to trump leaves office, what is your assessment as a for the national security advisor of the, by the administration foreign policy, especially on that kind of stuff? well, i think this is one of the few instances where biden and trump agree on on policy both wanted to get out of afghanistan and both ignored the consequences. i think many people thought were foreseeable, what biden did was take trumps deal, which was flawed in many, many respects, and essentially adopted it as is on the policy, disregard of the advice of senior advisors and the pentagon state department, the white house. and i think the consequences have been plain to say return to afghanistan to control by the taliban and everything that's flowing from that, including the likelihood of foreign terrorist returning and again, using afghanistan as a base to plan terrorist operations around the world. so this is a retreat by the united states from the international stage,

something bad and believed in since at least 2009. they say ironically, trunk, believe it to, i think it's a mistake for the u. s. and that gets a mistake for local stability. certainly it's a mistake for the people of afghanistan. well in fact, as trumps feel, the date of a withdrawal was made the 1st you don't think that makes any difference. now look i, i think all by and did was extended a couple months and it showed how, how little planning had been done, either by the trump administration or by for the execution to withdraw itself. and i should note my own polling on this subject. i think of firms what other people have observed that while at the beginning, many people said the withdrawal itself was executed poorly and no question about that. but it's caused them to rethink the consequences. the withdrawal itself, the return of taliban to power, the greater risk of terrorist attack, obviously calls into question the legitimacy of withdrawal

a decision. fundamentally, i think people now realize we are less secure after the withdrawal than we were before the withdrawal. you said that abiding, changed in that answer in a way. what do you, i mean, he said, when he was helping to confirm you at the state department, to anyone. my disagreements with you are that you are to competent. i wish you were ambassador. i wish you were dumb to get a bit of shot at you. you're competent and honorable. what do you think the president meant by the now president meant by that? i think i took it as a compliment to sort of a backhanded compliment to be sure, but the look i, i've been on the opposite side of joe biden on almost every major question in foreign policy for a long time. and i think that was a recognition we disagreed. they didn't have the usual politics of personal destruction issues. they could go after me on so they had to try something else. i don't think he's going to appoint you at national security adviser. any time soon wraps the top objective in your, in your book as regards afghanistan,

you make clear as to prevent the potential resurgence of isis. just tell us what you think. isis k actually is because we had cause isaac's violence, minutes, romans actor while on the program, who negotiated actually with biting in the bus. he claimed that it was trumps. a mother will bombs, li, like a, was nuclear bomb. that was dropped by trump, one of got us done. acted as a recruitment sergeant for isis, but is that i civil rights is kay, this is complicated. these different terrorist terrorist groups. terrorist factions don't have the identity cards that they can show. i'm al qaeda, isis, k. i'm this, people drift back and forth. i think the, the main threat right now of regrouping terrorist in afghanistan is al qaeda. i think. ok, i just never really left. i think they've been embedded with caliban in their exile across the border in pakistan for the last 20 years. and i think al qaeda will take advantage of renewed taliban control to recreate the sanctuary. the rear base area

that they used afghan to stand before isis is a new phenomenon, but look in iraq and syria. it was an offshoot of al qaeda and isis k, which is the acronym for the isis affiliate claims to control the tip. roughly the territory about gas stand is just another manifestation that the tragedy at the mosque. you mentioned a similar bombing occurred a few weeks ago. i came to a credit for both masks, isis k, obviously fanatic. sunni terrorist group, but there's rivalry between isis k and taliban, but i could rivalry today. i could see a coalition between them tomorrow this, this, this is a changing environment in afghanistan, obviously, just a couple months ago they were an exile across the border. now they're in control

and carnival, i expect to see there be further developments, but i think it's hard to predict. but what i would say is that this potential for congregating terrorist from ad arctic areas around the world toward a more hospitable government in afghanistan, i think it's something we should all be worried about. i mean the tunnel and obviously say they're sworn enemies with ices k and you seem to have that l kite or embedded within it. we've had the taliban on this program. there are defective negotiations going on between native governments and the taliban. you mean they're kind of negotiating with elk either more or less? well, i think there's the danger that look there's if there's a big question, whether there's a new modern taliban leadership or whether it's the same old crew that governed afghan to stand in the late 1990. i think it's still early to make a final conclusion, but i think the early evidence is not very encouraging that moderate forces have somehow taken over with taliban. i think it's one of the reasons why even the by

the administration has been hesitant to unfreeze afghan assets, turn them over to taliban to resume humanitarian assistance until we find out whether they're still a terrorist group as they seem to be or whether there's something else the europeans through the european union have jumped in a little bit early. i think they may come to regret that a lot of money. they seem to be giving. i mean, some might say it was after all the united states and britain that were trying to overthrow outside of syria. and that meant that, of course, alliances were made with groups affiliated to i said ok, they're in syria. and i mean, everyone knows the u. s. history and the history of the major dean. isn't this another case of a terrible blowback that isis k is actually a kind of descendant of british and u. s. policy in syria since 2011?

well, i don't think so. i mean, i think what happened in to take it back to the iraq syria theater. is it after brock obama withdrew american forces from iraq in 2011? because really what could go wrong? everything? everything was taken care of. that's when ice. this arose in western iraq and, and eastern syria. and we had to go back in to counter this new threat or more virulent form of al qaeda. so i hardly think that it was in reaction to our withdrawal that we saw isis arise. i think it was the spread of this terrorist mentality which, which was of course, the thing to read. of course one can say that then it's still a descendant of u. s. u k policy because of the invasion of iraq. i mean, i, i the, the, i way with them. i, well, maybe it all goes back to british imperialism in 1900. everything is an huh. know that this is more recent over is

a 2001 war i should have been before we leave afghanistan, i should just quickly say, you have warned that a taliban victory in gobble gives them potential access to 150 nuclear weapons. what do you mean that was misquoted from a, from an earlier interview. what i have said was, i worry that the take over by taliban in afghanistan could provide aid and comfort to radicals in pakistan. pakistani taliban itself, other terrorist groups that the pakistani government created along with extremist in the inter services intelligence director and other parts of the pakistani military if those extremists took control and pakistan than that government would have access to the country store nuclear weapons. wait, wait, i'm asked. so did you make that point when you are a national security advisor and what no one listened to you, the potential for absolute catastrophe? i did make that point several times. i thought it was a compelling reason to keep american nato forces in afghanistan. obviously that was

not persuasive. donald trump and wouldn't have been persuasive to joe by. well, it's not necessarily meaning a continued occupation. it could mean other policies, but clearly that's a terrifying prospect. i should just because we got a trial here of julian assange. good. coming up. you appointed richard grinnell is i right? yours. who took over his acting national security advisor. when you know i didn't appoint him 8. richard grinnell worked for me in new york and he was the spokesperson for the u. s. mission to you and when i was un ambassador, will you ever privy to this thing about grinnell and trump organizing in the san pardon deal if he revealed his sources as news to me? well, i have to go to the actual bombing of syria that you are a national security advisor at the time. and some might say that also emboldened a. i says al kinder in syria because you a defacto defending isis elk. adrian,

yes. what did you, what do you, how do you look upon that attack on syria or in 2018? we certainly weren't defending isis or, or anyone else way would have seen it. well, they would be wrong to see it that way. what happened was the syrian government used chemical weapons, probably chlorine based against civilian targets in and around damascus almost exactly one year earlier in april 2017. the syrian government had done same thing. us had responded militarily and clearly assigned had not been deterred from engaging in that kind of conduct again. so this was actually started my 1st day in office, april 9th, 2018. it was a busy week, but the british and french came together with us. we did another retaliatory attack in response. i don't think that deterred assad either. but to me, it was, it was evidence that the, that the danger of the anarchy we saw in syria with the presence of ryan forces,

has both coming over from lebanon to support the sad regime. the accumulation of terrorist forces in and around it was a compelling reason to keep us in nato forces in northeastern syria, just another place. trump wanted to withdraw from. so this was part of the complex a dealing with in the trump administration to maintain stability, which was in u. s. interest rather than withdraw and see or return either to terrorist control or iranian back control. yeah, you didn't mention, you mentioned the regional allies, they didn't mention russian troops. you don't think it was compelling when mad. dog, mathis from the pentagon, said if that missile strike, it killed russian soldiers. it would have been war with moscow. i don't know when, when mad has said that, but i can do this if it's in the he, it's in the context of that that the joint chiefs of staff chairman joe dunford,

called his russian counterpart, shirley before the strike and syria, as he had done the year before to say look, you see what's happened here with this chemical weapons attacked by the assad government and just want you to know that we're not going to sit idly by so you know, you need to look out for your russian forces. we understood fully and i think that's what madison is saying, that if we were not careful, that there might be a collateral damage, which we didn't want. this was not in any sense, aimed at rush was aimed at the assad regime. all be that you said the person was lying about it not being a chemical attack. you also say in the book that actually didn't. that's right. that was the russian position and that was incorrect, isn't it all the evidence indicate? yeah, obviously, very controversial. but you do mentioned in the book of antonio gutierrez, who slammed the strike for not having un security council approval. he was being ridiculous, kind of symptomatic of the fact the lack of authority of the you and secret general

in the you. and now you famously said it can demolish a whole lot of flaws in new york. it doesn't make any difference. i think the organization is grin locked in its political institutions. sad and say, largely a failure. if we've gone to the security council, i think we almost certainly would have faced a russian and chinese veto. the administration had not gone for security council through on 2017 and i did the british, nor the french felt there was any need for security council approval. so i think we were well within our rights said to conduct the strike with without reference to the security council. i master boldness. stop you that more from the 27th national security advisor of united states up to this break.

well the kid is another one merican country armed with volcano energy is calling out wall street and the whole financier class. welcome back. i'm still here with the for the u. s. and message of u. n. and the 27th us national security advisor, john bolton, quite a lot of us subsidy to the you and i know that under trump, you got out of unesco. biding took you back in. did you advise of national security adviser that some of that us subsidy to the u. n. g reduced, i've long felt based on my tenure in new york is un ambassador and other positions i've held that the u. s. money is, is wasted in many respects misspent in many respects. and my overall reform proposal for the un is to abolish what are called assess contributions, which are essentially mandatory. the u. s. stays around 2022 percent of the budgets

and most agencies. i'd make all contributions from national members of the you and i'd make all. busy contributions, cibola, but i mean, there must be people all over the world, arguably that would agree with all this. why did you get nowhere with all of this, the notion to make contributions, voluntary, unfortunately didn't have agreement all around the world. but i think if it did, it would be like a soon army sweeping through the halls of the un. i'm in the un security council, of course ratified, and the u. s. a. j. c. b. o. a. what prospects do you think and what's the delay since biden go back in of the iran nuclear deal? i know you're, you're an opponent. i don't know whether you think you think the option is to attack iran militarily. i'm not sure what your view is of iran u. s. relations in by the administration for all. busy public purposes remains committed to trying to get back into deal and to get to run back into the deal. i

think the deal is fatally flawed when it was agreed in 2015. it hasn't gotten any better with age. i think the regime and tara is committed to getting deliverable nuclear weapons. it's never showed any evidence. what is your views a well known about what, what should the policy be now, the best step forward given how unpopular the cheiron regime is inside? afghanistan is to find ways to split the top leaders in the revolutionary guards and the armed forces and to reflect what is the wide spread view among the population out. plenty of places where there aren't western reporters reporting how unpopular that regime is and see if it can't be overthrown . give the government to the people of iraq using the tile of that. i thought it is quite popular in afghanistan. iran is obviously taken maybe a 1000000 refugees there, and iran has been linked to the talks. i mean, obviously the new afghan talks happening in most regime in iran did the

unpopularity the regime in iran. i think that is that it's, it's only through regime change in iran that you're going to get a strategic decision there not to pursue nuclear weapons. but obviously the last time there was a successful regime changed by the u. s. was against the democratic lead. most of dick bonnie saunders fond of talking about that. isn't that how you got into this mess? i know a big hero of yours actually seeing that with with the nation. i should say we did it with the british, but it was actually most it back who had violated the iranian constitution at the time. and i think it was, it was far more elements of popular opposition to most of tech support for the shot . it led, it led to the list revolution of $979.00, and then it followed it. that's your engaging and a post hoc air go back, found it. now i've lived in iran,

i'm going to tell you. and sanctions didn't affect rich people. in iran, your vocal supporter of sanctions. i mean, do you know how many thousands of ordinary iranians men, women, and children are killed by u. s. and nature sanctions on iran? you think it's a price? what bang like madeleine albright with the $500000.00 iraqi children. it said that the sanctions have never been directed against the medicine or you know, the heights. but the effects are caused by the mishandling of the iranian economy. the corruption among even the mullers themselves who have grown there, they and their families grown. you know, the case of you except that, you know, it's shoring up. i mean, cuba is a good example here. you sanction the country. you create support for that government, whatever the color that government is, i think cube is a good example. the islands recently been swept by anti regime demonstrations. they're primarily from young people. and this is, this is

a significant in the home in the streets. and it's really quiet now, thousands, thousands all over the island. i know in the book, you're concerned about venezuelan help for cuba, the washington think tank cpr claims 40000 children may be killed by sanctions on venezuela. why did you not want trump to meet maduro? apparently trump expressed a desire to meet maduro and you treated this guy guido, as a president, as face strange anecdotes in your book about the wedding ring of his wife, you might have to explain about one another. trump project, trump and go. trump had a feeling for authoritarian leaders like bottom your food near to want asian tank chem john douro is just part of that, that, that a group of people. and i think he decided ultimately on his own. he didn't want to do it. but the, the, the clear policy we had was to support the constitutional process in

venezuela. and the duly elected legislature had declared bureaus, fraudulent election, invalid. and therefore, there was a vacancy in the presidency, which one guy though, i was elected to fill and, and we recognized that government, i might say, this constitution was written by hugo chavez in his early days. so he always supported chavez. i now ambassador. and that's why i live with them to freshen, but you don't, but it subscribed to churchill, george or maybe trump wants to speak to madura the country with the law, just no noise reserves. why not? as his national security advisor say you set up a meeting like that, kim jong? well, maybe not like the kim jong and when obviously. yeah. now look at the question is what, what, what is in the interest of the people who venezuela interested the united states? and i think we saw very clearly that chavez and maduro had driven the country into poverty. they had, they had taken, as you say, a country is to 40000 people not being killed by us sanctions. look at that. that

is that is somebody's estimate. there's simply no evidence for that. it is the case that the medical system and venezuela over a period of 20 years of chavez bureau rule has been, has been, has been just devastated. and as has the economy more broadly now, i know you are privy to the highest secrecy documents. you must have been because trump tried to try to jackie to go for the book just to check for the 5th time that on the 6th time the young leaked any secrets. but all those documents must show that china is headed to become the most economically powerful country of this century. why? why are you against strategic alms limitation treaties, given that that would arguably give china comp launched to make more nuclear warheads, more nuclear missiles than even the united states possesses today? well, we, we could talk about the, china's economic future. i think it's the sticks are inflated to say the least,

and i think it has enormous internal problems. people don't recognize. but on the strategic weapons issue, what i've said is that i think we have to recognize that we're no longer in essentially a bipolar nuclear world. russia and the united states is true and cold war days. there were smaller nuclear powers, china, britain, france, others. but in those days, if you are going to have arms control, it was, it was a bipolar negotiation today. and we read in the newspapers from commercial satellite overhead of chinese construction and hundreds of new ballistic missile silos, which are obviously being excavated to put in missiles, caring nuclear warheads. china's capabilities and the nuclear field are expanding enormously. so what i've said consistently, what i was in the government before that, and since i've left, if we're going to have a new strategic weapons negotiations with russia,

china has to be included. it makes no sense whatsoever to pretend that we're still living in the cold war, bipolar nuclear error, except to accept the policy has arguably moved moscow in beijing together. us nato policy has moved moscow and beijing, closer than ever. as you know, i don't think it's us policy this move them close together. i think they have a grown closer. i think that's moscow's choice, and i think it's a big mistake for russia. i think rushes got a lot of oil that it's happy to sell the try and it's got strategic weapons. it's happy to sell china, but i think brush is making a very bad decision by casting its lot in the future for the rest of the century. potentially with china, i think it, it is in danger of losing over a long period of time control over much of russia, east of the euro mountain. so, i mean, you got a country with a huge population and not many national resources south of russia with,

in that part a lot of natural resources, very few people that doesn't speak long term strategic stability from the russian point of view. and i would just urge people in russia who are thinking about this issue to think long and hard before they get to close to china. but what would you say if you have that? and we have to, to the national security adviser, even there is a u. s. s joint strike carrier strike fleet right now, sailing to china's maritime borders. and even boris johnson is sending his aircraft carrier to china. i mean, as a, as the basis increases, the number of troops increase around russia as the navies of nato approach. china. wouldn't you, me advising alliances with china. i very strongly believe. ready that it's not in russia's long term interest to get closer to china by spotting away from, from the potential for closer relations with the west that we had after the collapse of the soviet union. i think we've lost

a lot of time and opportunity and yeah, the way we were in russia tried that. and as we know, the agreement with gorbachev is broken. and we've seen u. s. policy as regards a. iraq, afghanistan, libya, syria. we've seen what nato thinks of relations with russia. if those are the london alliance, nato remains the defense of alliance. and i would just say, and perhaps you and i should discuss this at greater length and in a future broadcast, i think rushes greater security wise and moving west, not moving east. i just got to find the us then, obviously about the cove it pandemic. i don't know what you think the mistakes were by the trump administration, with your writing a day, maybe a sequel to this book about that element. but of course, criticism came for you. why did you abolish the national security council's pandemic response unit? just ahead of the coven virus that killed hundreds of 1000 of americans in the well,

i didn't abolish it. i did something really bureaucratically quite responsible. i merged it with the biological weapons unit of the national security council. and in fact, if you look both the bob woodward's book, if you look at reporting in the new york times, the national security council staff, these very people in early january 2020, we're raising red flags about the dangers of cobra. they were doing exactly what they were intended to do. the problem was not a bureaucratic re shuffle within the n s. c staff. it was tom's on willingness to take proven seriously at the beginning because he worry, it would re, re effect his re election efforts. you see the, the world without a strategic arms imitation treaty is getting more dangers or less dangers. well, i think it depends on what countries like russian try to want to do with their strategic weapons. i think russia and the u. s. could find in a combination we did when i served george w bush as his under secretary of state for arms control. we signed the treaty of

moscow in 2002, which reduced the operationally deployed strategic nuclear forces. both countries think that's possible again, but i think you cannot do that in the absence of having china participate. but do you think germany's your boy got no extreme to i do i make a mistake? sure. i think work. i think it's a mistake to become strategically dependent on any, on any particular source of energy. and this is something that ronald reagan warren to europe bad in the 198. john bolton, thank you, and that's for the show will be back on monday when we ask a full, a technical co lead at google about technological clos war until then keep in touch by social media and let us know what you thought of. john bolton's on says to our question a beautiful job ocean was time on what it was. i middle august will still it'll

cover the initial it annoys to you. beautiful with fresh which don't don't love. would you the god that would because it's present and you would meet them with the group that that's 90 percent. there was the upper properties was from what fin the but only the filled with the to the what like you with luck with nice seems to them of them when he's got though west, when not going to want to show boston for philip keeps them from the from the news, or what does that still the same? i was giving you this global olga slippery music senior to one wonderful, scared little school to live with john which if it what are one,

why do you think that us them? i mean on i besides in that we still live by oh, also for eric from identify 2 types of freedom, freedom, roman, freedom to. and while we all idealized and lisa achieving the former, the freedom from use and abuse is no small feat in this day. and age, this is especially true for africa, which for centuries has been exploited under all sorts of pretext. what needs to happen, or the continent to truly take its deserve place in the world. while the jig is up president, another landmark and country armed with volcano energy is calling out the wall

street and the whole financier class with the killing of a long serving british politician is declared a terrorist incident. and david amos was fatally stabbed while meeting his constituents inside the church. the e u. challenges its own members takes over migrant crackdowns saying violent push backs on boarders may be illegal. and extreme cold, high sky high prices and a shipping boom. our correspondent visits a once derelict town in russia's arctic far east. that's been given a boost by cutting edge nuclear technology and it's the purse seine in the world that lends off a floating nuclear power plant seriously. ms. hughes thing.