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 is the will to day teaches on the edge of a global conflict that could be even more deadly than iraq. afghanistan, libya 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 like to the ukrainian people as defensive weapons? what do 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, i'll 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 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, your weapons experts and so forth. and we all agreed that the only solution to this conflict, to the diplomatic solution negotiation that let's let me 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 members in the summer of 2001 and talked with him at great length. and policy planning talks with richard halston 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 is chief of stuff absolutely was 98 or 9 years old at the time. and he actually said it was the biggest strategic mistake america might even 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 and arm sales and money to be made, and it's

a are pastors proposition that article $5.00, 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 warfare? 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 g d p that could go in social programs in europe. the biggest by the us saying it's 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 at 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. it's good. you said that because of course, as you know, washington the by the ministration little nature leaders yet jen stultz burge in the red se nato expansion has nothing to do with the current conflict. and anyone who says that is a booted apologist. well, i'm not an 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 contracts. and frankly, putin's disdain for these conscripts is alarming to military professional like new believe, go mainstream media reports that it's not going to run a media at all the mainstream media. today,

they're certainly depart from what the russians are being told by their media that the war i'm showing well, that it's a pincer movement and that this is all about stopping the expansion of nato. and if you had 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, one by delhi, let alone the entire global south. it's the end of us gemini, this is the beginning of the end. 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 you know, the russian military far better than anyone else certainly are. and they've been telling me what's happening with them. right. so the russian military and they've been telling me about the disdain,

the person has all the military comes from the k g, b, y, when you have r c i, 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'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 a journalist, as it work. you are living 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 a 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 for as fabbing the rusher and said it doesn't want to recreate the, the soviet union. china, as we remember from that alaska, meaning 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 weekend 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 of the you and at the un african countries, there are 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. along to south america to central america. no one tells me from columbia from been his wayland, from algeria from asia, no one tells me they have a positive view of it. modi's problems in india right now are rampaging with his

persecution of his muslim population, which is the largest muslim population in the world in easier i've heard, well, no, it's actually bigger than in asia 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've got going on here, as i said, is an opportunity. why would 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 are banning the abm treaty to start off. and then the i n f treaty and then open skies. we've abandoned 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 battlefield utility. russia is

actually published military doctrine saying that if nato were to penetrate c s p o area, they would hit the point and the flanks for the penetration with small, you will tactical nuclear weapons, very dangerous situation. in the 2nd crisis we need to me, i mean, we need to cooperate and collaborate is the climate crisis. look at the i, b, c. c. report of 28 federal work. we're headed towards 3 or 4 degrees. we're going to make this earth unlivable, which i kind of stop you there more from the former us secretary of state colin pals who chief of staff up to this break. ah, with me i what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race is on of very dramatic development. only personally,

i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very political time. time to sit down and talk with little, you know, one, no, no, not a joke. no, no. what, all more shrill to what they look unit 731 was a unique organization in the history of the world. what they were trying to do was to simply do nothing short and build the most powerful and most deadly

biological weapons program. that the world had ever known. welcome back. i'm still here with retired colonel lawrence wilkerson. what were you, a secretary of state, colin piles, chief of stuff. the climate crisis obviously is the worst challenge that the world to have faces. but there has been a lot of talk about nuclear weapons in recent weeks. lensky saying that maybe ukraine would tricked into removing there's, has russia now put an end to any ideas that nature might have of putting in nuclear capable missile launchers in ukraine forever. i would like to hope so. let me just say that that pastor, because the coach, aetna, our authority for firing ukraine's weapons never left moscow. we know that go on bow knew that we knew that. so you, graham, given up its nuclear weapons, was just a pro forma event. how would they have used them?

most likely, the least could do it, like the old nuclear weapons. there would be good for where moscow has the same kind of controls that we have. and you can't just go out and use of nuclear weapon because it's on your territory. you're going to say that our independent nuclear deterrent in britain is dependent on the us. now i don't know they've got the same policy as moscow a martian and they have their own coach and roamed permissive action locks and other things to 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 like to president lensky on the show. of course, jake sullivan. lee, thank sullivan. the new natural, relatively new national security advisor, though that strongly associated with libya use the phrase full force again to rush, or 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, 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 with which is seen such di, 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 it's going out into america.

and leave the same pictures again. but when they were being told that the afghan is down, will was ok to the libya war was ok. these things were successes for the united states or is the american public as it faces direct impacts on their living standards. little and the price of gas petroleum, they going to continue to believe the pictures the way the companies that produce then use. i'll give me one to use them. well, that's a good question. americans are particularly fickle sometimes about their support for things like your monetary assistance for you crying, but right now it's out for and i see signs in starbucks. would you like to give money for ukrainian refugees? and i see people for getting out the dough. so right now it's very much in favor of helping you carry 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 maybe 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 later me or b greater than catherine and peter come by. that's certainly the way the story is told by a so called wade 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 of by the 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 out to 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. 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, written 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, of the left that left that name out. well, not too much more of that. i can think of it talking about the international

criminal court. it was ukraine that brought to the international the world court. isn't it? go to justice. saying, look, russia's 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 are true or not. if they were then under article $51.00, there was a possibility that russia 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 accord 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. well, 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 product. 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 a lot? moscow wants a little bit of what cash launch and maybe sacrifice a lot of what nato wants. washington lot on the altar of a deal. i think we have to do that. but how do 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 for ships. how, how does that benefit the companies if your prescription is followed and you have a peace settlement company in switzerland by the way, so it's no longer neutral. 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 ago, are 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 sent home 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, the dying, there are legally they don't have these beneficiaries of this conflict that made it really 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 jo, buttons go away with a u. e not support the united states. you know, if i were to count with our own sama, been all month or the leadership in the amorous, i would love the gas price increase. 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 well daughter, these components needed for this new electrical vehicle world and all the rest of it. the commodities, i mean then on the mental 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 in the lockers in the 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 going to larry looks at thank you. they care. that's a for the final showing this year though. if you're watching this on saturday, it will be replayed on monday. and despite is a nation and he, 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 on odyssey, and it r t dot com. 0 one main thing is important for knox ism internationally speaking to that is that nations allowed to do anything. all the mazda races, the reason us. hey jim, it is so dangerous, is it the law? the sovereignty of all the country wars business and business is good. and that is the reality of what we are facing, which is fashion. with

the usa is paying pressure on nations that refused to rule out any friendly ties with moscow. india being the latest to get lecture down the right to buy washington . where put these 500 meters, if they had designated here, there would be nothing left of those buildings behind me. we travel to the southeast and ukrainian city of melissa polish, despite it being under russian military control. still, 5th, you premium ballistic missile getting through it. let's go and k of struggle to come to an agreement on k issues or resolving in the ukraine conflict. lots of.