said trending again. ironically on twitter, i detect serious 1st amendment problems with this garbage idea. the left has been controlling the narrative for years, but now they're just being blatant about it. welcome, the ministry of truth. us fight and launches ministry of truth to ensure you only speak. think in here what the state approves. how soon until biden's ministry of truth is sending dissidence to concentration and re education camps. so oh exactly . he's going to be this detached and even handed judge to sort fact from fiction. meet the lady in charge of washington's new board. nina yankovic, she's been a fellow with the wilson center which gets a 3rd of its funding from the u. s. government, which apparently makes young coverage, 2 thirds non partisan. for most of the disinformation that we've seen, the highly emotionally manipulative content is coming from the right. if you look at the top 10, you know, most engaged with post on facebook or twitter on

a given day. they are usually posts that are coming from the right. and that's because the right does deal on this highly emotional rhetoric. russia is something that sprouts far beyond her korea at the wilson center, formerly embedded with the ukranian foreign ministry. she's never shied away from publicly despising moscow, mainly for exposing uncomfortable facts about the us. it's clear that actors like russia are using those internal fisher, things like our systemic racism here in the united states. things like economic inequality, to amplify these issues and really make us distrust the system. love for the democrats hatred towards russia, a mix more classic than fish and chips. nowadays, the world of nina young, which is simple and solved if anything is hurting the dems image. surely that must be russian disinformation. like when she dismissed the story about hunter biden's, laptop, and tons of incriminating data on it as a fairy tale,

which it obviously wasn't. the emails do not need to be altered to be part of an influence campaign. voters deserve that context. not a fairy tale about a laptop prepare shop and the males candle that buried hillary clinton's run for the white house. well, it shouldn't have been brought to light in the 1st place. according to young cabbage was a really bizarre decision to declassify, some unverified intelligence about the 2016 election. that kind of trashed up the whole hillary clinton mail scandal and the heck and lee corporation perpetrated by the russians. and again, that seemed like a political decision designed to help president trump in general. she's certainly not a big fan of ultimate free speech advocates and elan mark himself. and it really shows where this whole this information board is coming from. i shuddered to think about free speech absolutely. just taking over more platforms. what would that look like for the much in life communities which are already shouldering disproportion

a man's of abuse? indeed, to think there might be a platform allowing equal opportunities of expression for the people with opposing views for the 27 minutes. that's when i will be back with the full instructional to stay with us. this is our international ah ah ah hello and welcome to cross stock were all things are considered. i'm teeter, lavelle, u. s. secretary defense lloyd austin, says he will move heaven and earth to assist ukraine. at the same time,

the even foreign policy chief exclaims relations with russia should be rebuilt. talk about a united messaging problem. this is akin to saying to save ukraine, the west must destroy it. ah. crossing the ukraine situation, i'm joined by my guess url rasmussen in washington. he is the executive vice president of the ration center in paris. we have john laughlin, he is a university lecture in history and political philosophy and we have alex me. however, he is a foreign affairs analyst and an rti contributor, i generally cross stock roles. and if that means you can jump in any time you want . i always appreciate john, let me go to you 1st and paris list trust who's started her political career in child care. apparently, it was her portfolio. now as she saw the foreign secretary, she sent the following the last few days. the war in ukraine is our war. it is every one's war because ukraine's victory is

a strategic imperative for all of us. so we're at war. all of us are at war. and it's not, it's something she said, the quiet part out loud. rush is at war with nato rushes at war with the u. k. out right on the we have a british official saying the british weapons used by ukrainians to kill russians in russia is okay. i wonder if rushes get to reciprocate. john? well, that's what everyone. i suppose is afraid of, but the fact that this is a war not between russia and ukraine, but between russia and nato. we've known this since the beginning of the conflict. ukraine is just the theatre of this conflict. there belligerence are nato and russia. how we known this well, because presidents lensky told us, he told us, i think, 3 days into the war, 27th of february or something like that. he said he'd run up all the nato member states and ask them, could ukraine join the alliance?

and they all said no, but publicly the doors will remain open. in other words, war is not about letting ukraine shoes make a sovereign choice about its future as the nato idealogue said at the time, because they're not prepared to admit it to their lines. instead, it is, as you've quoted peter less trust saying, or joe biden or the other week saying that the goal was to, we can russia. so that is the goal. and that's why the british foreign secretary says it's everybody's war because what she means is that the, the west london, washington, the european allies, want this war in ukraine in order to we can russia. that's what biden said to, we can russia. that's why they were rearming ukraine. that's why the united kingdom signed a military corporation agreement with ukraine in summer 2021. that's why the united states signed one, a few months later. the goal was to increase to ratchet up the arming of ukraine.

in order to pose a threat to russia, and that is now the conflict that's being played out with a bit. alex here, if i could still use this quote here, ukraine's victory is a strategic imperative for all of us. what if ukraine loses as it will? if you look it for solid, let's remember, and this little thing we're talking about the beginning of this war. this war started in 2014 and the war started when nina was involved in 2014, i covered this from canada, j t f. 2, which our special forces along with the s a s n u s. special forces were all on the ground and it could have been gone the ground before 2014. how can what we know as the hours of battalion at avi secular at the same time. so this is something that has been going on for an extended period of time. now when lose it, it's, we're living in 2 parallel universes here, because what we're seeing in the west is something that we've never seen before. this unprecedented type of propaganda that i can only say has to have come from the

coven epidemic. because get large, just as hyped about this, as they have been in the past 2 years about what coven was a, it's unbelievable and where you look in the west of flags, or hang the commercials or on tv, or see just blue and yellow, absolutely everywhere. so from that perspective, this war has turned into something very different year. and so it's one of those things where everybody's patting each other on the back and say, hey, i'm with this teen. you know, you're either way with us or ality criticized it. what whirlpool? no, it's alex, make it the same people that where the pins on their lapels and the banners and all that. if you ask them, do you know what the don bass is? what do you think their reaction would be? they'd say, what's that? okay. all different courts, the help i dances, italy, you've put it into context. and this is this propaganda intentionally has no context. earl, i mean i want, i want to stick with this winning and losing thing because that's a we keep hearing about. what if the west lose? i mean a and that's in the cards here. i mean, ukraine as it stood on february 24th. we'll never return to that ever. ok. and when

we hear the foreign secretary of the u. k. lloyd austin, you know, they're all in here. i mean, this is good and very, very badly because there will be a winner, and there will be a loser. and my hunch is, given that it's a neighboring country to russia, with russia, with overwhelming military force, is going to be a disaster for nato. and it is a disaster for nato. go ahead, earl peter, you can, you know, that actually goes back even further before 2014. you can look at woodstock and you can look at the brand chessboard by as brzezinski and rand study in 2019 ukraine is a strategic importance in order to to didn't really have a strategic importance to us for existence, but as far as weakening to russia is, and so that's why it's focused here, and that's what the, this is all about to weaken and contain russia and to prevent them from researching

into, to coming backups. what's going to happen if the, obviously the militarily, it's not going to, unless there's an intervention and then who knows what happens ukraine's going to lose the and so what, what could happen is we could see a fragmentation of ukraine. yep. we could definitely see a, a pseudo new coral door, potentially who knows how it would look with the 3 fourths of the world, a 2 thirds to 3 fourths of the world, citing and keeping good relationships with russia and china. and then we have the european group with some stragglers, japan and us and u. k. lead by the us, obviously in that, in the other camp. so, so it's, it's a, definitely a, a dangerous direction and, and it's dangerous from

a, from an economic. we're looking at a potential economic lapse in europe. i thank you. well, i'm glad you brought that up because let me go to john and in paris. it, what i find really interesting to watch is that there's this enormous attempt to isolate russia, but the end result, the way i look at it, john, is that europe is isolating itself absolutely only question of winning and losing in a way. the question is rather old. fashioned that you put peter, or in my view, what the west wants, what the united states wants, is for russia to engage in a war of attrition. a general milly, the supreme commander of the head of the chief of staff of the american army, said that before the war broke out, he said if that russia were to invade the westwood almon insurrection in ukraine. and this has been said by many commentators that the american model is to have an afghanistan for ukraine. so the war could carry on as

a war of attrition. a protracted period during which russia would, for example, occupy a certain number of cities in ukraine. it already occupies several as it is and those cities would be subject to a long war of attrition. and should be very easy to wage in the sense that obviously there are no physical borders between the cities and the rest of the country. easy for people to come in at night and, you know, blow things up or whatever, and a low level war like that or to try and maintain territories like council, no matter what ever. which russia has already taken would, in the american calculation, be very costly and dangerous for russia, and i think that is the goal. in other words, i don't think there is a, a win or lose. we're not gonna, well, i say your line of argument perfectly well. it was, but i don't feel and say right. do you know, mack, one nell to nature will to one to rush or whatever. it's going to the ukraine is

a trap? sure. and that is the, how the american see it all outcomes are bad at the moment to russia. yes, they're very bad for europe. and i think iraq was isolated itself. and europe is very, a very vulnerable economically. and russia may well resist much better than europe calculates, but it doesn't mean that the income is not bad for us rank, it is bad. i absolutely agree with you. but alex, if i go to you, but the worst outcome is for the ukranian people, that's the worst outcome here. and that's not in the western calculation whatsoever . i mean, lloyd austin, say, you know, to, to, the goal is to weaken russia as, as john said here, he didn't mention anything about ukraine. and that's how others go head out. this is, this is something that we see, i think as journalists and as animals that we've, we've saw from the outside looking in. i mean, i've covered wars for a long time, and it's usually the united states of american baiting, somebody for writers of mass destruction or some other obscure reason that doesn't

really exist. there is no calculation and they don't really care how many people are going to be killed on the ground. ukraine. i as much as i sympathize with the ukrainian people and i feel for the cranium. people have a lot of ukrainian friends. i grew up in the ukranian neighbourhood in toronto, canada. i understand what they're going through. i was in the balkans during the award there. i understand what's happening. but at the same time that ukraine is not the point. you know, it's a say it's a war. the proxy war between the united states and russia. what happened with russia now i believe that this was a big mistake. they got basically lured into a situation where you had lincoln constantly saying, no, no, you're the, well, you're going to do whatever it wants. of course they want to join nato, could join natal ukraine was a coast joining a when there's an election in 2024. if, if it's still happening in ukraine, we're to lensky probably would have been booted out. and russia hadn't done the exact same thing that the united states did in 2014. and that was a coup on the exact same way. and it could have done this in a way that there would not be so much bloodshed, but at the same time,

you have to remember as much as russia was baited. and who did the beating and who doesn't care about lives. a did see over and over again. it's basically the u. k and the u. s. that 11 alec, there's one thing that you could have mentioned will never know is that in between time, the don bass could have been invaded by care of. okay. and that was the impetus for us. history will judge. okay, but i'm not sure i agree with your timeline there. okay. we'll find out what eventually, what the timeline was and why the decisions were made. i gentlemen, i'm going to jump in here. we're going to go to a short break, and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on the situation in ukraine. stay with i look forward to talking to you all. that technology should work for people.

a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except we're such orders at conflict with the 1st law. show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. at that point, obviously is too late or trust or rather than fear, i would like to take on various charlene with artificial intelligence, real summoning with obama protective own existence with i think with

oh, welcome act. across that were all things are considered. i'm peter le belt remind we're discussing the situation in ukraine. ah. okay, early one of the interesting things that i find and watching this conflict here is alex mentioned in the 1st part of the program that he's covered to foreign wars around the world. most of them initiated if not all of them by the united states and its allies. but the impact of those wars on western voters and western consumers i would say was quite limited. okay. it wasn't a high profile thing. some of us have very strong interest in foreign policy, but the average voter doesn't. now we have this situation here. we have supply chains, we have inflation. the fate of the dollar is at stake in many ways people are not aware of it, but that's true. so this endeavor to support ukraine, that has of no strategic value whatsoever for europe in the united states is

beginning to cost something go hetero. i think peter, you remember, i think the whole initiative, this is and all the other work tooth is maintaining us supremacy dominance around the world at any cost essentially. but, but yeah, i, i do not, i would agree. i do not think that they fully thought this out. i think they thought there was going to be some ramifications. some blow back on sanctions and stuff. but i mean, they went all in with section all it, i mean ridiculous, this is direct company and, and i think, i think they also were thinking that they would get more people to support the sanctions other than just the u. s. in europe. and they're close satellites, and that hasn't been the case. so i think this is a major, major threat to, to the global economy in the global financial system. we also, what's happened here, you hear them saying that russia's using oil or whatever for,

and gas for blackmail. but what has the u. s. allies done as far as the global financial system and the dollar into europe? blackmail, exact and, and what they've done by using the, we basically basically have damage themselves as far as credibility, as far as the whole global financial structure, i think it's really being challenged right now. and, and it's going to have, i think rush is going to have some tough times, but i think they'll get through it. europe. i think it's going to have a very challenging time. and some blowback will come back to us too, but it will definitely be affecting on the long term the supremacy of the dollar as a, as a reserved currency. so i think it really hurts the european and the u. s. reputation globally. and, and i, and it's as

a result that they're not getting the actions that they thought they were going to . that's why they keep doing after this. freya. yes, you and john, you know, i, i'm, i'm living in mosque, i've been here for almost a quarter century now and i'm very well aware of the sanctions here, but life more or less just goes on. there are some inconveniences. yes. particularly when it comes the financial system, but you know, totally destroying the economy. now the rubel i tumbled and then is right, right back where it was before. ah, as the earl was pointed out um, on the global south is, i'm not going to get involved in this say, see, this is a something well beyond their interests. these countries are looking out for their sovereignty and their citizens here, going along with the europeans and the americans are not in their interest here. so this endeavor, propaganda and using the financial system and trade is not panning out because it hasn't brought rushes to it to its knees. as i've been telling people they've been

preparing for this for since 2014, they've been thinking about it a lot. go ahead, john. well, in fact, when you get back in time, russia, that before the soviet union has been under sanctions, western sanctions since, since before i was born. you may remember comic on which was a body that designed to restrict the export of, of technology to the soviet union. so the, the use of sanctions to try and we can russia is decades old. and i very much agree with what alex just said about using the dollar. and also incidentally, the euro as instruments of black male as russia is accused of doing with gas. there's a big difference. however, a gas is a real thing. oil is a real thing. the dollar and the euro and not real things, that just bits of paper, which for another purpose, namely to buy whatever it is you want to buy. but some people are always going to want gas are always going to want oil. and they're not necessarily going to always want dollars if they can instead buy the oil gas in the chinese currency or in the

russian currency or in the indian currency or whatever you want. and one of the extraordinary things about this war is that, i'm sure, like many people, many people may have, have asked what exactly are russians war aims, you know, what, what is the end game from the russian point of view. one of the consequences of this war has been to fro the pack of cards up into the and see which way they settle. and we have seen the answer to that already with india and china and brazil is gigantic countries. these gigantic economies of course, siding with russia, as you said, just now the global south, including by the way, the middle east, saudi arabia, the gulf states, these, these economic power houses have not cited with the 2 sides of the atlantic. and that is indeed indeed indicates that as you asked me in a previous question, europe is isolated. you know, alex, you know, the, there is this issue of using energy as a form of blackmail. well,

i think we should kind of put it into perspective here are over $300000000000.00 of rushes. reserves have been frozen if not stolen, and you have, you have nato officials giving a nod for the ukrainians. the use nato weaponry to a hit targets inside of russia. i mean, why shouldn't russia just turn off the gas? i mean, it's a war, ha, what, in what war can you any of the way you think of where? well, you know, we're going to be fighting each other, killing each other, but we're gonna keep commerce going on. it doesn't happen. i don't think it's ever happened here. so, i mean, there, there should be a point in time and say, well, i mean, if you want to kill our people, then why should we sell you energy? go ahead, alex, why? absolutely. i mean, look and it's, it's are for exactly what you said, i mean, this goes a, it, it's a what the us thought would be a win for them in this, in the sense that nordstrom chew is not working. they thought that they, they basically shut their oil, went to europe, exactly the way that they plan to. but a, it's a little bit more difficult than,

than what they imagined to do in the 1st place. and as far as i don't correct me if i'm wrong, they're still a pipeline. they runs 3 am praying from russia into europe. so you were in the middle of a war, this pipeline still flowing. saw it from the very beginning. got from my lease, from my humble opinion, i was like, why doesn't russia just turned that tap off after alex available? alex, i will even add a layer to that, that yes, that pipeline. it's the i'm out through a through a pipeline, and they're shipping it through ukraine and they're paying the ukranian government transit fees as we speak. okay. or you go, okay, and these are 2 countries that have been at war for how long now, and you have flights between kevin and moscow every day for how many years. so it's just one of those situations, i mean and back to the sanctions. i just want to touch upon this. i was in serbia and the former yugoslavia during sanctions. there are some people say i wrote a book on it. when was with a you in organization, i co wrote a book actually. but the fact of the matter is that sanctions do not work. some of

the best times my life were under sanctions, where you grab a bottle of wine and guitar, the lights are off and everybody had the best time of their lives. you still could get food, serbia was prepared for it and you could be sure that rushes prepared for it. yes, but earl has the west prepared for it? that's the question here. and i don't think they have and certainly the european solvent. i mean, i've been watching media coverage of germany hemming and hawing of what kids can do it, it can't really do very much. there is a choice. turn off the lights and closed the door in the entire year. a european economy will collapse. ok, but there's still these buffoons in the u. k. in the u. s. forcing the germans to do it. i mean, the chancellor of germany, i com. sergeant schultz because that's exactly how he acts. go ahead, earl. yes, absolutely, here and then this is going to have a, i don't think the west completely prepared for this. ah, but i also think get

a secondary intent of this not only was, was directed towards russia, but i think also was directed towards europe because one of the yeah, one of the things all the docs vince is to prevent europe from researching and create and to prevent too close of business ties. ah, yeah. but with better to maintain us dominant. yeah. monroe, i agree with you. i agree with you, but isn't it kind of a hollow victory? i mean, you want had gemini, you want to maintain your head gemini in europe, but then europe just becomes a poor house. i mean, how is that a victory in the long term? let me throw that to john. go ahead, john. you react to that? well, it's not a victory, it's, it's caught making a desert and calling it piece that i think that the cutting off of gas is going to be the next escalation. it's already started with poland and bulgaria, or the europeans for one minute say that they will pay in roubles in another minute,

say that they won't. and unless the escalation, which has been explicitly threatened by vladimir putin notably against britain, unless at escalation takes a military form. i don't know what exactly he means. maybe he means some kind of a hypersonic strike on a british target. unless he means that the logical next step is indeed the escalation that you have mentioned, namely cutting off the gas supplies. even if those gas supplies were cut off for, let's say a week, the rise in gas prices would be so catastrophic, and the effect on the markets would be so immense that that would itself strike a very severe blow as, of course would a permanent cutoff. so yes, i think europe is stuck in the middle. europe has cooled the wrong as, as back the wrong holes on this because europe has happened. this happened so many times in the past takes the flag, but decisions which are taken in the united states. well, i alex,

i mean let me finish it with you here. i mean, they are the are western publics prepared for the long term, long cold war, even if it flares up with that with russia they prepared for that 30 seconds. no, you're not. absolutely not lucky. europe right now is taking a look at the euro. is right now, i mean, we saw this during 1999 during castile europe was hit, the euro was hit, the u. n was hit ignored completely as well as russia. 3 birds with one stone back, then this is exactly the same type of thing and it makes you fake why this could have been predicted at this. could be this paradigm shift. everybody's talking about. russia could be a useful step by actually shutting down oil. what is it we're going electric? what are we doing there should be some mastermind up there who's completely off his rocker. who thinks that this is a good thing? it'll always be what could have been gentlemen? that's all the time we have here. i want to thank my guest and i want to thank our viewers for watching us here at ortiz. see you next time and remember, i'm stuck with

ah ah. with

ah, with we learned consider, oh so, so that was made to unfortunately, and they thought it seems, considers itself to be at the will with russia, russia, tom, diplomat of ones that all the weaponry that western powers supply give will be considered a legitimate military target. anti aircraft tanks that germany wants to give to ukraine. could it be useless as the available ammunition would be enough to cover only 20 minutes of combat? it makes a decision to deliver items to ukraine is fundamentally wrong. the world will intensify and that can be good while ukrainian refugees are warmly welcomed in the you an anti fraud investigation claims that.