even. politicians. they put themselves on the line. to get accepted or rejected. so when you want to be president. i want. to go right to cross the sea before three of them or can't be good. i'm interested always in the waters in the. high drama the saga continues also the cia says it has high confidence. and because if i knew the truth.

just. reached between us and the rest of the world is growing at home democrats are now in control of the mouths of the game changer. for the rest of the club. does the us mid-term elections leave the country in political stalemate with congress divided between republicans and democrats continues to pursue its divisive . switches making america's european allies uneasy the president flew to achieve his global goals with the democrats in the else. treaties put in place by these

breaches this is the trump treatment and how will the u.s. move forward in tomorrow's world. two decades cia and veteran rolf moore what larson welcome to the program it's always great to have you with us it's been a year things have changed lots to discuss now world leaders recently gathered in paris to mark the centenary anniversary of the end of world war one in his speech at the ceremony french president in my own back home delivered to fierce criticism of trump's nationalism and the america comes first approach is this the beginning of a real rift between here and the us this escalating rhetoric. i don't i don't think sophie that at the beginning of a rift i think that would overstate the problem i do think that our transatlantic relations have been damaged by president trump's criticism of nato demands that he's making of nato and frankly taking the alliance for granted and so to that extent i think president mccrum and for that matter chancellor merkel were making

a statement that that if the u.s. decides to push this in this direction they have options as well well it's not just nato it's iran deal it's to terror if war is trump pretends not to care about what the europeans say but nevertheless he replied with a whole series of tweets in response to mccrone so does that mean that the europeans got under his skin that he actually cares more about their relationship with the e.u. than he wants people to believe. i'm not sure i can draw any conclusions from this the so i would call divisive activity i think the strategy if you want to call it that as you referred to pulling out of the iran nuclear deal about potentially pulling out of the intermediate nuclear forces agreement is and then in terms of challenging nato's future i think those are very divisive and destructive for the united states and i and i hope the president sees the wisdom of pulling back and reinforcing our ties to our old allies and the behavior we're seeing from the other

side whether it's the europeans or other countries in the world is a reflection of their determination not to give in to us pressure so right before our misty's day celebrations macron cited both russia and the traditional boogieman and the united states as threats to europe how likely are we to see a hero that is more active militarily and less willing to rely on washington in terms of security. i think we're a long way from seeing nato in any way being less relevant or the europeans building a european army or any of these other grand statements but i do think it's significant that the europeans are taking this opportunity to rigs them and their own security and their independence from the u.s. and other parties i don't think that's unhealthy i think the reality is that the world is a very different world than the cold war of the cold war that created nato and

created these security arrangements and all the agreements the arms control agreements the nuclear agreements and other things should be reexamined i think we're a long way though from speeches turning into practical realities but the discussions healthy although as i just said sophia i disagree completely with president trump strategy in this regard so how could trumps well as your relations with some of the issue european countries like poland play into this well clearly every country is making new decisions as to where its interest lie that includes russia of course other countries that are deciding for themselves what course they want to take again i don't think this is necessarily threatening and i i hesitate to overstate the danger called by this national populism it's a dangerous trend i agree but again people need to be able to speak out on their concerns part of what we're seeing is an airing of citizens grievances with their

own governments and i think that has to play itself out as it did in the u.k. with bracks it as it's doing in certain east european countries and we need to be very respectful of the process as we like to say in the us because we have our own share dysfunctionality right now there is a certain elegance to the checks and balances of people sparring with their leaders the ruled in the rulers and i think i think we need to respect the process so do you think the here rypien is actually need to start building up their own security system independent of nato. i think the idea is intriguing again i am a philosopher by nature so when the cold war ended i thought there was a grand opportunity for the u.s. russia and europe to potentially craft a new security architecture that would serve everyone's interests i think if we had done that at that time rather than in large nato rather than of course russia invading ukraine or georgia or these other are actions that have occurred for over

the last twenty years i think we would all have greater security and that would have included a way to take into account everyone's security interests and devising in a way a new framework for how we think of the world so maybe that process is twenty years late and it's starting now but i think that's healthy again we're a long way from any fundamental changes whether it's a nato or another security arrangements but i do think the discussion is healthy if you have does become more self-sufficient and starts to pay more for its own defense expert trumps wishes. will this be a boon to the u.s. economy i mean you said it will be a disaster ts economy but maybe it will actually be able to cut some more defense spending put it somewhere more useful and also what happens to defense contracts currently serving here p. and security interests. if i said that european defense taking a greater role in their own defense would be disastrous to the us economy i certainly didn't mean that i think and i didn't use the word disaster because i

think again that's an overstatement i think we should base our thinking on existing frameworks which provide some stability in order of the world so whether you're looking at nuclear agreements or nato or other security arrangements i think the basis for thinking how we change things should be leaving the things we have intact so if in the context of a strong nato europe feels it's in its interest to become more independent spend more money on defense of course that's a good idea we're right where i completely disagree with president trump's approach is the thinking that we have to destroy existing agreements some of the question a small one in the american economy and the. well would have ditched him merican economy would i am i let my thing resign a mystery engine i think the what we used to. well i'm not sure i'm not an economist i do know that what eisenhower president eisenhower used to call the industrial military complex is a very different thing today than it was when he when he discussed it or we thought

of it in the in the cold war and i like to think our economy is very resilient and maybe they'll be will create new opportunities as a result of the shifting security landscape but i don't think fundamental relationships are going to change for example i don't think the president trumps. frankly divisive statements towards the europeans is going to leave the europeans and in a different direction i think ultimately they see the u.s. as a strong ally and it will outlast donald trump will it because they hear of that is last reliance on washington in terms of security is also arguably a europe that is less willing to play down its wishes and policy and european in is this a concern for washington could a more independent hero for instance be more independent on the russian question for instance. well maybe europe should be more independent on the russian question and we spent twenty years working on a model which has got us to a stage where we've got a war in europe right now essentially in ukraine and we've had other problems as

a result of sticking too much to the so i call the dog of the the cold war so i think we have to be careful how we talk about and plan changes but i think and we're having a europe that's more inclusive of russia and the united states for that matter that takes into account russian security interests is healthy for all parties and i certainly would be against that process but let's not start by by breaking the border as it exists today let's use that as the basis for changes if i can so if you use one example the i.m.f. agreement the u.s. has announced that maybe pulling out of the agreement on intermediate nuclear forces range forces why are we doing that why not stay in the treaty and make adjustments that that take in account the realities of how the world changed in the thirty years since the agreement was reached in one thousand nine hundred seven today we have drones today we have anti-missile ballistic missile defense today we have new technologies that both concern both the united states and russia

legitimacy so let's negotiate a new new framework let's include china and internationalize the i.m.f. agreement let's not just cling to the past let's take the past as the basis for creating a better future and we're now in a wake of the u.s. midterms when so democrats take over the house of representatives to what degree can that affect u.s. european relations especially on the issue of trade war and now military financing as well. well we now have a situation united states where the parties are split between of course the democrats took charge of the house of representatives and the republican controlled the senate i think what that means in practical terms is we're going to be in a stalemate for two years as a citizen i'm not a political pundit or expert but i i don't think the democrats are in much mood in the goshi with the republicans or president trump so i think people are going to have to acknowledge that the united states over the next couple years is going to be consumed even more so by our internal our turtle bickering in affairs i hope i'm

wrong but that's what i see so all parties should make their own plans in the sense of taking account the issues that are critical of them over the next couple years but i think they should rest assured that our process will ultimately result in some sanity being restored to our system at least that's what i hope as a citizen. we're going to take a short break right now when we're back we'll continue talking to. a small but larsen talking about u.s. midterms and what they mean for the u.s. and the rest of them won't stay with.

same wrong. just don't. get to see. this day. and in. the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart and we choose to look for common ground. manufacture consent to stick to the public well. when the ruling classes protect themselves. with the fine. be the one percent. we can all middle of the room sick.

cranking gave americans a lot of new job opportunities i needed to come up here to make some money i could make twenty five thousand dollars as a teacher or i could make fifty thousand dollars a year truck so i chose to drive truck people who rush to a small town in north dakota was among the employment rate of zero percent like gold rush is very very similar. but this beautiful story ended with pollution and devastation a lot of people have left here i don't know too many people here and just slowed down so much they lost their jobs got laid off the american dream is changing that's not what it used to be. it's a tough reality. and

we're back with two decades cia veteran ralf know what larson discussing the implications of the u.s. midterm elections for the american politics so i can't trump's intentions to improve ties with russia which she was vocal about at the beginning of his presidency be buried for good now with russia hawkish democrats running the congress. i think it's going to be very difficult for president trump to make good on is in interest or intentions to prove relations i know that there are a number of russian advisors and experts that the administration employs that are very good very qualified and they are pushing certain areas of cooperation so i hope and i'm optimistic that on the crucial matters nuclear related issues what we

would call strategic stability potentially cyber related discussions will occur at a working level and i'm hoping also that the nuclear related treaty the i.m.f. and others will will be something that we can talk construct leave the stock of lee about so and counterterrorism of course between the special services and the russian government so i think it would be a mistake to think of the relationship is not going anywhere over the next two years but it certainly will be difficult for the president to make a dramatic improvement in u.s. russian relations so the democrats were certain or were hoping at least for a blue waif to come and crush to republican control over congress and yet despite all the a rigorous trump bashing from mainstream outlets and celebrities they didn't get the desired outcome as they did get the house but the g.o.p. and ham state's control over the senate and still leads to wayne terms of the number of gov posts so in your view was the blue they've more like blue ripple how

were the republicans able to get such results despite the perceived anti trump dominance in terms of outreach and mass media. i don't think there was a blue wave i think democrats are rightly pleased that they retook the house and did it fairly decisively by the same token i think republicans and president trump are happy that they added to their strength in the senate so i think what the election showed me again as a citizen and not a particular expert is that the country's polarized and we're polarized very clearly down what i would call her been rural lines in america votes democratic to an extreme and rural america is solidly republican country so we're very divided country and i think we have to find a way to appeal for the messages whether it's a republican or democratic message to appeal to to citizens of all kinds at all

parts of the country and that's going to be the challenge going forward there are calls among the democrats to put more congressional control over the use of force in places like iraq and syria to be able to limit or decide when to end deployment when the house gone blue how likely is that to be on the cards can congress muster enough strength to influence this. potentially the congress congress can i mean certainly the democratic congress congress is going to have to decide what its main priorities are they're not going to get everything they want they're not going to force the president to capitulate or the republicans to give up on their interest so it's every president every party has to have a top three list i call it particularly with only two years till the two thousand and twenty alexion and the democrats the democrats are going to have to choose your battles wisely and i don't know whether that's going to be at the top of their their list frankly now the real wild card is we have. in the last two years

been relatively it's been relatively quiet as far as terrorism and wars the us has largely pulled out of iraq and afghanistan so the issue of how we use force and where we use it hasn't been as say intense as it was in previous years but that could all change in a single day in a single incident if we wake up one morning and something's happened somewhere in the world that requires a strong u.s. response the current authorization of force that washington is using dates back to two thousand and one post nine eleven what's wrong with this one anyway i mean it's been working fine for all these years now. i'm of the school of thought that we need to continually modify our laws our rules and how we engage and why we engage and i think that's outdated for one thing the context for developing that the rules of use of force were of course post nine eleven and the world's a very different place i for example i'm not as and. i'm not such

a fan of drone strikes and what we would call covert action use of intelligence and military to to conduct kinetic actions now doesn't mean we shouldn't i'm just saying i think we've over relied on those things as opposed to say classic policy foreign policy rule of law international rule of law and including it is funny as an intelligence officer that i would emphasize that but i would just stress that i did what i did in my career to enhance the power of what i call legitimate state craft which would be diplomacy which would be the goshi ation which we've peace for as illusion of conflict i'm not a fan when it skews to have even the use of military force involving any country with the u.s. or russia so the democrats are also widely expected to relaunch house investigations into trump's alleged dealings with russia in the meantime recently swapped jeff sessions to which hacker and then seeing by the democrats as

a partisan trump loyalists as to acting attorney general some are saying this is actually trumped bracing for a fight against a russian mastication can that be the case and how much of a shield would whittaker be comes to housing mr nations well my personal view is there's no question the president put someone in to replace jeff sessions who he feels will protect them at least that's my interpretation as as a citizen i don't think i think that's his leaving qualification he's kind of someone who came from nowhere who now is this highest. position in the land as far as ensuring our perpetuation of our rule of law and so i'm very concerned about his motives or his previous statements he's made about the mother investigation but i am confident in spite of that that the moller investigation i know bob muller personally i knew him as the f.b.i. director i believe he has the highest integrity of almost any official i know i

think he's going to produce inch soon the final judgments of a very long investigation and the country is going to have to take a look at those and every citizen is going to have to decide what he hears she thinks of mahler's conclusions that's assuming of course that the justice department will release all of them to the public and i'm making that assumption when i say that while the democrats in the house now pursue this investigation a lot more aggressively will eat get back into the headlines again and can they use it to seriously damage the president and maybe even start talk of impeachment again . i personally believe that it would be a mistake to impeach the president based on what we know today as we're sitting here doing this interview sophie because i haven't heard anything yet that that. puts the president in the middle of a conspiracy to work with the russian government or obstruct justice to the point

where i would say the only solution is impeachment and that's understanding that if the democrats move to impeach the president in all likelihood the house the senate which is controlled by the republicans won't convict them so do we really want to go down the same road we went with president clinton over the monica lewinsky affair so that's a big question the second question really is though let's wait and see what the investigation produces we don't know what the final say indictments are going to be who will be indicted for what potential crimes and i think that will give us a clearer idea of what we need to do as a country i'm just hoping that the democrats and i say this not being certain. we'll do the right thing by the country and not do the right thing by the party i would say the same thing the republicans this is a much too serious matter than to allow partisan politics to drive a process of seeking justice if we're talking about justice and i think that's what

we're talking about we need to hold it to the richard nixon standard of the watergate hearings which resulted in the resignation of the president in one thousand seven hundred four ever reaches that level ok then we need to take a look at what we need to do but if it doesn't let's not try to to raise that artificially to a level that doesn't exist. you know look at tom and he has been running the country in this competing mode ever since he won the presidency i mean his rallies never stop his language is very complain is still ready aiming at the next presidential poll i mean is the whole american electoral cycle more or less turning into his permanent companion anyway with no major votes every two years. i honestly don't know what. what motivates the president i don't understand him i don't support. certainly on his foreign policies where i'm most expert i have a hard time understanding what he's trying to achieve i think he's been destructive

for as far as american interests i might add by the way that i don't think he's been helpful for russian interests i believe if i can't speak of course for president putin or the russian people but i like my presidents my us presidents to be predictable i like my u.s. presidents to stand on the basis of existing agreements and things like that so i don't honestly understand the what motivates the action whether it's on trade or on foreign policy national security policy and if i did understand i could give you a better answer and i don't know what it whether he's motivated by the next election or simply trying to do what he thinks he needs to do in these four years so it's a very difficult question for me to answer since i don't see a rationale to the pattern of his behavior what are your expectations for the potential meeting between trump and put in later this november at the g twenty summit in argentina how much importance does day personal report between the two leaders plane the relations between u.s. and russian. well so far the so-called personal or a poor has been

a disaster i think for both sides the helsinki summit was was horrible i think the presidents. reactions to president trump's reactions to president's statements were completely the i could not understand why he didn't respond more forcefully to the russian president i don't understand what president putin's thinking was that he thinks he could have been less his intention was to reach out to the american people with a very strong dark message which is what he managed to do i don't see how the reporter or their personal relationship is doing anything to improve relations between our two countries and if in any if anything up to this point it's made things worse so i wonder if this russian attitude purely partisan if that the republican president was and a real enemy of russia were the democrats be hard on him for being confrontational in stacked. i think we have a long history of examining what drives effective us russian relations i think it's

when both countries feel secure and confident and we have leaders on both sides who are expressing the will the general will of the of their people and so for example in the u.s. side i think it's even though of course president reagan and and mikhail gorbachev is a very controversial period in russian history nonetheless i think most russians i knew at that time and to this day respected president reagan you know and didn't they didn't of course think of him as a hard liner remember he called russia an evil empire until about halfway through his eight year term when he said he pivoted and he realized that the opportunity to strike historic deals with us and russia was too great to set aside because of our cold war history i think that's what we need now we need leaders who are strong meaning if i were advising president trump i would stress don't build fawn over president putin don't call him a great aligarh ally don't agree with him on things that are not in u.s.

interest fight back. in areas where u.s. interests diverged from russian interests there's nothing wrong with that there's nothing wrong with saying we disagree strongly on certain issues but we respect one another and we're going to work out our differences. all right well thank you very much for this ensure view it's been a pleasure talking to you as usual were talking to kate cia about her and. discussing the growing rift between the u.s. and the rest of the world that's it for this edition of sophie and co i'll see you next thank you so thank you rob. thanks guys its financial survival guide. customers go by your.

well reducing lower. that's undercutting but what's good for markets it's not good for the global economy. in a world of big. lot and conspiracy it's time to wake up to dig deeper to hit the stories that mainstream media refuses to tell more than ever we need to be smarter we need to stop slamming the door. and shouting past each other it's time for critical thinking it's time to fight for the middle for the truth the time is now for watching closely watching the hawks.

in the headlines of american born u.k. for nancy it may have ordered the poisoning of his former. russian prosecutor. death the troop global attention nearly a decade ago. failed to wrap up with a joint declaration the trade rivalry between the u.s. and china. accused of being a kremlin propaganda tool. children's minds around the world.