressure. is this why the u. s. is reacting the way it is, because when you, when you feel you should be chicken ports and, and in weight begin to dissipate, it creates a potential aggressive behavior. so it's looking for a conflict. we're really doesn't need it. and we don't need a conflict in ukraine, it could be resolved in ukraine. it's a ukrainian problem. we have the situation with taiwan. 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? go ahead. yeah. all it, if you are quite comfortable in its own position in the world, that is the global dominance will 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 this 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 reality on the ground. you know, bring, you know, ukrainian tomato, this is get independence for taiwan. so you can use a permanent, like an aircraft carrier which is function so, so this is the main goal is going from, 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 august of the revolution in mind. but, but the point is, this is being especially a remnant of or 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 autonomy, they say they're the government 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 all scenarios to just the china will come up. so there are, this is not a great plan. this is going to hope that you're not going to win. it went rapidly running on time. george, i mean, glen brings up such an important point here. ukraine because this bridge 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 teaching value for the united states. go ahead. yes, exactly. so these are both of great importance to 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 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 hours, and that's why the policy is both foolish and dangerous. for containment though, that's the one interest. so that's why we call in the program. get some frantic. jo, that's all the time we have gentlemen. i want to thank my guests in oslo, in budapest and one thing our viewers for watching and see our dc. see you next time, remember across ah ah . the either financial survival guide, stacy, let's learn about 3 aloud. let's say i'm a true, i get any or grease from grease on banks of the site. wall street broad, thank you for helping with joy. that's right, fill out her desk. slavery talk driven by drink shaped bank. concur some of those with, there's things we dare to ask. ah, russia. this class of car was discontinued more than 20 years ago. even though stayed with us a sort of in the south. it flew proposal that dealing with them for the practice. it took 5 years to close the gap on the will car industry from the drawing board to the 1st finish model. skip sister will show to file a motion from a small school when publish it for shift of commercial america crockett. this with the prism of villas to deal with commercial ah, i don't think i know as well as late as move on from the g. 20. it isn't all smiles . the french president claims the australian p. m. was lying about that troubled deal for submarines. while delegates gathered scotland for the un climate summit with colds to hobb emissions for their cries of hypocrisy, too was around $400.00 private jet, reportedly flying in the eyepiece for the event and an american pilot who told passengers the anti biden catchphrase. let's go, brandon gets us democrats and the mainstream media flying into a rage. ah, although just to midnight here in moscow now.