me that's war arming the ukrainians in a very obvious, an open way and calling for the assassination of a foreign head of state. and other gimmicks that are coming out of her u. s. congress to me are all of defacto war. and it is, in fact, i think of the russian side as being restrained year for those was, were unfortunately living in the united states. we hear a constant stream of propaganda coming out of government and both the 2 and the also the talking edge on the media. and we're not hearing the other side of one of the funny things about bo, this is that as a former intelligence officer myself, when you're trying to sell something like this, you sell a narrative. and the key to the narrative is where you start the narrative. so everything we see on television starts this whole thing 3 months ago and doesn't go back to 2014, when the united states engaged regime regime change in the ukraine and basically

started this whole thing. and nobody's talking about that. yeah, it's called context and it's completely absent from what we're being fed. george, i need your help. i need you to explain something to me. because if you look at the broad sheets in the u. k. table in the united states, it's all about escalation, escalation, escalation, what should be done? what most something must be done is they always say, ok, but if you read the russian media and you read the ukrainian media to countries that are at war right now, there's a lot of stress on how to end this conflict as soon as possible. and you know, there's different, a 15 point proposal, 18 hours of discussion. so, or some progress not much we're going to meet again. that's what we're hearing here . and then to watch fox news. and it's just a lead up to the 3rd world war. so of course we don't want to do that,

but everything they are doing and talking about is leading to that george, explain that to me. it's very hard to explain because it does seem as if the strategy of the united states and the united kingdom is to escalate into excess of 8 am to keep the war going for as long as possible. now, i guess the maybe a calculation that, well, the long we keep going, the worst is going to get for russia. and also that's what we're supposed to be about. we're trying to destroy russia, we're going to try to bring you to which needs. so if it goes on a month after month, and it's going to be back to russia, that we must be good for us. but even in those narrow terms, it's actually going to be an absolute calamity for the euro. and eventually the united states, it will goes on, i mean, if you know this, these arms, they're sending, they're getting to the wrong. and, and we have this already, this massive my room flow who even knows who exactly is now pouring out of

greatness. and we've told that 3000000 refugees have left you a great, that's an awful lot of people just a few days. nobody knows who these people are. they coming to europe with weapons, with gang land connections and so on. you know, europe is going to suffer, will already know something about the effect of blow back. the other aspect of it is that if you escalate, oh, you get to the very serious problems. i mean, we have people coming on table. i'll let them know, you know, javelin missed us that some of them service to amazon, let them know the, the man pads, you know, they don't know what to do with them. ok, you try to get them in russia. bombs, any convoy that already sent you a bomb. any a convoy them what's? what's the next step? how far are you going to take it? you know, you're going to start shooting down russian planes that threaten the calm voice.

they don't really think, you know, just one step ahead. they, they just like the of these, you sound bites and the opportunity is to get on cable and the sound. all. yeah. garland, it sounds like they want this conflict to go on into the last training instead or left the country because, you know, there is no context of it being presented to the public here. and one of the things, it's very painful for, i live in moscow obviously. and you know, this war is awful. all wars are awful. but there was a war going on in the eastern part of ukraine is called a john bass for 8 years where people were being slaughtered. that was never a hardly ever made mentioned in the mainstream. of course, specialists would talk about it a great length. but in the average consumer of news, it probably is barely aware of the word dom bass and probably even less aware that there was a conflict there. that up to 15000 people. overwhelmingly. civilians were killed.

but that's not part of the narrative. go ahead, girl. yes, and here's the way i view this. you know, i've been reading that the, the usaa saying that the state department is saying, well, we can still do our pivot asia. so is it a, were you ok up it like this? the u. s. empire sees this as one of the battles on a, in a larger war to maintain world gemini, that they're there. so i don't really think they want to get in tangled in a kinetic war with russia. and as we know, historically, these things have happened accidentally. they want to entangle russia up in this, they want to severely damage russia, so they can turn to china. and meanwhile, of course, the other fronts like africa, to try to separate the countries in africa, africa, from russia and china economically. so it's part of a broader war in the information we're, in my opinion, is an information war against the citizens of the west, against the americans and the europeans. they have to convince the americans and

the europeans that this is not that they have to hide from them what they're really doing and create an environment where the citizens, who s c, a villain and hero, and the u. s. is the cowboy riding in to save the ukrainian people with the taiwanese people or whatever, etc. because if the american people and the european people knew the truth about the insidious plans of their leaders, they wouldn't accept, you know, philip, again being a concern because it's part of my job. i have to watch what's going on in the news . and for the past almost 3 weeks now, i've been watching officials, i've, these officials that come on tv, they're very familiar to me. i remember them back in 2003. i remember them talking, it's going to be a cakewalk. you know, it will pay for itself of course i meant referencing iraq. so bill of any, why should any person that is a consumer of news and against these 4 and more believe any of these, lieutenant colonels and generals and you know, the people from tank. i think tank land, you know,

i mean they're all the same faces and they all say the same thing over and over again. and they have a record of complete failure. explain to us. so i really can't explain it. i, i've been watching the same clowns also since 2003 and left the government for that reason. the fact is these people have been peddling, lies going back as far as lyndon johnson, if not before. and it's people have got used to it. i'm afraid they don't want to believe it sometimes, but at the same time they, they're, they're kind of americans, they're living here. they feel that they have to support the government. it's that kind of funny mindset. in this case, i mean, the propaganda has been relentless and it's also been very good. i noticed in the speech and he made out to the u. s. congress. it was a totally coached speech. and he was hitting every nail on the head. he probably

had for the o'con advisor standing behind him, whispering in his ear. and it was, you know, this is a very sophisticated effort by the people who want war for one reason or another. and most people get caught by it and that she, unfortunately reality there is a, a big kind of counter culture, myself included. that is speaking how very strongly in the other direction. but we don't have access to the media. we don't have access to, to any source that basically gets us out to multi millions of people and explain that this is just not the way it is. yeah. liter, if i may make it make a quick comment bender and agree. and that is this, as again, i don't think they really want kinetic war or, or, or no fly zone or whatever. but if they bring zalinski in and he asked for all of these over the top things, when joe biden doesn't do it,

he appears to be showing restraint. and so now you have a situation where people say, well, you can't say that he's some kind of a neo con, warm, agree, mad men. why look at the restraint? so they ask for a lot. and then when he still does terrible things, it appears to be less than they asked for. the answer, it's very, it's kind of very counterintuitive. but my question to all 3 of you in tomorrow, my viewers, mill billions and billions and billions of dollars has been pumped into ukraine in 2014. i don't know where it's gone. george, let me go to, you know, you know, it's interesting, you know, when you look at like a responsible state, crampton, these can, you know, anti war dot com these places you know, and they're valuable. ok? so there is dissent allowed and they're talking about, um, ukraine, ukrainian, you neutrality based on austria on finland. and i'm not joining military blocks. i'm sorry, george, i distinctly remember you being on this program or we're saying,

you know, that would be a good idea because then it would avoid that conflict. i mean it, this is exasperating. george, go ahead. yes, it really is. and what we have had really since the bike ministration, because i think the by demonstration, you know, when the, when the history of this is written, the culpability of the vitamin ministration will feature very prominently from the beginning. it has a push for membership of nato for your grade, wrong, the beginning, it basically told you crazy. don't bother with. it's not a good deal. you can get something much better. if you stick with us, we're going to get you into nato. we, you know, say, you know, some kind of a military offensive, which will be bad for russia will humiliate russia, you know, sick with us kid and, and it is the lead to this disaster. and unfortunately, i mean, these websites that you mentioned, they don't really, you know, appreciate,

this is the full extent which, you know, the russians have shown remarkable patients everything or the condemned them go online. but this is, comes as a result of a very long sequence of events sobbing in 2014. but even before that that we got to go to our break. and after that hard break, we'll continue our discussion on some real issues state with our ah, ah, i was just a guy, but i want to with world is with you is with you. i'm with

full credit, gets approved from beach to still be patient . but in the board with

with ah

a good is your media reflection of reality in the world transformed what will make you feel safer? isolation or community? ah, you going the right way? where are you being with what is true? what is great? in the world corrupted you need to descend ah, to join us in the depths will remain in the shallows. ah

ah, welcome at cross stock where all things are considered. i'm peter labelle. this is the home edition to remind you were discussing some real issues. ah, it was go back to garland, you know, watching a lot of the pungent tree and i'm a fox news consumer. i don't deny that people. garland, george w bush's finally succeeded his legacy. then always okay. because the republicans and the democrats are all in lockstep bill. so your early like that post $911.00, right before the run up to the invasion of iraq. it's the same people. it's the same rhetoric. it's the same. i'm tired of exceptionalism. somebody, something must be done and we're the only ones that can do, and we had

a cascade of failures after that. but that doesn't seem to matter. explain to me how that is, because these people don't have another option. this is who they are and this is what they do. you know, if you look at victoria knew, and she was dick cheney's assistant, then she was in the obama administration under hillary clinton. then she wasn't in the trump administration, but he had john bolton, so he had just had a different iteration of victoria newland. and now she's back. you know, some people initially called jo biden's administration. you know, this is going to be the 2nd obama administration. my opinion is no, it's the 4th, the bush administration. that since the bush administration. i mean, the fact of the matter is, you know, i'm the trump fan, but the reality is i saw donald trump is trying to pump the brakes to some extent, as, as, and still as hawkish as he was in comparison to these people. he was trying to pump the brakes a little bit and that's why they tried to take him out. so what we're looking at is a, basically in the u. s. we've got the hawks excuse me. we've got the super hawks and

the alter hope. we don't even have any, any hawks anymore in their game plan is we control everything in for this even when they need venezuela in iran, they don't even have the ability to turn the volume down and not to go ask for something that they desperately need. they have to go to people that they need something from, make the man they're going to go to venezuela and say, we need your oil, but you're going to have to have a, you're going to have to have a new election. these people are, i mean it's just twisted. why i don't was president. i'm not going to matter. i mean, i don't get that. ok. anyway. i don't know. maybe mature. why joe has all the gold . maybe they should talk to him. ok. because they stole it from venezuela. philip, what is the future of nato? because, in my opinion, the event of uh, february 24th, the russians military operation. ukraine, really is the tombstone of nato. nato was supposed to keep the piece and it failed

utterly. well, what's it for right now? go ahead. i mean, nato was created basically as the military align. it's the hostile military alliance directed against the soviet union and the were so back. and as far as i'm concerned were 1991, rolled around nato, should have had this sense to abolish itself. that didn't happen for a number of reasons. but there are all kinds of myths that float around about why the united states felt it was necessary to continue to have nato a one of them. of course, it is the argument that the u. s. basically believes in global dominance, and essentially europe is the key to this. europe is the we need a few more soldiers to go to afghanistan or to go to libya or to go to serbia. dado is there for this for this purpose. so there are,

there are properties for the united states. the united states is in big trouble. oh, i think that a lot of the wars could be explained in terms of the economics. the fact that the u . s. dollar as reserve currency is under challenge. and if that goes, then the u. s, as a major player will also go because of the ability to, to spend a trillion dollars on what they call defense depends on being able to go to the treasure indian told the print the money. so i think there's a, there are a lot of vulnerabilities that there some people washington are focusing on. but in a way, these are our false vulnerabilities that the u. s. has created itself. yeah. well, and also, i mean, we could always throw in with nato expansion. was a really good grid for the arms industry. ok. because you got to buy american arms . ok. george. one of the most important issues that is, come about is result of rush is a military operation. and ukraine is, is china. and they're, you know,

to what degree china is in agreement or just refusing to say anything against it. so there's a lot in plain right here and we have this declaration when, who to and went to beijing for the opening of the olympic games. it was a pretty hefty document, george get, it wasn't done on the fly. ok. talking about a strategic relationship. and there's a lot of ships going on right now, philip is right. i think the pension dollars and really big trouble when after a half century of saudi arabia being a loyal vassal, the saudis, have decided to stand up on their own because they've got, they can do it. ok, why the countries do that? what they do? because they can ok, and the chinese are very quietly watching all this on home. i agree with garland, you know, you know, maintaining and solidifying gemini. but that kind of had gemini as a pirate victory, because if europe will just be crushed by all of this. ok, they're what they want. energy security by 2030 will. good luck guys. ok. it's the

here and now i know that's right. i mean, i think if we can identify this point as the end of the post cold warrior, which means that is the end of the unit all along the end of the world led by united states. and, you know, we going back to, let's say, the cold warrior with the 2 blocks this time the united states is a much weaker position than he was in the 1st go. because in the 1st law, ok, the soviet union was the military equal of the united states, but the united states dominated the world economy. well, finance? no one challenge that and china was kind of insignificant both militarily and economically. now in this new, you know, let's say it's a 2 block wall. russia and china together is a very, very formidable alliance. you go great military power from russia, and now you have serious economic and financial on china. and they are definitely

going to challenge american financial supremacy. and they're really doing it. i mean, it's really the instance that you're sound of saudi arabia, which is not going to be trading in one instead of dollar. and there's going to be an awful lot of that countries are going to start thinking, well, what do we need? that's dollars for. i mean, the united states can you know, at a moment's notice, just see our dollar acids. i mean, just like that, you know, one day to the next level, they grab a dollar as well and, you know, we, we trade a little so there's no incentive countries now to, to, by dollars. that's a real problem. so i think, you know, in this new post, post cold war, well, united states is not be in good shape. maryland, it's, i think china is probably the most can keen observer of what's going on. because russia is the person g, 20 country ever to be sanctioned. like this. ok, and it's a, it is an important in every single sense of the global economy. finance. it's

a significant player. the 1st one ever to be set. thanks and like, the chinese are watching this because they have their own issues and they want to see how the russians react. see what works and what doesn't work. i think this is part of the strategic relationship. the 2 countries. your take go ahead. yes. and you know, something interesting about this, to another interesting dynamic and that is, you know, in a parliamentary system, sometimes you'll have a smart, small party that will, you know, only have $6.76 or 7 m p 's, but they can be the king maker as it were right now, other countries, india is one i've been watching. you look at india, you're looking at saudi arabia and they're finding that because there is an opening for them to choose. do i want to go with the with, do i want to go? russia, bob, which block they want to go with, that they're able to punch above their weight. saudi arabia, now the u. s. is probably, you know, on their knees, begging them, please don't do this. so it's allowing it's empowering other countries to be more powerful than they thought they were in the past because they can choose the

coalition. the other thing is it's kind of smoke the us out into as to what they'll do if they really feel desperate. and so a lot of countries have to be looking at this, a corporations. well the people countries have to be looking at this thing. oh, if i let the e u and the u. s. whole my wallet, they might not give it back. so now people are thinking, how can i, how can i kind of quietly shift my resources and shift my starboard? well, funds in my holdings out of the east there's going to be there's, i guarantee there's going to be a lot of capital light from the west. and i've seen it from personally from people that i know. you know, philip, you've been on cross out many times with me and other guess, and i always mentioned the learning curve. and you know, we are always told, you know, we or we won't do that and, you know, we, we learned our lesson from b and we learned our lesson from iraq. we want it, but it never happens. i mean, is it institutional inertia? is it just grips? is it ideology?

because as we all agree here and you know, there's conservatives and progressives on this program here. this is just bad for the us. and for the western world, we every single scenario you game and out, they lose, but you never get through cable tv, go ahead. well, i, i think the reason for that is actually quite simple. i've often complained when i write articles, and i sort of thing that about how the united states government system as it has evolved since the 2nd world war, has no accountability built into it. these people are never held accountability for what they do. george w bush's esteemed elder statesman. now, obama, likewise, or is it, you know, where does it all end? i mean, there's just huge that go on and on and on. and they're never held to account. if they're never held to account, they're going to repeat the same mistakes over and over again as they personally get rich. and as they personally make the people who are donors to them get rich

and you go on from, you know, present the president with the same thing as a was commented earlier. donald trump went against his his because he just gave a little inkling that he might not be interested in following the formula. a car from that trump was not a very good president, but the fact is, this sent the shock waves through the system. and we need accountability, we need some of these people to go to jail. but you know, philip and you really hit, i think at the core of been all because, i mean, you mentioned in as something that i really noticed them in. if you look at, particularly at after the end of the cold war, you have people that were in government and they worked for these are on the think tanks in the arms go, go builders and all it. and it just seems like it's not really about ideology, it's about personal wealth. i mean that's, i'm sorry, it sounds very, very straightforward to be that it just greed. yeah, i would, i would have to agree with that very often in history. how is it that all these

congressmen who are going to congress from relatively modest backgrounds or spend 22 years in congress and come out as multi millionaires? how did that happen? well, that's well, i don't think we're rapidly running out of time in here. but i want to say one thing important is that i told phillip before the program it wouldn't be a good program unless his dog showed up his dog is, has shown up in his over his shoulder here. and i feel we have a full complement on this program as all the time. we have gentlemen with my guests in washington personnel and in budapest, when i think our viewers for watching us here at our dc and expand, remember across bottles. ah ah ah ah, a

is your media a reflection of reality? ah, in the world transformed what will make you feel safer? isolation for community. are you going the right way or are you being led to somewhere? direct? what is true? what is faith? in the world corrupted, you need to descend a join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. ah ah,

she's still from going down like her stay. it isn't with a maybe a with a lot of the life with

a deal with .