ah ah ah ah ah hello and welcome across the top where all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle . the north atlantic treaty organization is a peculiar thing. it claims to be a defensive military alliance, but it aggressively expands and that expansion is directed at russia and its clients that ukraine is losing a war. nato actively supports. essentially, nato has decided to double down on failure.

cross talking nato, i'm joined by my guess. got rid or in del mar, he's a former intelligence officer and united nations weapons inspector in tens. meaning we have had see he is a conflict consultant and a retired u. s. foreign service officer. and in madrid. we have wyatt read. he is a journalist with sputnik news, high gentleman, cross hoc rules and impact that means can jump anytime you want. and i always appreciate, scott, let me go to you 1st here. you know, i guess a talk show how some of the smartest guy on earth but, you know, let me ask you a simple question. this new strategic concept that the nato is developing here in madrid. what, what i would say 30 blind mice joining together. so the west is expanding, nate to again, in response to a war, predominantly caused by nato expansion. is this wrong out? yep. do i misunderstand something here? go ahead scott. no, i think you've encapsulated to actually perfectly. i mean, you know, the other interesting thing happened is, finally said, look, we're,

we're not partners with russia anymore. well, natal has been a pardon with russia ever. nato's never taken partnership with russia seriously. and we now know thanks to you on stolen birds. maybe slip of the tongue, the native has been preparing to fight russia since 2014, that is for the last 8 years. so all we're seeing right now is natal finally being honest. um, you know and saying ok, well this is what we're going to do. it's it's, it's what they wanted to do all along to reinvigorate the alliance. so stripping away any pretence of being a defensive organization and acknowledging straight up that it's so purposes to confront. russia, i did by the nato, people to take a closer look at what's going on in the ukraine, where the proxies being destroyed before seriously tried to cross russia. but at least they're going to go through the motions. ok, ted ted says, so it's very interesting here. so there is no longer a pretense to pan european security because if you want pants, european security,

you have to include russia. but really what now we've had and, and scott's right from e, i would say it has essentially, from the very beginning of nato and of, and of course, after the end of the cold war, this is directed at russia, excluding russia. you cannot have pan european security without russia. that's something they don't seem to understand or want to acknowledge. go ahead, ted. here i have to agree for many years. i've been saying that the nato claims to have partnership arrangements, if not more than that with which it's about everyone in your below very clearly, that's not the case anymore. and you know, the mask is finally slipped the cats finally out of the bag. but for many years, it was, it was only practical allies like say, germany who didn't want conflict with russia, who insisted that there was no way that they would support russia being named as public enemy number one for nato. well, that's finally changed now. now russia is the most significant and direct it to our

security and a piece of stability in the euro. atlantic area. ok, so in so wyatt, you're there and that when in the belly of the beast as it were here with the, the facts being created on the ground, la battlefield and ukraine doesn't seem to really impact impact their thinking whatsoever. you would think just the reverse. you know, like, wow, this hasn't worked out. they're facing a catastrophic strategic defeat. and they just double down. i mean, this, this is a pathology here. i'm sorry, go ahead by it. yeah, absolutely. i mean, you look at some of the remarks coming out of john stockton berg, for example, made a secretary general and then practically giddy. they view this as, as an incredible opportunity. it seems and knowledge, not just rush, obviously, but it's fine as well. you know, this document published by nato sites, a deepening strategic partnership between the people's republic of china and the russian federation. and they're mutually reinforcing attempts to undercut the rules

based international order. they say this runs counter to our values and interests as nato. so obviously, now it seems, you know, it's not just a, a nominally defensive alliance aimed at re militarize in europe, back to cold war levels against russia, but now against china as well. so really yeah, i think i'd have to agree with your other guests and say it's really impossible to interpret what's happening in europe is anything other than re militarization back to cold war era levels. exactly. you scott, and this and it with the adding sweden and finland here, which, you know, the, the nato is border with russia. now it's expand like 800 kilometers this, it gets, is far more dangerous with its expansion now. now, of course, the russians have made it very clear that they're not so miffed about that because they don't have any issues with them. but you know, the more countries that nato countries that boy russia,

the more there is the likelihood of something going wrong. and i think that this is kind of a game of chicken that is very, very dangerous. and is why it is said here. i mean, this is, the nato is ation of europe. it is the militarization of europe when actually if you look what's going on in ukraine, everyone should draw the opposite conclusions. like look, it didn't work out. we didn't have been a conflict here. maybe we should totally rethink it. and they're nowhere going near that. go ahead. scott. one of the interesting things that i've taken from the nato summit is that they have, they are aggressively pursuing a notional reconfiguration of nato. meaning, you know, we are going to transform from 840000 strong, already, fortunately, 300000 strong. ready force. ain't got the 300000 of the united states is going to put the 5th cor headquarters in poland. it's just a headquarters. there is no 5th corps, and by point is there,

but he knows on the spy stuff out there. wow. who's going to pay for it? i mean, germany says we're going to build, you know, 100000000000 euros to rebuild the german military. now with the economy, they're going to have after this winter of what, what you're going to use for money. what are they in use for fuel the, the point is they're, they're putting this very aggressive framework in place, but they don't have anything to cover it with. and by expanding nato into finland and sweden, as they're talking about, as they're apparently going to do what they're doing is guaranteed that there will be additional points of tension. yeah. but the thing is, if you want to fight the russians, you better have more than a powerpoint presentation about a theoretical 300000 troops before you just crossed out line of departure. because russia's troops aren't theoretical. they're really in ukraine. they're really kicking, but it's scott, if i could just finish up with you here,

it's i finding kind of interesting historically that we could see german tanks in the baltic. republics. i mean there was some but made her conflict to get them out of the baltic. republics during the 2nd world war it's, it's really kind of kind of erie that way. ted, let me shift feel into intense mania. ready i just say get, i got a real good. yeah, we may see german tanks in the baltics. if they continue, we'll see german tanks destroyed once again in the politics. ok, will be a topic for another program here. let me go to ted right now. the, the, the, the other side of all this is that the mask is off. i mean, russia knows who is arbitrary. sorry, doesn't have to listen to all of the clap trap in the boiler played nonsense from brussels anymore. they know that they're being targeted as an enemy here, and russia will take re response to that obviously. so, i mean, i don't see what progress security in europe has been made at all here. go ahead 10

. here. i couldn't agree more and i've been going around saying for a very long time, the end of the former diplomat. i always think that in georgia is better than war war, winston churchill. but when you're facing an alliance against, you know, for a long time and alliance against nobody, because no one mater would credit for actually being an anti russian alliance. and now finally the math is slipping. we're finally saying, do they're worried about who they're planning against? they're making, you know, these preparations, it's got to the moment it's a powerpoint presentation. but if you look through these documents here and there are some pretty astonishing stuff being written, if you wouldn't mind, i'd like to quote a couple more a little because some of that is really frightening. if you look at the implications, the strengthening the alliance and accelerating its adaptation. ok? someone wants to tell me what they are adapting to more strongly i, i be really interested in hearing. but even something that's down to knock us like

significantly strengthening our deterrence and defense. okay. 40 k to $300.00 k. rapid reaction force. that's strengthening defense. if it ever happens. ok. how do you strengthen deterrence? yeah. morning. better news, more in better news. what are the options? so there's a lot of stuff in here that's really kind of frightening. and again, i return to accelerating in taishan. what exact, there's not one word in any of these documents that hasn't been wrangled over for weeks by me. and it's like, i used to be ok, so there's nothing in there by accident. so what do you mean by accelerating? and i'll tell you what i think it means ted is that nato wants to replace the united nations. it'll be an organisation of the willing under the united states, and it will, you know, nature will say these are our sanctions, which of course, all the sanctions coming out of european united states are illegal under international. they were not sanctioned by the united nation. nato wants to expand

to the east, it wants to re, wants to be the world body that makes decisions. and that's another topic for another program. why? and i mean, you're in the belly of the beach. what is the mood like? i mean, well, i, you know, what is the mood of a military alliance getting together? i mean, are there cocktails or they buffet, i mean what, what's the mood like there? well, among the nato elite, yeah, i'm sure they are quite a, quite enjoying themselves. the picture outside of the 4 seasons hotel is a little bit different. i mean, aside from just attempting to navigate this sort of labyrinth that's been created around nato, to make sure that it doesn't actually have to deal with any of the rabble that's, that's a major, major pain. i mean, you have these essentially military checkpoints being erected that block off traffic that make it so that for example, to get back to my hotel, i had to walk 20 blocks to go a span of 3 bucks. that's a pretty typical experience. i think for your average person in spain and just in

terms of the kind of social conditions, the economic conditions, i want to say this month's been hit a 37 year high in terms of inflation. this is had devastating consequences in terms of, you know, the fuel prices in terms of food prices. all of these as a direct consequence of west illegal as you note sanctions against russia, against the world's one of the world's greatest energy. and fertilizer suppliers have had extremely predictable results, and the people who are paying the price are, are not, as well as the little people that will pay the cost. it's not the decision makers here. we're going to go to a short break gentleman. and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on nato and it's ambitions state with with

ah . 2 yes, that the bill good, i think is 70 percent of you. been 80 percent of so be a view below for why sherbie, nate, if you say i want to approach that, you go it meas, i want this vested, but this one, me not a toyota. we see a boss little login and then we'll see in those entities with

with ah ah, welcome back, across stock, we're all things considered on peter belt, remind you we're discussing nato in it's ambitions ah

case go back to scott scott, it's going to happen. i don't know the timeline, but the, the ukrainian military will be utterly destroyed basically. the way i look at it, ukraine is turned into a failed state will be very much whatever is left of it will be very dependent on the e. u. um, how is nato going to react to this considering festive activities in madrid right now. you know, that's one of the unknowns, nato. so, you know, setting itself up for failure of, and nato can't afford another failure. i think people tend to forget that a year ago, nato was, was inflicted, one of the greatest embarrassments in its history. the defeat in afghanistan and the requirement to withdraw precipitously because the united states, it's greatest supporter and underwriter, abandoned it, in afghanistan, and in abandoned the mission. it was a failure. and yet, here we are

a year later in nato setting itself up for a show. your of even greater magnitude. there is no serious military analyst in the world who thinks it ukraine can turn this around. you can pump as much nato equipment into ukraine as you want to give them everything. nato has short of a nuclear weapon and it won't change the outcome because ukrainian army has been destroyed, devastated. it's lost. the majority of its train forces its core and an untrained personnel into a conflict where the russians have superiority across the board. the only guaranteed outcome is more death and destruction. i don't think ukraine will survive as a nation state. that's how serious this defeat will be. and then what is natal? good, ted, you know, right, right. prior to the con fab of nato, we had the g 7 meeting and basically they came out with the line, a pledging support for ukraine quote, for as long as it takes. did anybody in the west vote for that?

i mean, you know, why it just told us about the conditions in spain that you know, the, the highest inflation in recent memory. and that's only going to get worse. i mean, winter is coming. and if you look at the russian, the, the way europeans are dependent on russian energy, which is really quite comical. you know, we have to cut off the russians cut off the written, but they're going to be desperate for energy. and then they get to blame russia anyway, which of course is a topic burnett, still another program here. but i mean, we, we know whatever it takes. what does that mean? ok. i mean, you can, ukraine cannot be, fail, cannot be defeated. well, just as scott said, no one in their right mind thinks it's going well for the ukrainians. how do you react to that? go ahead. well, 2 quick points. one is that there are, there are multiple layers of energy trouble out there. one of them, obviously, is, is the current conflict taking place in europe. but another, the dedication that many states have made in a trend the way, you know,

as they alluded to in glasgow a few months ago, that they're going green, they're getting rid of fossil fuels, and they're going to replace them when renewable. except they aren't because they can't because there's no baseload power provided by renewables. and until they get massive nuclear, massive batteries that are capable of backing up and offering baseline support renewal, you will see anyone be able to rely on here or not. it's really, it's winter time, and a couple of states and the eastern seaboard had been within hours of brown out not blackouts because they've been shutting down coal fired power plants faster than they can build windmills and solar cells. second point, you quoted g 7 language on ukraine and support for it. i'll quote you nato's language. we reiterate our unwavering support for ukraine's independence sovereignty and territorial integrity within an internationally recognized border, extending to its territorial waters. what they left out, the most important part,

which is the last person, followed by, except in 2014. exactly. why . why? i mean, it seems to me, i mean it's, this is we're in, it's, it's kind of, you know, muddy environment or we know we have, we have these definitive statements or g 7 in nato, and then you have, you know, joe biden was, i think it was like 10 days ago, 2 weeks ago, he's already hinted there off ramp all with lindsay didn't listen to us. you know, somebody is going to have to take the fall for this. ok. because i cannot see under any circumstances, the quote and what unity of the europeans, which is of fiction in itself here. i mean, nato is primary mission is to exist. we've all known that for a very long time. it's all me to exist to keep it going. okay. now it, as scott pointed out, the humiliation laugh dan if there was one thing and now one is still and then we have a president. the united states is an empty suit here. i mean it's, i,

i can see how they couldn't put lipstick on this pagan, say it's beautiful. go ahead. wyatt. well, now you have these admissions coming from the mainstream media just 2 days ago, and then publish the a piece saying that white house officials are losing content that ukraine will ever be able to take back all the land. it is lost to russia over the past 4 months. and i mean, you, you even have these admissions within this piece from a congressional a whether ukraine can take back these territories and large part if not entirely, a function of how much support we give them. so you do have this effectively recognition of the fact that what all of us have been saying for several months, which is that this is in fact, that the fact that nato property war against russia, this is not, you know, plucky ukrainian resistance. somehow, despite all eyes fighting back against, you know,

country 10 times of their size. no, this is a, a full on military conflict at this point between the world's greatest defensive alliance and a, one of the world's greatest military powers. you know, which i think explains much more effectively why it is that ukraine didn't immediately overnight to come to the russian military might. well, i mean i, scott is, as i said on this program before, and a lot of people don't acknowledge it. but for 8 years the ukrainian army was trained and equipped in money by nato. and it is a formal part. i mean, the us has bases in, in, in europe, turkey has a real army and it has, you know, it metals in its neighborhood and then you have ukraine. ok, not the germans off the french, not the italians, not the will, not let the way nivia. and it, this is a real military force has been destroyed, being slowly but surely destroyed. but i, scott, i have a question, a question for maybe more of an observation here is that, you know, we have russia,

quote unquote, being isolated on the world stage, which has not happened. ok, as best i think if you look outside of the western world, the, the conclusion that you draws at russia stood up to the collective west and is winning. scott, though it's, i think what we're looking at here in the, the gentleman in tasmania, i apologize for not returning. said, you know, rightly pointed up, you know, but there is no difference between the g 7 meeting this year in the nato summit. they're one and the same, they're the same people talking about the same issues and they, they reach a conclusion. and peter, you, you, you said something was extraordinarily important of that. what is being defended here is the rules based international order in nato has become a supplementary military power projection capability of the united states. to

continue this, the g 7 exist to promulgate this in russia, in china. they've come together and said that they are going to destroy this, that they're going to replace it with the law based ordered the united nations charter. and it appears that the majority of the world is rallying behind russia and china. this is a losing fight for the united states. this is a losing fight for nato. the only question now, how much damage they're going to be able to do as they go down? yeah, interestingly enough, ted, you know, if you look at a western om meddling around the world, we can look at afghanistan. we can look at a rack. we can look at syria, you know that, that the verb for the average working person that will pop up on the news maybe is there, you know, in there driving to work or something like that. and you know, and what is the economic impact on them? maybe nothing, maybe it's negligible, but now this is a conflict that everybody feels in the way. this is the 1st time we've had in modern history with

a west goes out on one of its adventures and everybody feels that every single day that is not sustainable. and democracies go ahead. absolutely agree here. if i could, i'd like to make one more point about nato since i work there during the last period of my foreign service career. i want to talk about article 5, which people seem to think as a guarantee. it's not yet, it's nothing of the sort. it means that we'll think about coming year, defense, or nato. so the bad atmosphere. but i want to quote the language from paragraph 27 of the new strategic concept. we will invest in our ability to prepare for detour and defend against the coercive use of political economic energy information and other hybrid tactics by states and non state actors. hybrid operations against allies couldn't reach the level of armed attack and could leave the north atlantic council to invoke article 5 of the north atlantic treaty. okay. so what they're

saying now is in the wrong circumstances. if you send out me tweets, we might new you. yes. and also if i could add onto it here, your, your carbon footprint is too big. ok. all right. and where are those trends in your school's? ok? what it is is this is what you know, moving the goal post. this is exactly. i'm really glad you brought that up dead because the anything could be a pretense to invoke, you know, article one and then article 5 here. we're rapidly running out of time you. why it again, if i go back to what's going on in madrid here, i have there been protest against the, the, the compact. there was a major protest on monday, thousands of people came out from all across spain to reject. what were they? it was a engine is when were they saying what was about there was something to pull out of . they were calling to pull spain out of nato and they were calling to restore real actual strategic autonomy to europe to be able to function. you know,

in the interests of europeans as opposed to in the interest of the small ruling elite in the united states. and they were denouncing nato as an imperialist block. so, i mean, you have a pretty vociferous rejection from, from many thousands of spaniards of this summit of what it represents. obviously none of that was, was reported in the mainstream media because it's not particularly convenient to demonstrate that the feelings of actual spaniards run completely contrary to what we're hearing on the news from biden, from, from prime minister pedro sanchez. so, so yeah, i mean, you do have a pretty thorough rejection of the principles being espoused here, but obviously, you know, we're just not going to hear about g 7. and nato don't confuse that with democracy in the people's will because they are antithetical. gentlemen, that's all the time we have. i want to thank my guests in delmar madrid and intense mania. and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at ortiz, see you next time. remember

who's with restore? just look of room levels, muscles, runyan, newman. she doesn't even show on a nurse to me as possible. mom cascoo sit to 70 to cut the session of a d. c. wanted with me a you bring out my book with crimes in metal for furnished or something. yeah. need that. and then we got that was it? that was the $180.00 say,

i have no grain lisa. oh well it shows the wrong one. 03. just a few feet out. this thing becomes the aptitude and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground. ah, [000:00:00;00] a

minute barber shop, a one up with a question. get with you. oh, a

little people i think is 70 percent of even 80 percent of serbian people are for russians. but you know, you cannot make it like a person or like something that you, you know, number people who come to the book and then you make inclusion. they are pro russians or not. russo phobia means also cerebral phobia. and we were, we have passed through this so we know how the, the russian brothers are feeling at the moment. a ah,