the but to move forward, forward the, the, [000:00:00;00] the hello and welcome to cross ok. we're all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle, outgoing nato general secretary stilton bird claims, a russian victory in the ukraine. complex is the biggest risk to the us led military blocks. this is all the more reason russia will achieve its goals. in this proxy war, the cross talking nato and joined by my guest ray mcgovern in raleigh. he is

a former c i a analyst in washington. we have wilmer liam. he is a political scientists author and radio talk show host, and in salt lake city, we crossed to david pine. he is deputy director of national operations for the task force on national and homeland security. all right, gentlemen. crosstalk rules and the fact that means it can jump any time you want, and i always appreciate re let me quote, the outgoing general general said try and make yourself and where he said a russian victory and ukraine would change the global system. well, i actually agree with him and i think it wouldn't be a bad idea. go ahead. right. well, yeah, i'm reminded that just 3 weeks ago who changed himself. talked about starting back and said that, you know, he dealt with them when he wished prizes in the driveway, and at that point he showed no signs of dementia. this is the thing i remember about stone. burge, most of all,

is his full pod grunt day before the e u. parliament on let's say, of september 7 last year where he said, you know, the russians offer the said bill. yep. you know, if, if you stop trying to get your credit in there, so it was not in days, so it was not very clear and they go all we, well is a reset. oh, is in the store, they are very big. got the guy looked at kind of the bag, right? that it is you create a day. so this time would communicate is pretty much the same as last time. well, we all agree, what it seems, appropriately, conditions are right. but the whole thing has to do with russia needing reassurance, right? that ukraine will be neutral and nobody seems willing to even enter chain that notion. so maybe stall bird is showing signs now of incipient, so it may be mid term. dementia was a well, but we, it's hard to say with him as an individual that i can clearly say the as an

organization, it's 75. okay. it started a little early in the case of nato, but there is certainly a demented point of view there. wilma, one of the interesting things is we had a pending unofficial thing. nato is preparing for a prototype for a protracted wars. i thought it was a defensive alliance. so i mean they, they, they constantly blur or what their mission is here. i mean, well, if you're defensive alliance, why do you have to expand? no one's explained that to me. well, it's a defense is supposed to be a defense of alliance. i think the n a, a nato is a north atlantic. they're trying to expand into the pacific. they talk about championing human rights, but they somehow decided to invade libya. they can't seem to understand and what their mission truly is. and also it's important understand that really their mission has their tenure,

their mission has passed and i think the leadership knows that the, that the jig is up. they know that their time is over, but they're sitting in this vacuum talking to themselves and encouraging themselves . so that they can reinforce their own insecurities. i mean we see for example in the washington post, they say that they're trying to trump proof of nato. and in order to prevent trap from doing any damage to nato or to prevent the elimination of nato itself. well, that right there tells you that they clearly understand that their time is wayne and final point. as they talk about, they have to have victory in ukraine. the premise that they're using is because if russia, when they will take over europe, take over the world and then move on to the moon. know what that demonstrates is

that nato itself will collapse. and i don't know how that they can expand geographically, but they don't have any bullets because they're out of weaponry. so who are they going to fight and what are they gonna fight with? well, you know, david, the whole point. i mean, if you look at the origins of nato, which kind of makes sense, that was the cold war of the soviet union, had its own military block, the warsaw pact, and came into existence after the establishment of nato. it was an ideological struggle and of primarily for the soviet union, was to maintain its gains in the 2nd world war and to have security against a revenge as west germany like cetera, etc. but then the nato up to date doesn't think in terms of security at all. because the, because if you had a security architecture in europe, you wouldn't need nato because it wouldn't be a new architecture would include russia and be with russia that we have,

it's against russia without russia. that's nato's afraid of that because then it would risk its own existence. david. absolutely right, yeah. so nato was a lot of the best of the lions up until the end of the soviet union when the, the worst off pack was disbanded and need a sure default. well, the biggest span shortly thereafter as well. 1994, when all russian troops were withdrawn from eastern europe. um, at this point uh, you know, natal began to be in advance of the alliance with uh, its uh, brutal bomb you know, uh of serbia yugoslavia and 1999. and uh, is this been mentioned discontinued in with the live use syria, um and to now in the parade. and uh, there's uh, you know, the only the only path to choose security uh for nato never states is by having some kind of mutual security braver notice of the event i, uh, with the,

with russia rise. there's really no other path. and so, but david, we, we had that with the soviet union with the helsinki process. we had that, okay, the indivisibility of security. we had that, okay. and, and re now the us as a noun, so they will deploy previously band, new killer capable missiles to germany. we're going backwards re, we had the i n f treaty. we're going backwards. right? yeah, peter, you know, i go back to the abm treaty, which gave a strategic stability for 30 years, 3 decades count them. i was instrumental in that treaty. i was so chief of the soviet our policy bridge. and we told kissinger next and that the russians are really serious about those. they didn't want to spend themselves into oblivion and they were afraid, the china was going to steal a march on them. we provided the for all of her, i a the,

the trust but verify. we provided the verification stuff and and that was in it in scott ritter as word. sort of my my life's work. no stays. okay. now you have scott ritter is life's work. the neutral, the immediate range, nuclear forces treaty come, put that last that 30 till years problem got out of that. and now as you say, there's a special arrangement where new medium range, ballistic missiles are going to go with the german or just like the pershing choose way back in the eighty's for god's sake or destroyed them in the eighty's. it surprised the hell out of me that we could agree with the russians to destroy a whole class of nuclear missile, but we didn't. now we're back to square one or even worse. so i have some words to say about the f sixteens as well, but perhaps go ahead and go ahead and go ahead, go ahead, right, go ahead as well. you know, i was thinking back to when f sixteens or got came to the for

a bite in was in japan, a barcode fell after losing hundreds of thousands of ukrainian troops. right. as zalinski goes off to tokyo to the g 7 were bite and is, is that where you last fight in turn? so sullivan says, what we're gonna do? i'm the, how about, yeah, let's go back to the exchange. and that's when buttons and houses. so he's gonna let our allies give them metric state. now that's the kind of decision making. i mean, did they check with the pedagogy, the checklist? no, no, no. that's we need those that run away. now what's gonna happen when the f? 16 is good, shut down. yep. and the, the other stuff puter is out. are the same people there as a well, mr. president? yeah, we have this a low you blow your mind to do player weapon. so maybe that's the only day we have now. well, but he really likes raise, you know, the to, i'll tell it says a, well, i'm right. yeah, i mean, the, the only, the only way forward for nato visa,

the ukraine, is escalation. and what's really, what's at stake, the very existence of ukraine, and as, as ray is pointed out, they entering into the realm of thinking about a new killer war. i mean, this is going into the realm of insanity. go ahead and watch it as it is already in the realm of insanity in what re points out very, very clearly is there is no strategy here. there is when you just say we were losing, what do we do now? oh, let's give them f sixteens. there's what is the desired outcome and results and if the desired outcome end result is the, the do dissolving the russian federation. um, that's just not going but right, but we all know that's the goal. we all know that that's, that's just and i want to walk to the moon,

but i don't think that that's going to happen is the time soon. and what they're willing to do is risk nuclear annihilation in pursuit of a fantasy. so that the military industrial complex or the mickey met as re, likes to refer to it can generate more revenue. yeah. ok, david, that's a good point in lieu of his strategy, let's just keep enriching the arms producers. okay. inside the beltway, so they can buy another house in the hamptons. go ahead. yeah, i mean, the strategy a big guy is for us to maintain its, uh, its iron grip on, on data, which is really just uh, you know, it's part of the americas liberal empire and consist of uh, imperial dependencies of united states. what we need to do here in the us is uh to transform us back to republic from empire and, and i think president trump is moving, you know, forward in that direction with the plan to restructure new. you know,

all us troops out of the eastern europe, perhaps even a hand over the david we're getting, we're approaching the bank here. a bit of tough trump is elected on that platform. don't you think they'll in peach him before and all your ration? well, it depends on whether there's, it's a, you know, it's a democrat control house. i mean, if you, when we're gonna, you know, republicans will keep the house. so i don't. okay, well i, i take, i was, i'm being kind of facetious, but i think that they would have someone, lindsey graham would lead, read me the charge. right, gentleman, i have to jump in here. we're going to go to a hard break, and now it's about hard breaks. we'll continue our discussion on nato at 75 years old. stay with our,

the 1934 prance invaded algeria and straight away the french started inhabiting it to strengthen their position. the column is known as the new wires took the best land from day one. the local population was put into an unequal position and was briefly exploited this cause and as discontent. the people of algeria began their long term fight for independence of the 1954. the banner of freedom was raised by the national liberation front. a guerrilla war against the occupants broke out. the french tried to suppress, to rebuild you and using cruel measures. whole villages were wiped out acts of georgia and executions of civil people, including pregnant women, children, and old people took place more than 2000000 people were born into concentration

camps. however, these punitive measures didn't help. cl, jerry and patriots managed to induce france. besides these negotiations in 1962 heavy and the cords were assigned 40 l. jerry on the bass warrants independence. but this was achieved at a colossal price. algeria by rights is considered to be a country of martyrs. according to the calculations of historians, the french colonists are responsible for the debts of one and a half 1000000 algerians.

the . the welcome banks across stock or all things are considered on peter lavelle to remind you we're discussing nato at 75 years old. the okay, let's go back to re, obviously new a toe is not in the mood. maybe it's incapable of compromise, even if it, in its own best interest. it's unwilling to compromise. but you know, as they're celebrating and washington, what comes to mind for me or broken promises? let me enumerate here, not one step in east. remember, that's 1st one ukrainian neutrality, another lie indivisibility of security. i've already mentioned that on this program here. and of course, we all remember the minutes process here. so, um,

even if there were miraculously a piece feler, why would the russians believe anything coming out of the current administration, particularly considering who is in the, in the oval office? right. those are russian words new for me. uh, those are the initials this most certainly. okay. incapable of reaching an agreement. okay, that's what they use now for the us. and then in addition to the 3 you mentioned, i would simply say that not many people know that biden told to chain directly in person on the telephone, on the 30th of december. yes, that the us for not deployed offensive strike muscles in ukraine 3 weeks later and you're neva. love with us approach blinker nation. what about that? we're talking about that now. i'm like, yeah, that's that. but forget about that. we have the right to put the i bits or stripe processing your grade. maybe we're talking about how many would play but so there

was another one. and last but not least, of course, was the, there's a lot of the agreement that was made out there in uh, in an east stumble uh, in march, april of 2020 to where the initials were on those agreements and bodies. johnson came in for you. okay. and so no, and no agreement when any of these damn russians, we're gonna bite on bite on and we'll give you everything you need to prevent. oh wow. so then, so you made a very poor choice app, but now we see the results of all that. well, i mean i'm, but i'm sure his bank account is a benefit enormously and the people around him. i mean, he's not even the legal president. okay. he's head of the cube regime. well, and one of the interesting things that i've been watching over the years is, you know, we, even at this summit and watch and then they're talking about expansion. okay. um uh,

it continuing to do so in the balkans a and then going into central asia. i, if i'm not mistaken, an official from armenia was invited to the, to the conference so, but it seems to me that ne toes ambitions are not just as we see it right now. but they want to replace the united nations. we have, there's a rules based order. they have their own sense of, of legality is against international law. it's against international institutions. and this is, this is kind of nato's a, it's a vehicle for the united states maintain, had gemini, go ahead and washington. and as we know with the rise of the shanghai cooperation organization and the operative word, there is cooperation with the rise of of bricks with the rise of the organization of the state health states. the time for this imperialist expansion has ended the folks at nato. they just haven't gotten the memo yet. and because now the ship

nato is a militaristic organization. and when you look at the s e o, when you look at bricks, when you look at the shanghai, when you look at the health states, they are operating collectively from an economic perspective. and this takes me quickly back to what i'm one of my favorite films, the godfather, when uh, when, when virgil, the church. so lots of says and tom, he says look, i don't like violence, i'm a business man. blood is expensive. and the united states wants to and especially things to lindsey graham spread all the ukrainian blood he can get his hands on while these other countries are moving beyond that, starting their own currencies so that they can engage in trade. which leads to development. yeah, uh and development and gender security as well. david, you know, also kind of parting shot from the, the nato conferences,

a targeting china be, and it's claims of dual use technology. it's owing to the russians. they've never been really clear about that. but you know, a china is enabling russian ukraine, but it's in nato. it enabling other more as well and ukraine they, they never seem to get the balance. they are go ahead david. yeah, it's extremely hypocritical for the us and data to argue that china is not allowed to aid aid to russia militarily or strategically. well, you know, the us is providing a long range missiles with which to hit the russian targets deep inside russia and even, you know, potentially a missile defense radar. so to take out the, you know, chucks of a, a for us is a nuclear command control system. so uh, yeah it's, it's a, it's time that we establish kind of a, a revised international order which reflects your national orders. it currently exists with russia. china, us is a,

is the only degree superpowers been without this empire of the us is established in, in europe. it re, you know, the ins and outs of government and decision making. who is making this nato policy in washington, who is making ukraine policy in washington, who's making russia policy in washington, a strong, solid name sullivan, and the name lincoln. and so a supporting actor or austin and victoria nolan, the hiding in the shadows for the ladies from still in the worst wing there. and there are in control. and you know, maybe the best evidence of that is that on the way out of that is just, this should make restrictions on the way out. and they decide that they'll pick china now is the bit know why, as the enable are, as they say a and as the you know, as the blame for all this stuff. and if you look at china and they've already,

as david said, call it out as hypocritical. but if you also look very closely at how the world is divided now, and india just having come from a hot summer with food chain. and you looked at the nato folks, so did anyone notice anything this? think about all those nato poke, saw 32 of them. they're all white. you're old, but like the rest of us. ok, they're all white. right? well, and, and many of them are from countries that were the great colonial powers. same thing that's exactly right. so the whole world sees that and how we have isolated russia . give me a break. we have isolated ourselves. and that's is very clear by moti shows that the mosque was very clear by, by this last gash. now as far as data is concerned, and nothing is going to happen, you gray until after november when in the us election it takes place. but then data,

it's got a really worry about, it's not in jeopardy and whether it's so has any useful usefulness at all? it might be quite well more. i mean, this is the thing, this is a craving choice that they, that nato is made. you know, it's almost like do or die. it's a s x a central. but if it's a choice, they don't have to make this choice. they can say, well, you know, we should have a new security arrangement that's, that's what needs to be done. that's what russia offered before this all happened, but they can't do it as well. you put it in the context of do or die. i would put it in the context of do or suicide. because the, the united states via nato started the conflict with russia via ukraine. the united states is trying, it's best to start a fight with china. the tie one there, you know, there's an adage on the corner, don't start and nothing won't be met. and they don't seem to understand that. so if

you just stop trying to punch the, the adversary in the eye and sit down and have some conversations, maybe we can find them avenue to piece. but as gills got here and says, ask them why they're fighting for, and they'll never tell you the economics of war. it was a david, even though there's a lot of bluster, you know, when you think about what, what military capacity to be. don't we take uh, off the table on nuclear capacity, the military's in, in, in nato. we're not that particularly strong, but they're not really well funded. turkey has the biggest army, they're not getting involved in this at all here. i mean, it's a lot of a bureaucrats in my mind that have really pushed jobs and you know, they're threatening the global war, but this, but they, they don't really have capacity other than a new killer capacity. go ahead david. yeah, this is absolutely true. i mean, uh,

the, uh, britain, france and germany each can pro, deploy up to one brigade in eastern europe. whereas, you know, the u. s. can provide more than that. of course, maybe a couple $100000.00 troops if we, if we were to search. but, you know, russia has, uh, 12 combined arms arbys. uh, they might have more now that's, that's how much they start out with. and a by triple, the size of their, of their ground forces doubles. you know, they increase their military by 50 percent. they increase the military spending by, by a double in their, they're now at a cold war level. so of those spinning in the sizes of their armed forces. so, you know, the us and nato are, are much weaker than it than have been presented in, in a, in a conventional or even just the conventional. and i had a cyber war. i think russian would be victories. i wouldn't, you know, wouldn't think that they, you know, russian troops would drive to the, to the las channel, but certainly they could take that all of eastern europe without

a whole lot of difficulty. right. we got one minute left here. how will history remember this guy con tab and washington this week as well? hopefully they'll get pre dealt below the headlines. hopefully, they'll know that there's adequate proof that russia does not intend to go beyond ukraine, so to speak, the accords in each sample. in march, april 2022 showed that quote, team did stop and then it was double crossed, our case stopped before it took on or ukraine. so why is it going to go to fall into the english channel? so seldom has there been a case where some, some serious as so been adequately debunk beforehand or guide, say, russia did stop, it's not going to stop now. well, the gentlemen were brought out of time. nato doesn't want to stop. that's the problem. i want to take my guess in raleigh, washington in salt lake city. and of course i want to thank our viewers for watching us here at our dc and next time remember prospect.

the 41 percent of us adults have enough savings to cover a $1000.00 emergency. if we have record numbers of americans who are on the verge of having their cars repossess more than a 137000000 americans are facing financial hardship because of medical then in america, we do have a welfare system in place to help people who are struggling financially, but it's a conditional system you have to prove to the government that you truly need help.

the simplest way, like explain the basic income, is that is like social security. for the rest of us, a basic income would be a monthly payments that would go to everyone. just a $1000.00 a month. no strings attached. use i have, i would like them me. i don't know. i just won't go crazy. the reason that i am a fan of guaranteed income because it is this idea that everybody is deserve. and then just by virtue of your being here on the, in most cases, whistle blowing is very direct. the c, i a, is torture, it's prisoners with banks or laundering money. the south african police are corrupt . the whistle blower comes forward makes his or her revelation. and the story moves forward from there. but what happens when the whistle blowers, revelations are so complicated that even govern mental representatives,

just walk away from what happens when they say, look, we don't understand this, the public won't understand it. so maybe we should just pretend that it's not happening. that's when you double down and make even more noise. i'm john kerry. ok, welcome to the whistle blowers the . 2 2 2 2 2 taxes are complicated for most americans. it's not unusual for a normal american working a normal job to have a tax return that stretches to more than $100.00 pages. mine certainly does and i'm nothing special. so imagine what the tax returns of the big wall street banks, hedge funds, and investment firms look like. with the us tax code, taking up literally tens of thousands of pages of the official gazette and corporate tax returns thousands of pages each and with i r. s oversight lacking for

years now, it's up to knowledgeable citizens, to report evidence of waste, fraud, abuse or illegality. that's exactly what happened in the case we're going to tell you about today. the problem though, is, what do you do when you report your evidence of illegality? and the people who are supposed to investigate it, just decide not to, it's too complicated, they say, or they disagree with your analysis even though you are certain that you're correct . or they just don't have the budget or the manpower to investigate. or they convince the courts to ignore you because of a simple technicality. what do you do? it, keep up the fight and we're happy to be joined by attorney thomas wilcox. he's a whistle blower on the issues of federal and state tax fraud committed by wall street banks and investment firms. tom, welcome to the show. thank you. well, this is certainly a complicated case. i think the best way to tackle it is to start from the very beginning. please give our viewers an overview of what this case is about and how