ah ah i ah, i mentioned it as you know what's going on the ground for the final show in this studio and 19 years to the eve of an invasion of iraq by the u. s. u. k, australia, and poland. that would arguably capitalize the killing, wounding, or displacing of tens of millions all around the world was of course, george w bush, a secretary of state, colin powell, who held a vial at the un security council to make the flawed case for war in iraq. and as

the well to day teaches on the edge of a global conflict that could be even more deadly than iraq. afghanistan, libby, or, or syria, and join are from falls church, virginia by pals, former chief of staff, colonel larry wilkerson retired colonel wilkinson. thank you so much for coming back on the show. just stay in the past few days. i think one reporter said to jen saki, the press secretary for the white house. why are you sending in shotguns, pistols, a grenade launchers and the, the like to the ukrainian people as defensive weapons. when you make of the massive amounts of arms on top of the ones given before i rushes invasion? what it, what do you make of this arming of ukraine? well, 1st of all, to domestic per political requirement of the president by. and he has to be very outspoken about it because he said he's not going to establish an applies on or do anything that would provoke a wider war and possibly

a war with russia. so he's got it on the other hand, sure that he's doing everything you possibly can do is electric because they want him to do more. so that's part of it. another part of it is, is military advice, is probably these are the kinds of weapons simple to use, easy to use. anyone can learn in our how to use it better all be providing because anything more sophisticated for the general population is probably not going to be workable. those are the 2 primary reasons that they've made, that sort of deceive using internally as append to again, let alone william burns of the ca. they think this war is in any way winnable against russia. know, and i think the other conference 1st conference in 2 years where people met in a room together yesterday. it was real rush and experts, regional weapons experts and joe for. and we all agreed that the only solution to this conflict,

to the diplomatic solution. negotiations that let's let me put at least gain some of what he wishes and allows much of ukraine to remain a state part of it being autonomous, perhaps with referenda to be conducted. however, you work out the details or recognition that crimea is going to be part of russia or ever in a day or some other things like that that would be appeasing to moscow. and yet leave some kind of intact as to what ukraine wants to be. and it's majority and settled with that and quit because this is in sanity, it is utter insanity. it is making a pariah of food and rumors out of beijing, or even the paying his quote, best friend, unquote, is thinking about making some kind of powerful statement condemning the invasion. it would be in china's interest to do so. because the closer it stays with pearson,

as long as he is doing this, the more it becomes a pariah to. and china already has a problem and it has billions of dollars invested in its base road initiative in ukraine, which it was looking to be a fountain of products going into the wider europe, particularly western europe. so using things got some hard decisions to make in the next week or 2. yeah. but come on, what do you think you'll come out with? i think china, my fool, you with regard to what it truly believes about violating sovereign borders. it's always had that policy. i met with the chinese leaders including long years now. there are foreign minister plenipotentiary prospective bullet, bureau member. ready in the summer of 2001 and talked with them at great length and policy planning talks with richard austin, choice and guy later to be ambassador to the united states. so i know the chinese

pretty well, and i know they're having some deliberations right now. about how they should act on well, there's nothing to suggest any separation from what previously they've said, not even a alliance, closer than the alliance between beijing and moscow. you know that i think he was saying in december, something like this might happen. we've had a bama said to be expansion of nato, would lead to a kind of confrontation to was seeing kissinger did. you name it. i understand that the george kevin, the j. k diplomat told colin powell about east with expansion of nato and the dangers of it when you it is chief of stuff. absolutely. cannon was 98 or 9 years old at the time, and he actually said it was the biggest strategic mistake america made in the cold war era. and might be the biggest one that we made in the so called cold war panorama. and i agree with him it,

it made no sense whatsoever. it was done principally for arms, merchants alarm sales and money to be made. and it's a or postures proposition that article 5, which is what makes nato unique. an attack on one is an attack on all has now been spread the countries that a person in west texas, for example, doesn't you know where they are on a map multilateral you asked the person from west texas, or are you willing to risk nuclear war for montenegro, the 1st thing that rancher is going to ask you is where is montenegrin? so if these kinds of situations keep cropping up, the biggest partner, the biggest power demanding the 2 percent of g d p that could go in social programs in europe. the biggest part of the usa, its membership of nato would be in question. i think you're looking at an alliance . it's looking for a purpose and it's been looking for a purpose ever since the cold war ended. that purpose as articulated by colin

powell and george h. w. bush, and edvard chavez, nancy and mccallum. gorbachev in a certain way, was eventual welcoming of russia and not only geographically because geographically it's there into europe and even into nato membership 1st with a political alliance. and then the military allies that want to strike in 1994 and later years when we started doing this wild abandoned expansion of the lives. but that in no way can don's an invasion into essentially a neutral country, which natal leadership and washington this leadership had already admitted. they were willing to say, would never be a member of nato much the way they have done pro forma with georgia. it's still good and good, you said that because of course as you know, washington the by the ministration little nature leaders, he had gen, stultz berg and the rest se nato expansion has nothing to do with the current

conflict. and anyone who says that is a beauty and apologist. well, i'm not a apologist in any way. i think he's brutal. i think he's insane. now. i thought he was pragmatic. i thought he was a brilliant strategist. i thought he was doing things capitalizing on us strategic arrows. i still think that, but now i think he's and say, and this is a brutal look at what we've got going on right now. we got 75000 children every day, joining the refugee flow. we got probably a 1000 to 2000 dead people and a lot of those. and maybe even more than that, if we count them or russian soldiers, conscripts who don't even know one of the bear. i know little bit about the russian military. i know how we tried to counsel the russian military leadership about having a professional force volunteer force. and so i know how they still have been on conscripts. and frankly, putin's disdain for these conscripts is alarming to military professional,

like the believe is how goes mainstream media reports that it's not going to run a media at all. the mainstream media soccer. well, you say they're certainly defined from what the russians are being told by their media, that the war is showing well, that it's a pincer movement. and that this is all about stopping the expansion of nato and, and if you would, would rather be a good it was saying the other day, this is a time of reckoning now of a new world order where beijing moscow, when by deli, let alone the entire global south, it's the end of usa gemini, this is the beginning of the end. if this is a new world order, the new world order will not include russia. that's the problem. and i'm getting my information from sources that have been given me information on russia, maneuvers, for example, in russia from 2012, all. i'm getting them from scandinavians and others who've been actual observers at these exercises and who know the russian military. it's far better than anyone else

. certainly. ok. and they've been telling me what's happening within the ranks of the russian military. and they've been telling me about the disdain with putin has for the military come certainly k g b. why wouldn't he have r c i a the stains are military to. there's no reason for me to believe that bureaucratically speaking in russia, the k g b disdains the military also. so that, that's alarming to me as a military professional, but bigger here is the prospect of snatching opportunity from what is disaster right now. and that opportunity is to reshape the security architecture in europe. and what i mean by that 3 fundamentals in your man, you're journalist, as it were, theodore moving off suggested this the other day. we need a new paris accord, and then we need a movement towards this architecture. there be 3 fundamentals to it. one washington gives up a desire to have a gemini over western europe to moscow gives up the desire to reconstruct the

soviet union to germany over eastern europe and 3, europe, 740000000 strong. the gdp of equivalent to america now gets his political, financial, economic act together stands up and forms its own security architecture. and that europe would have russia in it the way we have been busy and it in the early ninety's, russia is a part of europe. russia would be in that new security architecture to hell of the c. s t o to hell with nato. your stand up and have russia as a partner within your ranks. well, obviously that is not what the biden administration is seeking herself as fabbing the rusher and said he doesn't want to recreate the, the soviet union. china, as we remember from that alaska meeting when the, by the ministration came in, said never lecture to china, what it's doing. and in fact,

there were tie one maneuvers this week against the mainland china, the china increasingly talking about the u. s. the, the tragedy of us had gemini, india refusing to support the un security council resolution that the u. s. a in albania put in to you and at the un african countries, there were people demonstrating in the streets for russia. saudi arabia not taking the coal of joe biden as he beg your reasoning to your own propaganda. who i'm just asking, what do you, how do you see this context? i mean, do they even recognize maduro in venezuela, the largest oil reserves? no, no, a reserves on earth do they recognize maduro suddenly no, no one including my russian contacts. by the way, no one tells me that they have a positive view of what's happening in ukraine right now. the law to south america to central america. no one tells me from columbia from venezuela,

from algeria, from egypt, no one tells me they have a positive view of it. modi's problems in india right now are rampaging with his persecution that his muslim population, which is the largest muslim population in the world, in a single state. it easier, i think, well, no, actually bigger than in the nation's total population. so modi's got his own problems and has to walk a very tight line, plus he's buying all of the military equipment or at least 6070 percent of it from russia. so i understand that. but what we got going on here, as i said, is an opportunity why we want to take this opportunity because we have 2 huge threats in the world right now that are absolutely out of control nuclear weapons, largely because of the united states of banding in the abm treaty to started off, and then the i n f treaty and then open skies. we abandon all of our arms control and we both russia and us. the 2 predominant nuclear powers are in fact embark on

a new nuclear arms race. and they're talking about battle fuel utility. russia actually published military doctrine saying that if nato were to penetrate c s t o area, they would hit the point and the flanks of the penetration with small, you tactical nuclear weapons, very dangerous situation. and the 2nd crisis we need to me, i mean, we need to cooperate and collaborate is the climate crisis. look at the i p. c. c report of 28th february. we're headed towards 3 or 4 degrees. we're going to make this earth on livable. we're not gonna stop you that more from the full us secretary of state colin powell is the chief of stuff after this break. ah,

the media lights have been switched off all over the world. they may not be back on in our lifetime. we look at the incredible information war, the d block, forming cancellation, even of dostoevsky and tchaikovsky. and we look at where all began in the dawn bass, although not a lot people know that as michael game once said, it's all coming up on the split, newsweek. don't miss it with welcome back. i'm still here with retired colonel lawrence wilkerson. what were you, a secretary of state, colin piles, chief of self. the climate crisis obviously is the worst challenge that the world faces. but there has been

a lot of talk about nuclear weapons in recent weeks. lensky saying that maybe ukraine were tricked into removing there's, has russia now put an end to any ideas that nature might have of putting in nuclear capable miss? i launches in ukraine forever. i would like to hope so, and let me just say that that's preposterous because the coach edmund are authority for fire, ukraine's weapons never left moscow. we know that go on bow knew that we knew that . so you grand, given up it's nuclear weapons, was just a pro forma of how would they of use them even more likely the really good they would like us all nuclear weapons there. let me give her where moscow has the same kind of controls that we have. and you can't just go out and use that nuclear weapon because it's on your territory. you're going to say that our independent nuclear deterrent and britain is dependent on the us. now i, you know, they've got to same policy as moscow are martian and they have their own codes and roamed permissive action logs in order to actually protect the nuclear stockpile.

so it's saying that ukraine should have kept its weapons, would be like, i'm sitting on a piece of metal. i can't use it. what we write to president lensky on the show, of course, jake sullivan, lee sullivan, the new naturalist, relatively new national security advisor, though strongly associated with libya, use the phrase full force again to rush her. if 11 projectile hits a over a border of a nato nation, what do you think he means by full force? well, i think what we're looking at is people who are, shall we say not schools, as i just indicated in the realities of the cold war. you don't make those kinds of statements when you're facing nuclear power weapons and lowers nuclear weapons powers. you have to walk a very fine line. we're not in this age when you know people talked about hitler and stopping him because you don't want to m p a p m. you don't want to be a chamberlain. and so that's bull. it's not analogous. we have nuclear power is now

facing one another and 4x5w4x4w ukrainians. committing suicide would be better than a general nuclear weapon exchange because 7000000000 people would commit suicide. so this is not the kind of statement you want to make in this environment. these people have lost both in russia and in, in moscow and in washington. they've lost the lessons learned during the go war, which is you never want to start this because it will in with total destruction. we had to form a national security advisers on. we've obviously love jake sullivan, it to come on. i as for the, as you said, people in west texas, but it could be right through the middle of the united states, which is seen such the industrialization in recent decades. do you think they're okay with the, all the weaponry being paid for with the u. s. public money to ukraine, and yes,

absolutely, because they have been horrified what they're seeing with regard to ukraine. and one thing the mainstream media has done all across the globe as been to portray what's happening there in pictorial form. in many instances, when an sas are taking photographs and so forth, and the carnage on both sides, russian tanks destroyed, for example, and cities and towns being artillery and mom to the, its going out into america. and leave the same pictures again. but when they were being told that the guy was ok to the libya war was ok, the things were successes for the united states or the american public. as it faces direct impacts on their living standards, let alone the price of gas petroleum. they're going to continue to believe the pictures the way the companies that produce then use argue we want to use them. well, that's a good question. americans are particularly fickle sometimes about their support

for things like mandatory and assistance for your crime. but right now it's out for and i see signs and starbucks would you like to give money for carrying and refugees? and i see people forget out the dough. so right now it's very much in favor of helping and what happens in the future is anybody's guess. i'm sure some of that will dissipate, but i can tell you right now that the general feeling i'm getting from capitals all over the world is that they're surprised because they like me thought to be or pragmatic man. and they see him now as being megan maniacal and wanting a statue on red square, 500 years from now. that says boy, even greater than catherine and peter combine. that's certainly the way the story is told by a so called made stream media. i mean them, why do you wire that from a russian journalist not from mainstream media? why?

why the, and, and the am plenty, plenty of russians oppose the war within russia. we saw thousands arrested on the streets of major cities throughout russia. and do think her when the iraq war was going on your cheapest after the sector state, you would consider censoring media like the way the media is being censored in the united states and nato countries. today, our t being taken down right across europe. and the use of twitter and social media companies to destroy the other side and to curb any kind of descent. let me tell you my view. yesterday i was asked to comment off it to go into one of our major newspapers done by military veterans. i said i will approve and allow my signature to go on that off it. if you change the last paragraph. the last paragraph had a sentence that said something like this before i changed it. it said, it should be haul before the international criminal court or wherever,

and he should be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law as being a war criminal. i said you have to change that sinister read as it reads, comma, as should george w bush. and dick cheney for establishing a tor to regime and state approval. but as you know, they say they will then haut as just tony blair or the left that left that name out . well, not too much more of that. i can come to think of it talking about the international criminal court. it was ukraine that brought to the international the world court. it says go to justice saying, look, rushes claims. it was genocide against russian ethically. russian people in the east of ukraine was genocide. and the court said, look, we can't say whether the russian caves the true or not. if they were then under article $51.00, there was a possibility that russia's invasion of ukraine is actually allowed under

international law. but at the same time, russia must suspend its activities in ukraine. is there a way out in the will court because of genocide claims by moscow and the duma, of course, the communist party of russia, very much to the for forcing the hand some say in russia of the united russia party, that's a board boot in moscow. i think those kind of effort, children prosperous, actually i watch cold. well, try to get that done with regard to sudan in 2002 and 3 as i recall and you know, the protocol is the protocol, but genocide is a difficult thing to proving. it's even more difficult thing to get governments to act on. i think the bigger problem here is how do we negotiate a settlement? how do we stop this? how do we give a little bit of thought? moscow wants a little bit of what cash launch and maybe sacrifice a lot of what nato wants. washington launch on the altar of

a deal. i think we have to do that. how did the arms companies whose shares are being skyrocketing since the beginning of this conflict? as said in history media because it goes to russia and it began 8 years ago with the russian, with the overthrow of the government in a u. s. rec forces. how, how does that benefit the companies if your prescription is followed and you have a peace settlement company in switzerland, by the way, switzerland no longer mutual. how does that benefit? honest company, money for which your american public is so generous to where you get a point there. if you saw the piece in the guardian yesterday or day before yesterday, you know that one of the reasons the guardian and i think they're right points out that the more draconian sanctions won't work on the oligarchs in moscow is because washington's oligarchs and germany's oligarchs and frances,

all got their own or their entrepreneurs, they're there, they're together and they're working together in the banks and everything else. so i asked the same question about moscow's military industrial complex. will those influences keep this from being settled because they are making so much money off of it and incidentally, burden is making lots of money off increase gas prices. so those influences might indeed keep us from having a settlement to this conflict. i hope not, but i know how i know how bad those influences are. even while the children of ukraine dying there. i mean, they don't have these beneficiaries of this conflict that made a 1000000 that made a long that have such lobbying power can prolong a war. yes, yes, they can prolong or war. they can get a war. now if what you want doesn't happen and why, why do you think say saudi arabia wouldn't take joe by the school?

i mean, what, why would a power like that not take job items go? why would the u. e not support the united states? you know, if i were to count with our own sama, been all month or, or the leadership in the amorous, i would love the gas price encourage. and i'll tell you why. because they know they see the handwriting on the wall. a $1000000000.00, for example, was spent in the united states in the last 5 years on the electrical vehicles. they see the handwriting on the wall. the market is moving away from fossil fuels. black rock that owns as you probably are aware, half a world black rock as advised, it's investors, it's shareholders, it's companies to do the same thing. so they see they're going to have trillions and trillions of dollars, a stranded assets that is assets, they can burn assets, they can turn a cash. so they want the maximum price now for that gas and or so that's why the

support is sort of thing. that's why they can't say anything about it because they want to continue to make that maximum price of that. if you just very believe briefly on the new world order these components needed for this new electrical vehicle world and all the rest of it, the commodities, i mean then on the methyl exchange goes down, the nickel exchange this week because of the war in ukraine isn't that why they're so confident in moscow and beijing actually had that alone in the global south that this war is that turning point, the minerals and commodities, they're all going to go the other way. they're not going to go west anymore. you know, i can tell you right now, most of my lockers in a global south or furiously angry with the global north because we are doing things to fight climate change. finally, the market is moving that way, but we're leaving them out. we're completely excluding them. whether it's faxing for coated or whether it's movement towards their problems with clean water to

drink, or arable land, which is drying up now. and the water tables are shrinking in west africa. it's becoming an epidemic. they see us paying no attention to them and they're right because basically we aren't kind of larry works. thank you. they care. that's for the final show in this to year though. if you're watching this on saturday, it will be replayed on monday and despite nature nation, any you, censorship will be back soon with a brand new look. but until then we'll be showing you some of your favorite shows of the season. so far we can make an appeal to ukrainian officials to come on the show to give their perspective on the war you can keep in touch my role as social media, if it's available in your country. and remember, you will continue to watch going underground episodes globally on tv, outside nato, a line countries, and always odyssey, and it r t dot com. with

what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy, even foundation, let it be an arms race is on offense. very dramatic development. only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical time time to sit down and talk ah, last year in july with your grade in major medical, honest with you know, you can do really bad. wish game. a rush. you're going to fight

with ah, welcome to us put nick, orbiting the world with me. george galloway and me. cathy, media lights are going out all over the world. they may not be switched on again. in our lifetime, nato is not just traditional weapons of war, but a vast monstrous regimen of hacks whose salary in status is absolutely determined by the gusto with which they prosecute nato's wars. in this one over ukraine, i think for the 1st time there is not the slightest chink in the.