i'm peter labelle, focus on ukraine. joe biden says i don't accept any one's red line, rushes foreign ministers out again. margaret says the nightmare scenario of military confrontation is returning on this edition of the program. we examined the significance of both statements. ah discuss these issues and more and joined by my guess, george m u l. e. in budapest, he is a podcast or the goggle which can be found on youtube and locals. and in oslo we have gland deason. he is a professor at the university of southeastern norway as well as author of the book, great power politics in the 4th industrial revolution, or a gentleman cross hoc rules in effect, that means you can jump any time you want, and i would appreciate it. again, it's glen 1st the in our slow i, i don't think we can, you underestimate the significance of the 2 sentences that i cited in the introduction. i don't accept anyone's red line and the nightmare scenario of military computation is returning. i don't think anything we have heard anything like that si

visa be ukraine? go ahead. it's hard to tell because nato's is on the one hand supporting ukraine, giving it up mac it back in giving it to linux baton on the other hand makes it very clear that it's not actually willing to defend it militarily. so we had mr. linton of the other day saying that if a rationalist attack keep crane, the united states would put heavy sanctions on russia. medical sanctions are not a military response. because of course ukraine is not a member of nato. so, on the one hand, the c nato kind of egging ukraine on a little bit and, and lending it support and on the other hand, backing off as well, which is probably no desperately good combination. alexander, i can help get the pulling that nato and particularly the leader of the, of the alliance. the united states wants some kind of military conflict because at the end of the day, this is a entry ukraine conflict that needs to be resolved. and there's actually a roadmap for that. it's called the minsk accords here, which of course western

i'm peter level focus on ukraine. joe biden says i don't accept anyone's red line. russia is foreign minister saturday. margaret says the nightmare scenario of military confrontation is returning on this edition of the program. we examined the significance of both statements. ah, discuss these issues and more. i'm joined by my guess towards m, u l. e. in budapest, he is a podcast or the goggle which can be found on youtube and locals. and also we have these and he is a professor at the university of southeastern norway as well as author of the book, great power politics in the 4th industrial revolution, or a gentleman, cross hoc rules and effect, that means you can jump anytime you want. and i would appreciate it again, it's going to glen 1st in us slow i, i don't think we can underestimate the significance of the 2 sentences that i cited in the introduction. i don't accept anyone's red line, and the nightmare scenario of military compensation is returning. i don't think anything we've heard anything like that since t

and ukraine is roches soft. underbelly, under no circumstances can the russian government allow ukraine to be in night. so often they told us to be even more widely deployed in the country because of that will pose a most perilous threat. so the security of russia and to the security of the russian people. and also the americans could extend their missile defense system in eastern europe into ukraine. and that would mean that the russian strategic nuclear also would be in dia, trouble. so unless the americans relent and put into writing though, as i said earlier wrong, i don't think i pledge from them in writing would mean anything. but if they do put into writing your credit would not be admitted into the ranks of the western military block. and if they do pull their forces back from eastern europe and the baltic states, then of course, tension will somewhat decrease. but the problem is that in a year from now in 2 years from now, we could be at this position again. that is why decisive action has to be taken by russia, because you, you will come when you kind dos. and so the ranks of

these of the ukraine go ahead. it's hard to tell because nato's is on the one hand supporting ukraine, giving it up, market back in giving it to lexie backing on the other hand, making it very clear that it's not actually willing to defend it militarily. so we had mr. bloomington of the other day saying that if a rationalist attack, ukraine of united states will put heavy sanctions on russia because sanctions are not a military response. because of course, ukraine is not a member of later. so, on the one hand, the c nato, kind of egging ukraine on a burden and lending it support and on the other hand, backing off as well, which is probably no desperately good combination. alexander, i can help, i get the feeling that nato, and particularly the leader of the, of the alliance. the united states wants some kind of military conflict because at the end of the day, this is a inter ukraine conflict that needs to be resolved. and there's actually a roadmap for that. it's called the minsk accords here at which of course wes

i'm back in the ukraine. some state it can apply to joy, any organization it want shirt and i don't think in a rush to tell it you can't apply. but at the same time, nato members are also sovereign states and, and they don't have to accept new members. or when you know the country like canada isn't as a native members, considering whether it should allow someone else into the car, but it should be thinking about its own inch as it does. it serve us to have these people join our club. what do we get out of it? do we become stronger from it? or do we end up essentially adding a liability to us? personally, i can't see what benefit nato would acquire from having ukraine. i, as a member, it's a very poor society. um, it's a military, it is quite leak or is extremely vulnerable. and it risks dragging us into war, russia and why should no essentially put it quite bluntly. you know, what, why should canadians die for ukraine? i mean, what, like why, what's in it for us? and so, yes i ukraine is, is um entitled to ap

and ukraine is russia's soft underbelly. under no circumstances can the russian government allow ukraine to be nato. often nato forces to be even more widely deployed in the country. because that would pose a most perilous threat. so the security or russia to the security of the russian people and also the americans could extend their missile defense system in eastern europe into ukraine. and that would mean that the russian strategic nuclear arsenal would be in dire trouble. so unless the americans relents and put in. so right though, as i said earlier, wrong, i don't think i pledge from them in writing would mean anything. but if they do put into rights and ukraine would not be admitted into the ranks of the west and military block. and if they do pull back from eastern europe and the both states, then of course tension will somewhat decrease. but the problem is that in a year from now in 2 years from now, we could be a decision. again, that is why decisive action has to be taken by russia because you will come when you cr

and ukraine is russia's soft underbelly, under no circumstances can the russian government allow ukraine to be made so often nature forces to be even more widely deployed in the country because of that will pose a most perilous threat. so the security of russia and to the security of the russian people. and also the americans could extend that missile defense system in eastern europe into ukraine. and that would mean that the russian strategic nuclear also would be in dire trouble. so unless the americans relent and put into writing though, as i said earlier wrong, i don't think i pledge from them in writing would mean anything. but if they do put into writing, you credit would not be admitted into the ranks of the western military block. and if they do pull their forces back from eastern europe and the state, then of course, tension will somewhat decrease. but the problem is that in a year from now in 2 years from now, we could be at this position again. that is why decisive action has to be taken by russia, because you will come when you crank dos. and so the ranks of the night and by

i'm peter lavelle, focus on ukraine. joe biden says i don't accept any one's red line. russia's foreign minister saturday, margaret says the nightmare scenario of military confrontation is returning on this edition of the program. we examined the significance of both statements. ah discuss these issues and more and joined by my guess, george m u l. e. in budapest, he is a podcast or the goggle which can be found on youtube and locals. and in oslo we have gland deason. he is a professor at the university of southeastern norway as well as author of the book, great power politics in the 4th industrial revolution, or a gentleman cross hoc rules in effect, that means you can jump any time you want, and i would appreciate it. again, it's glen 1st the in our slow i, i don't think we can eat under estimate the significance of the 2 sentences that i cited in the introduction. i don't accept anyone's red line and the nightmare scenario of military computation is returning. i don't think anything we've heard anything like that sinc

these of the ukraine go ahead. it's hard to tell because it is on the one hand supporting ukraine, giving it up, mac it back in giving it to lexi backing on the other hand makes it very clear that it's not actually willing to defend it militarily. so we had a mr. lincoln of the other day saying that if a rationalist attack, he'd crane of united states would put heavy sanctions on russia, medical sanctions and not a military response. because of course, ukraine is not a member of nato. so, on the one hand, the c nato kind of egging ukraine on a bit and, and lending it support and on the other hand, backing off as well, which is probably not desperately good combination. alexander, i can help, i get the feeling that nato, and particularly the leader of the, of the alliance. the united states wants some kind of military conflict because at the end of the day, this is entry, ukraine conflict that needs to be resolved. and there's actually a roadmap for that. it's called the minsk accords here, which of course western d

i'm peter labelle, focus on ukraine. joe biden says i don't accept any one's red line. russia's foreign minister saturday, margaret says the nightmare scenario of military confrontation is returning on this edition of the program. we examined the significance of both statements. ah, discuss these issues and more and joined by my guess, george samuel, we in budapest, he is a podcast or at the goggle which can be found on youtube and locals. and in oslo we have gland deason. he is a professor at the university of southeastern norway as well as author of the book, great power politics in the 4th industrial revolution, or a gentleman, crosshatch, rules and effect. that means you can jump any time you want, and i would appreciate it. again, it's got to glen 1st the in our slow i, i don't think we can you under estimate the significance of the 2 sentences that i cited in the introduction? i don't accept any one's red line. and the nightmare scenario of military computation is returning. i don't think anything we have heard any

and its allies, the same with eastern ukraine. what happened in eastern ukraine? how did the situation begin? there is a lot of political details there, like lustration and things that were encouraged by the u. s. and the u. s. backed political actors at the time that created the crisis, and russia did not invade crimea or sylvester pool. they were there already. and there was a, there was a transition to crimea was reunited with russia and had been separated in 1954. so these nuances never get talked about, and so they think rushes in, violation of all these international laws, and that justifies nato expansion. so if we come to a forum, if we come to a negotiation table, these details should come out. will they though? is this what the u. s. wants do they want to have that conversation? i don't think they do. i don't think their allies do. they want to keep it in the realm of hyperbolic aggressive to drive by comments and accusations. because there you don't have to have, you know, you really don't have to abide by any international agreements or treaties. your

and its allies, the same with eastern ukraine. what happened in eastern ukraine? how did the situation begin? there's a lot of political details there, like lustration, the things that were encouraged by the u. s. and the u. s. backed political actors at the time that created their crisis. and russia did not invade crimea or service to pull. they were there already, and there was a, there was a transition to crimea was reunited with russia and have been separated in 1954. so these nuances never get talked about. and so they think rushes in, violation of all these international laws, and that justifies nato expansion. so if we come to a forum, if we come to a negotiation table, these details should come out, will they though, is this what the u. s. wants do. they want to have that conversation. i don't think they do, i don't think their allies do. they want to keep it in the realm of hyperbolic aggressive, to drive by comments and accusations. because there, you don't have to have, you know, you really don't have to abide by any international agreements or treaties

i'm peter labelle, focus on ukraine. joe biden says, i don't accept any one's red line. russia's foreign minister saturday, margaret says the nightmare scenario of military confrontation is returning on this edition of the program. we examined the significance of both statements. ah, the who discuss these issues and more and joined by him. i guess george m u l. we. in budapest, he is a podcast or the goggle which can be found on youtube and locals and afloat. we have going these and he is a professor at the university of south eastern norway as well as the author of the book, great power politics in the 4th industrial revolution or a gentleman, cross talk, rules and effects. that means you can jump in anytime you want, and i would appreciate it. okay, it's good to go ahead and 1st the in our slow i, i don't think we can underestimate the significance of the 2 sentences that i cited in the introduction. i don't accept anyone's red line and the nightmare scenario of military computation is returning. i don't think anything

i'm peter lavelle, focus on ukraine. joe biden says, i don't accept any one's red line, rushes foreign ministers out again. margaret says the nightmare scenario of military confrontation is returning on this edition of the program, we examined the significance of both statements. ah, discuss these issues and more and joined by my guess, george samuel, we in budapest, he is a podcast or at the goggle which can be found on youtube and locals. and in oslo we have gland deason. he is a professor at the university of southeastern norway as well as author of the book, great power politics in the 4th industrial revolution or a gentleman cross huck rules and effect. that means you can jump any time you want and i would appreciate it. again, it's glen 1st the in our slow i, i don't think we can, you underestimate the significance of the 2 sentences that i cited in the introduction. i don't accept any one's red line and the nightmare scenario of military computation is returning. i don't think anything we have heard anything like

, doesn't ukraine? is not really not particularly concerned, one way or another is the ukraine is a cudgel in the problem is it's been built up in the u. s. media, this russian invasion that's meant to happen according to intelligent sources in january. both sides both democrat and republican of kind of bought into this narrative. so that might hamper any efforts by biden ministration to want to be seen as the piece savior and come and do some interim deal. there's going to be pressure on from democrats, not to do that to be more aggressive. and you know, if the republicans are, are aiming for on this, they want to see more intention ratchet it up. so, because that's good for the military industrial complex. so it's a, it's not a good situation politically this week, the week administration that you have in the white house now is not good at all for this situation. so that's one thing that a lot of people should be very concerned about. you know, george, that we got one more minute here. joe joe biden d

and ukraine is russia's soft underbelly, under no circumstances can the russian government allow ukraine to be night. so often nature forces to be even more widely deployed in the country because of that will pose a most perilous threat. so the security of russia and to the security of the russian people. and also the americans could extend their missile defense system in eastern europe into ukraine. and that would mean that the russian strategic nuclear also would be in dire trouble. so unless the americans relent and put into rights in though, as i said earlier, wrong, i don't think i played from them in writing would mean anything. but if they do put into rights in your credit, would not be admitted into the ranks of the western military block. and if they do pull their forces back from eastern europe and the state, then of course tension will somewhat decrease. but the problem is that in a year from now, in 2 years from now, we could be at this position again, that is why decisive action has to be taken by russia, because you will come when you dos. and so the ranks of nature. and by

and ukraine is russia's soft underbelly, under no circumstances can the russian government allow ukraine to be night. so often nato forces to be even more widely deployed in the country because of that will pose a most perilous threat. so the security of russia and to the security of the russian people. and also the americans could extend their missile defense system in eastern europe into ukraine. and that would mean that the russian strategic nuclear also would be in dire trouble. so unless the americans relent and put into writing though, as i said earlier, wrong, i don't think i played from them in writing would mean anything. but if they do put into writing your credit would not be admitted into the ranks of the western military block. and if they do pull their forces back from eastern europe and the state, then of course, tension will somewhat decrease. but the problem is that in a year from now in 2 years from now, we could be at this position again. that is why decisive action has to be taken by russia, because you, we'll come when you dos. and so the ranks of nature. and by then

and ukraine is russia's soft underbelly, under no circumstances can the russian government allow ukraine to be night. so often nature forces to be even more widely deployed in the country. because of that will pose a most perilous threat. so the security of russia and to the security of the russian people. and also the americans could extend their missile defense system in eastern europe into ukraine. and that would mean that the russian strategic nuclear also would be in dire trouble. so unless the americans relent and put into writing though, as i said earlier wrong, i don't think i pledge from them in writing would mean anything. but if they do put into writing, your credit would not be admitted into the ranks of the western military block. and if they do pull their forces back from eastern europe and the baltic states, then of course, tension will somewhat decrease. but the problem is that in a year from now in 2 years from now, we could be at this position again. that is why decisive action has to be taken by russia. because you, i will come when you kind das and so the ranks of nat

side these of the ukraine, go ahead. it's hard to tell because nato's is on the one hand supporting ukraine, giving it up, mac it back in giving it to linux, backing on the other hand. makes it very clear that it's not actually willing to defend it militarily. so we had mr. lincoln of the other day saying that if a rationalist attack keep crane the united states will put heavy sanctions on russia. medical sanctions are not a military response because of course ukraine is not a member of later. so on the one hand, e. c, nato, kind of egging ukraine on a lot of burden and lending it support. and on the other hand, backing off as well, which is probably no desperately good combination. alexander, i can help get the feeling that nato, and particularly the leader of the, of the alliance. the united states wants some kind of military conflict because at the end of the day, this is a entry ukraine conflict that needs to be resolved. and there's actually a roadmap for that. it's called the minsk accords here, which of course wes

and ukraine is russia's soft underbelly, under no circumstances can the russian government allow ukraine to be nato. often nato forces to be even more widely deployed in the country because of that would pose a most perilous french. so the security or russia to the security of the russian people. and also the americans could extend their missile defense system in eastern europe into ukraine. and that would mean that the russian strategic nuclear arsenal would be in dire trouble. so unless the americans relents and put into right though, as i said the wrong, i don't think i played from them in writing would mean anything. but if they do put into rights and ukraine would not be admitted into the ranks of the west and military block. and if they do pull their forces back from eastern europe and the states, then of course tension will somewhat decrease. but the problem is that in a year from now, in 2 years from now, we could be a decision. again, that is why decisive action has to be taken by russia. because you, i will come when you dos and so the ranks of nature. and by then it just be to

i'm peter labelle, focus on ukraine. joe biden says, i don't accept any one's red line, rushes foreign minister saturday. margaret says the nightmare scenario of military confrontation is returning on this edition of the program. we examined the significance of both statements. ah, discuss these issues and more and joined by my guess, george m u l e. in budapest, he is a podcast or the goggle which can be found on youtube and locals. and in oslo we have gland deason. he is a professor at the university of southeastern norway as well as author of the book, great power politics in the 4th industrial revolution or a gentleman cross huck rules and effect. that means you can jump any time you want and i would appreciate it. again, it's got to glen 1st the in our slow i, i don't think we can, you underestimate the significance of the 2 sentences that i cited in the introduction. i don't accept anyone's red line and the nightmare scenario of military computation is returning. i don't think anything we've heard anything like tha

well, once a week, i mean, it's moving into georgia, ukraine. i know when is the north atlantic treaty organization and that kind of them moving and then happily in their way into a central asia. so we're getting all of the rhetorical excesses from they do. and it's glen pointed out when push comes to shove, and they have to justify themselves to the western public as a say, well, we only have sanctions in mind. we're not actually going to go to war because it was the western public isn't going to tolerate with russia. you know, quick thing. this argument, if nato doesn't expand the means, granting rational sphere influence. we hear this over and over again. so influence actually has a meaning, it's such an exclusive influence, expand nato. that's just tool for fears of influence. russia saying no expansion, best not sphere of influence? that's a, you know, that's, that's an opposing. and so we really turn the language on this has it's quite remarkable. yeah. well, it means when i tell you it means and you have really what it means. and what is

well, it appears the to had a very top conversation. ukraine remains to be a major, someone block between us and russia, and perhaps we'll, we'll continue to be this stumbling block for some time. i think the major problem between moscow and washington at this point is that the nature of the relationship has changed. fundamentally, since the cold war and they, it used to evolve around this, you know, arms control issue. and now, even though the arms control issue is still important, there are things like, you know, the world order where russia is not appreciated as a pure competitor to the united states and all the focus is on china. but russia is fierce as a major spoiler. even though i think if united states, you know, had to seriously considered its interest and security worldwide, they honestly wouldn't be a greater partner than russia, whether it comes to gutter, terrorism, or european security, or even for a pretty, you know, cynic, selfish reason says containing china i don't see the policy of pushing russia towards china by all distinctions and isolation and all kinds of stuff is

you mentioned ukraine. i mean, they're can, they're would, they're, um, they're, they're accusing a one side who it's doing something when they're doing it themselves. keep going, lynn. well, there's nothing like projection because in 2014 right before the nato countries to part of the, the cool in ukraine and ukraine and russia. they came to the ear and they've pledged like an hour begged to come up please. let's find the trilateral agreement between ear, ukraine, and russia. so no one has exclusively influence over ukraine, like just to partner between 3 entities and no more serious of infants and you said no, no, that's not acceptable. so, so you're, you're right to buy a, trying to draw your cranium to nato. it's affecting the, making it, putting it under us serve influence, which goes against the whole concept of multilateralism wished upon european security architecture was supposed to be based upon so, so no, it is, i think we, we really, we corrupted the language for to, along to the extent of it, i

these of b, ukraine, go ahead. it's hard to tell because nato's is on the one hand supporting ukraine, giving it a magic backend, giving it to linux, backing on the other hand. makes it very clear that it's not actually willing to defend it militarily. so we had mr. lincoln the other day saying that if a rationalist attack, ukraine of united states would put heavy sanctions on russia, medical sanctions and not a military response. because of course, ukraine is not a member of nato. so on the one hand, the c nato kind of egging crane on a bed and, and lending it support and on the other hand, backing off as well, which is probably no desperately good combination. alexander, i can help, i get the feeling that nato, and particularly the leader of the, of the alliance. united states wants some kind of military conflict because at the end of the day, this is a entry ukraine conflict that needs to be resolved. and there's actually a road map for that. it's called the minsk accords here, which of course western diplomats

even a brother, you mentioned ukraine. i mean, they're can, they're mean they're, um, they're, they're accusing a one side who it's doing something when they're doing it themselves. keep going, glen over all this about seem like projection because in 2014 right before the nato countries supported the cool in ukraine and ukraine and russia, they came to the ear and they pledged like an hour begged to come up please. let's find the trilateral agreement between either ukraine and russia. so no one has exclusively influence over ukraine, like just to partner between 3 entities and a no more serious of infants and you said no, no, that's not acceptable. so, so you're, you're right to buy a, trying to draw your cranium to nato. it's affecting the, making it, putting it under us serve influence, which goes against the whole concept of multilateralism wished upon european security architecture was supposed to be based upon so, so no, it is, i think we, we really, we corrupted the language for to, along to the extent of the it, it

take away from the virtual summit, maxime, go ahead with the, to had a very top conversation. ukraine remains to be a major stumbling block between us and russia. and perhaps we'll, we'll, we'll continue to be the stumbling block for some time. i think the major problem between moscow and washington at this point is that the nature of the relationship has changed fundamentally since the cold war. and they, the, it used to the balls around this, you know, arms control issue. and now, even though the arms control issue is still important, there, things like, you know, the world order where russia is not appreciated as a pure competitor to the united states and all the focuses on china. but russia is fierce as a major spoiler. even though i think if united states, you know, had to seriously considered its interest and security worldwide, they honestly wouldn't be a greater partner than russia, whether it comes to gutter, terrorism, or european security, or even for a pretty, you know, cynic, selfish reason says containing china i don't see the policy of pushing russia towards china by al

and its allies, the same with eastern ukraine. what happened in eastern ukraine? how did the situation begin? there is a lot of political details there, like lustration. the things that were encouraged by the u. s. and the u. s. backed political actors at the time that created their crisis. and russia did not invade crimea or service to pull. they were there already. and there was a, there was a transition to crimea was reunited with russia and been separated in 1954. so these nuances never get talked about, and so they think russia is in violation of all these international laws, and that justifies nato expansion. so if we come to a forum, if we come to a negotiation table, these details should come out. will they though? is this what the u. s. wants do they want to have that conversation? i don't think they do. i don't think their allies do. they want to keep it in the realm of hyperbolic aggressive, to drive by comments and accusations. because there you don't have to have, you know, you really don't have to abide by any international agreements or treaties. yo

you mentioned ukraine. i mean, they're can, they're mean they're, um, they're, they're accusing a one side who it's doing something when they're doing it themselves. keep going, glen over all this about seem like projection because in 2014 right before the nato countries to part of that, that cool in ukraine and ukraine and russia, they came to the ear and they pledged like an hour begged to come up please. let's find the trilateral agreement between ear, ukraine, and russia. so no one has exclusively influence over ukraine, like just to partner between 3 entities and a no more series of incidents. and you said no, no, that's not acceptable. so, so you're, you're right to buy a, trying to draw your cranium to nato. it's affecting the making and putting it under us serve influence, which goes against the whole concept of multilateralism, which depend european security architecture was supposed to be based upon. so, so no, it is, i think we, we really, we corrupted the language for to, along to the extent of

i mean, when representatives of ukraine, i see, you know, the panel discussion corruption. i mean like, as far as i remember there were 2 goals set by the conference after the story, terry and review our focus. yes. and i didn't corruption, you know, well do it on a start. if you look at wiki lives, there amount of materials that you provided on corruption. emphasize the former soviet union, not only in the west and just by, you know, we can support what international breast use the massively and you are absolutely right. it's a saying when these people who use even from a technical point of view, they use the research done by weeks. and now that will pre asking, do i found mean one step closer to be extradited from united states. it's awful, and i quite agree with my see him that basically the aim, all that sounds fair is to scare people. i mean, don't you even think about becoming a bond more whistle bought a little bit too much. know that he barely escaped. he's leaving in rush. okay. he's even a rush safe by the way. i want to make us suffer. and unfortunately, i think

and ukraine is russia's soft underbelly, under no circumstances can the russian government allow ukraine to be made so often nature forces to be even more widely deployed in the country because of that will pose a most perilous threat. so the security of russia and to the security of the russian people. and also the americans could extend that missile defense system in eastern europe into ukraine. and that would mean that the russian strategic nuclear also would be in dire trouble. so unless the americans relent and put into writing though, as i said earlier wrong, i don't think i pledge from them in writing would mean anything. but if they do put into writing your credit would not be admitted into the ranks of the western military block. and if they do pull their forces back from eastern europe and the state, then of course, tension will somewhat decrease. but the problem is that in a year from now in 2 years from now, we could be at this position again. that is why decisive action has to be taken by russia, because you will come when you crank dos. and so the ranks of the night. and by

however, if you look at the ukraine crisis, russia is accused of being about to invade ukraine. the west to said what the west has said. it's not going to fight to save ukraine. it's going to put sanctions on russia. well, that's an admission of defeat. because if to morrow russia were to invade ukraine and get sanctions put on it, russia would be the overall winner of a painful the sanctions might be. the west has already raised the white flag. and as far as china is concerned, yes, there's a lot of rhetoric against china, but we have to see in 2022. how it pans out, you know, i said that the big thing for months, the litmus test would be the not stream to gas pipeline. well, it's been built ok. it's not in operation yet, but it's been built against in the teeth of american opposition. i suspect it will probably go on the stream pretty soon. and the rhetoric against china, it's a little bit similar. we'll have to see, you know, is it all mouth and no trousers? because it comes against the background of many decades of collusion with china. all right, of which again, joe biden i

however, if you look at the ukraine crisis, russia is accused of being about to invade ukraine. the west to said what the wester said it's not going to fight to save ukraine. it's going to put sanctions on russia. well, that's an admission of defeat, because if tomorrow russia were to invade ukraine and get sanctions put on it, russia would be the overall winner of the painful the sanctions might be. the west has already raised the white flag. and as far as china is concerned, yes, there's a lot of rhetoric against china, but we have to see in 2022. how it pans out, you know, i said that the big thing for months, the litmus test would be the not stream to gas pipeline. well, it's been built ok. it's not an operation yet, but it's been built against in the teeth of american opposition. i suspect it will probably go on the stream pretty soon. and the rhetoric against china, it's a little bit similar. we'll have to see, you know, is it all mouth and no trousers? because it comes against the background of many decades of collusion with china. all right, of which again, joe biden is

take away from the virtual summit, maxime, go ahead with the, to had a very top conversation. ukraine remains to be a major sunblock between us and russia. and perhaps we'll, we'll, we'll continue to, to be this made up for some time. i think the major problem between moscow in washington, at this point is that the nature of the relationship has changed fundamentally since the cold war. and they, it used to evolve around his, you know, arms control issue. and now, even though the arms control issue is still important, there, things like the, you know, the world order where russia is not appreciated as a pure competitor to the united states. and all the focus is on china. but russia is fierce as a major spoiler, even though i think if united states, you know, have to seriously considered its interest and security worldwide. they honestly wouldn't be a greater partner than russia, whether it comes to counter terrorism or european security, or even for a pretty, you know, cynic, selfish reason says, containing china. i don't see the policy of pushing russia towards china by all distincti

and its allies, the same with eastern ukraine. what happened in eastern ukraine? how did the situation begin? there is a lot of political details there, like lustration and things that were encouraged by the u. s. and the u. s. backed political actors at the time that created their crisis, and russia did not invade crimea or sylvester pool. they were there already, and there was a, there was a transition to crimea was reunited with russia and had been separated in 1954. so these nuances never get talked about. and so they think rushes in, violation of all these international laws. and that justifies nato expansion. so if we come to a forum, if we come to a negotiation table, these details should come out. will they though, is this what the u. s. wants do they want to have that conversation? i don't think they do. i don't think their allies do, they want to keep it in the realm of hyperbolic aggressive or drive by comments and accusations. because there, you don't have to have, you know, you really don't have to abide by any international agreements or treaties. yo

and its allies, the same with eastern ukraine. what happened in eastern ukraine? how did the situation begin? there is a lot of political details there, like lustration and things that were encouraged by the u. s. and the u. s. backed political actors at the time that created their crisis, and russia did not invade crimea or sylvester pool. they were there already. and there was a, there was a transition to crimea was reunited with russia and had been separated in 1954. so these nuances never get talked about, and so they think rushes in, violation of all these international laws, and that justifies nato expansion. so if we come to a forum, if we come to a negotiation table, these details should come out. will they though? is this what the u. s. wants do they want to have that conversation? i don't think they do. i don't think their allies do. they want to keep it in the realm of hyperbolic aggressive to drive by comments and accusations. because there you don't have to have, you know, you really don't have to abide by any international agreements or treaties. you

what happened in eastern ukraine? how did the situation begin? there is a lot of political details there, like lustration. the things that were encouraged by the u. s. and the u. s. backed political actors at the time that created their crisis, and russia did not invade crimea or sylvester pool. they were there already, and there was a, there was a transition to crimea was reunited with russia and been separated in 1954. so these nuances never get talked about. and so they think russia is in violation of all these international laws. and that justifies nato expansion. so if we come to a forum, if we come to a negotiation table, these details should come out. will they though, is this what the u. s. wants do they want to have that conversation? i don't think they do. i don't think their allies do, they want to keep it in the realm of hyperbolic aggressive, to drive by comments and accusations. because there, you don't have to have, you know, you really don't have to abide by any international agreements or treaties. you just seem to be reacting to

and its allies, the same with eastern ukraine. what happened in eastern ukraine? how did the situation begin? there is a lot of political details there, like lustration and things that were encouraged by the u. s. and the u. s. backed political actors at the time that created their crisis, and russia did not invade crimea or sylvester pool. they were there already, and there was a, there was a transition to crimea was reunited with russia and had been separated in 1954. so these nuances never get talked about. and so they think rushes in, violation of all these international laws. and that justifies nato expansion. so if we come to a forum, if we come to a negotiation table, these details should come out. we'll say though, is this what the u. s. wants do they want to have that conversation? i don't think they do. i don't think their allies do, they want to keep it in the realm of hyperbolic aggressive, to drive by comments and accusations. because there, you don't have to have, you know, you really don't have to abide by any international agreements or treaties. y

you mentioned ukraine. i mean they're, they're, they're, um, they're, they're accusing a one side who is doing something when they're doing it themselves. keep going, glen. well, this does seem like projection because in 2014 right before the nato countries supported the cool in ukraine and ukraine and russia, they came to the ear and they pledged like an hour begged to come up please. let's find the trilateral agreement between you, your crime and russia. so no one has exclusively influence over ukraine, like just to partner between 3 entities and a no more series of incidents. and you said no, no, that's not acceptable. so, so you're, you're right, by trying to draw ukrainian to nato. it's affecting the making and putting it under us. sarah influence, which goes against the whole concept of multilateralism wished upon european security architecture was supposed to be based upon. so, so no, it is, i think we, we really, we corrupted the language for to, along to the extent of it. it doesn't make any sense

you mentioned ukraine. i mean, they're can, they're mean they're, um, they're, they're accusing a one side who it's doing something when they're doing it themselves. keep going, lynn. well, there's about seem like projection because in 2014 right before the nato countries to part of the, the coolant in ukraine and ukraine and russia. they came to the ear and they pledged like an hour begged to come up please. let's find the trilateral agreement . between ear, ukraine and russia. so no one has exclusively influence over ukraine, like just to partner between 3 entities and a no more series of incidents. and you said no, no, that's not acceptable. so. so you're, you're right to buy a, trying to draw your cranium to nato. it's affecting the making and putting it under us serve influence, which goes against the whole concept of multilateralism, which depend european secured architecture was supposed to be based upon. so, so no, it is, i think we, we really, we corrupted the language for to, along to the extent o

elected government in ukraine, in february of 2014. in this calendar year, according to the democratic will, the people have been, is wally in nicaragua. so this is all about neo liberalism and maintaining the status quo. and maxine is absolutely right. it is. this is a front to the united nations. it's in front of the united nations security council . what they want to do and what and what doing essential reported on the crimes neoliberalism. go ahead demo our i think you're quite right. a simon just want to share. i mean, when representatives of your grade i see on the panel discussion corruption. i mean, like, as far as i remember there were 2 sent by the conference. authoritarian regimes will not focus. yes. and i can corruption, you know, wow, do it on a starter. if you look at the amount of materials that you provided on corruption inside the former soviet union, not only in the western countries, but you know, we get a national breast it use that massively. and you are absolutely right it's, it's a shame when the people who are

what appears to had a very tough conversation. ukraine remains to be a major stumbling block between us and russia. and perhaps we'll, we'll, we'll continue to, to be this stumbling block for some time. i think the major problem between moscow in washington, at this point is that the nature of the relationship has changed fundamentally since the cold war and a, the, it used to the balls around this, you know, arms control issue. and now, even though the arms control issue is still important, there, things like, you know, the world order where russia is not appreciated as a pure competitor to the united states and all the focuses on china. but russia is fierce as a major spoiler. even though i think if united states, you know, had to seriously considered its interest and security worldwide, they honestly wouldn't be a greater partner than russia, whether it comes to gutter, terrorism, or european security, or even for a pretty, you know, cynic, selfish reason says containing china i don't see the policy of pushing russia towards china by all distinctions and isolation and all kinds of

however, if you look at the ukraine crisis, russia is accused of being about to invade ukraine. the west to said what the wester said it's not going to fight to save ukraine. it's going to put sanctions on russia. well, that's an admission of defeat, because if tomorrow russia were to invade ukraine and get sanctions put on it, russia would be the overall winner, or the painful the sanctions might be. the west has already raised the white flag. and as far as china is concerned, yes, there's a lot of rhetoric against china, but we have to see in 2022. how it pans out, you know, i said that the big thing for months, the litmus test would be the not stream to gas pipeline. well, it's been built ok. it's not an operation yet, but it's been built against in the teeth of american opposition. i suspect it will probably go on the stream pretty soon. and the rhetoric against china, it's a little bit similar. we'll have to see, you know, is it all mouth and no trousers? because it comes against the background of many decades of collusion with china. all right, of which again, joe biden is

elected government and ukraine in february of 2014. in this calendar year forwarding and then the democratic, well, the people have been, is wally in nicaragua. so this is all about neal liberalism and maintaining the status quo. and maxine is absolutely right. it is, this is an affront to the united nations. it's a front can be nation security council where they want to do and what and what join us. i reported on the crimes amino liberalism go ahead demon. well, i think you're quite right. the assignment just want to share. i mean when representatives of your grade i see on the panel discussion corruption. i mean, like, as far as i remember there were 2 sets by the conference after the authoritarian regimes called our focus. yes. and i didn't corruption, you know, well do it on a starter. if you look at the amount of materials that you provided on corruption in size, the former soviet union, not only in the west and just by, you know, we can support what international breast use the match it. and you are absolutely right. it's the sam

once again, we backed the united states back neo nazis in ukraine and 2014. and now they're using the excuse of, of military in you, in the russia, in the border. and we know the united states has more military bases than nearly any other country, any other nation in the world, and literally any other nation in the world. so we know this is all the tricks and you're absolutely right peter. they refused to recognise nicaragua, they continue to sanction their the entire country. people are living in dire need right now i just got back from there. i also got back from under as, and we were really covering that as well in elections as well. the united states is refusing to recognize any of these countries and the job by the job, by them is in charge. really. that's the point i want to make. this is the continuation of the u. s. department, and of course their foreign policy. this is really nothing to do with the mocker. see, it's more of an, it's more of the tricks. and by the way, the united states government, the united states military, is very rich in talking

once again, we back united states back neo nazis in ukraine in 2014. and now they're using the excuse of, of military in you, in the russia and in the quarter. and we know the united states has more military bases than nearly any other country, any other nation in the world, and literally any other nation in the world. so we know this is all the tricks and you're absolutely right peter, they refuse to recognize nicaragua, they continue to sanction their the, the entire country. people are living in in dire need right now i just got back from there. i also got back from dora, and we were really covering that as well in elections as well. the united states is refusing to recognize any of these countries and the job. i didn't job my name isn't in charge. really. that's the point i want to make. this is the continuation of the us state department and of course their foreign policy. this is really nothing to do with democracy. it's more of an, it's more of the tricks. and by the way, the united states government, the united states military, is very rich in

you mentioned ukraine. i mean they're, they're, they're, um, they're, they're accusing a one side who is doing something when they're doing it themselves. keep going, glen. well, this does seem like projection because in 2014 right before the nato countries to part of the, the cool in ukraine. and ukraine and russia, they came to the ear and they pledged like an hour begged to come up please. let's find the trilateral agreement between you, your korean and russia. so no one has exclusively influence over ukraine, like just to partner between 3 entities and a no more series of incidents. and you said no, no, that's not acceptable. so, so you're, you're right to buy a, trying to draw ukrainian to nato. it's affecting the making and putting it under us serve influence, which goes against the whole concept of multilateralism wished upon european security architecture was supposed to be based upon so, so no, it is, i think we, we really, we corrupted the language for to, along to the extent of it, it doesn't mak

once again, we backed united states back neo nazis and ukraine in 2014. and now they're using the excuse of, of military in the, you, in the russia, in the order. and we know the united states has more military bases, nearly any other country, any other nation in the world, and literally any other nation in the world. so we know this is all the tricks and you're absolutely right peter, they refused to recognize nicaragua, they continue to sanction their the, the entire country. people are living in dire need right now i just got back from there. i also got back from under as, and we were really covering that that as well in elections as well. the united states is refusing to recognize any of these countries and the job i didn't, jo, by them, isn't in charge really, a point i want to make. this is the continuation of the u. s. department, and of course their foreign policy. this is really nothing to do with democracy. it's more of an, it's more of the tricks. and by the way, the united states government, the united states military, is very rich in talking

once again, we back united states back neo nazis in ukraine in 2014. and now they're using the excuse of, of military in the, you, in the russia, in the quarter. and we know the united states has more military bases than nearly any other country, any other nation in the world, and literally any other nation in the world. so we know this is all the tricks and you're absolutely right peter, they refused to recognize nicaragua, they continue to sanction their the, the entire country. people are living in in dire need right now i just got back from there. i also got back from under as, and we were really covering that as well in elections as well. the united states is refusing to recognize any of these countries and the job. i didn't, jo, my name isn't in charge really, a point i want to make this is the continuation of the us state department and of course their foreign policy. this is really nothing to do with democracy. it's more of an, it's more of the tricks and by the way, the united states government, the united states military, is very rich in talk