marsha actually accepted this ah ah, ah ah hello and welcome to cross 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 kline state. 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 sack 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'm just a talk show house. i'm not the smartest guy on earth, but you know, let me ask you a simple question. this new strategic concept that there nato's developing here in madrid. what, what i would say 30 blind mice joining together. so the west is expanding ne, 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 the nato finally said, look, we're, we're not partners with russia anymore. well, natal has been a pardon with russia ever. nato was never taken partnership with russia seriously.

and we now know thanks to you on stolen birds, maybe slip of the tongue, the needle 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, you know, and saying, okay, well this is what we're going to do. it's, it's what they wanted to do all along to reinvigorate the, the alliance, stripping away any pretence of being a defensive organization. and acknowledging straight up that it's sole purpose is to confront russia. i devise the nato people to take a closer look at what's going on in the ukraine, where the proxies be destroyed before seriously tried to pro russia. but at least they're going to go through the motions of ted so, so it's very interesting here. so there is no longer a pretense to pan european security. because if you want pans, european security, you have to include russia. but really what now we've had and scott's ride from a,

i would say it shows the century from the very beginning of nato and, 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. you don't have to agree for many years. i've been saying that nato claims to have partnership arrangements just not more than that with which it's about everyone in europe, although very clearly that's not the case anymore. and you know, the mask is finally slip that gets finally out of the bag. but for many years it was, it was only practical allies like said germany, we 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 threat to allies security and peace and stability in the euro. atlantic area. ok, it,

so it is. so while you're there in the wind, in the belly of the beast as it were here on 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, well, 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 gen stolen burg, for example, nato secretary general, and they're practically giddy. they view this as, as an incredible opportunity at themes and knowledge, not just to 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 run the counter to our values and interests as nato. so obviously now it seems 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, i'd have to agree with your other guys. they, 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 is expand like 800 kilometers. that 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, this is kind of a game of chicken that is very,

very dangerous. and is why did said here, i mean, this is a native was ation of europe. it is the militarization of europe when actually if you look what's going on and ukraine, everyone should draw the opposite conclusions. like look, it didn't work out. we did a bit complex here. maybe we should totally rethink it there. 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 corps headquarters in poland at just a headquarters. there is no 5th corps. and by point is there, there, but it goes 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. but what are they in use for fuel? 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 cross that line of departure. because russia's troops aren't theoretical, they're really in ukraine. they're really kicking, but it's gotten 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 a major conflict to get them out of the baltic republics during the 2nd world war. it's really kind of kind of erie that way. ted, let me shift fio of into and tens mania. i which i just saying 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 and the boiler played nonsense from brussels anymore. they know that they are 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 and 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 in alliance against nobody, because no one would credit for actually being an anti russian alliance. and now by with the mask is slipping, require saying, do they're worried about who they're planning against? because 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 little bits because some of that is really frightening. if you look at the implications, the strengthening the alliance and accelerating its adaptation. ok. so one 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 returned to celebrating in taishan. what exact, there's not one word in any of these documents that haven't been wrangled over for weeks by minions 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 be 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. but that's another topic for

another program. why? and i mean, you're in the belly of the beast. 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, are they say, i mean, what, what's the mood like there? well, i'm on 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 library 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 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 blocks. 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 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 these 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, and today i'm authorizing the additional strong sanction foreign companies, quitting russia, numbers on to one. thank you. list licensing atm cause of blantan banks disconnected from the international payment system. functional move hoppey joe mull donna and euro exchange rates follow up on that level up article more so. so carbon would know what the committee met, the bulk of the bill of invest. that is the current. can you say, i don't know. sure. see in more detail with zoom and russian business overcome this song. see, near, i bought italy nasty to huddle. she's tremendously just me, golden plus voice, bullshit. national, productive notches, steel nash,

a miracle. what i see, i put back on cell. when you go, when you with that, what are you got any of you my, i'm sure gorgeous teeth not, but i see so price of id cuz i know most of your cost to get the group when you on yesterday with dr. new flison who is a school some delusion gets a little bit. lucille includes with

ah, welcome back. across fact, were all things are considered. i'm peter bell to remind you, we're discussing nato and it's ambitions. ah, ah. 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. m. how is nato going to reactive is considering the festive activities in madrid right now. you know, that's one of the unknowns, nato, so, you know, setting itself up for failure of it, 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 the greatest supporter and underwriter, abandoned it, in afghanistan and in abandoned the mission. it was a failure of and yet here we are a year later, and nato setting itself up for a show your of even greater magnitude. there is no serious military analyst in the world who thinks that 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 in 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 seriousness the fee will be and been what's natal? great. yeah. ted, you know, right, right. prior to the confab 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, in spain that you know, but the highest inflation in, 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 your opinions are dependent on russian energy, which is really quite comical. you know, we have to cut off the russians, cut off the right, but then they're going to be desperate for energy. and then they're going to blame russia anyway, which of course is a topic burnett. so another program here, but i mean, 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 with renewable, except they aren't because they can't because there's no baseload power provided by renewables 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 them here, and it's really, it's winter time. and a couple of states in the eastern seaboard have 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 all coach and nato's language . we reiterate our unwavering support for ukraine's independence sovereignty and territorial integrity within an internationally recognized borders extended towards territorial waters. what they left out, the most important part, which is the last followed by, except in 2014. okay. i, you know what, 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 too. we know we have, we have these definitive statements, g 7 in nato, and then you have, you know, like joe biden was, i think it was like 10 days ago, 2 weeks ago, he's already hinted, they're off ramp. all. lindsey 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 a fiction in itself here. i mean, nato is primary mission is to exist. we've all known that for

a very long time is all the to exist, the keep it going. ok. now it's scott pointed out the humiliation afghanistan was one thing and now one 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, cnn published a piece saying that white house officials are losing content that ukraine will ever be able to take back all the land that 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 in 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 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 u. s. has bases in, in, in europe. turkey has

a real army and it has, it's, you know, it metals in its neighborhood and then you have ukraine. ok, not the germans off the french, not the italians, not the not lithuania. and 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 we have russia, quote unquote, being isolated on the world states which is 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, riley 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 russian 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 that, 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, and they're 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 wes 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 course of 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 me tweaks, we might know you. yes. and also if i could add onto it your, your, your carbon footprint is too big. ok? all right. and where are those trends in your schools? ok. what it is is this is what you know, moving the goal post. this is exact, but i'm really glad you brought that up, ted, because the anything could be a pretence to invoke, you know, article one and then article 5 here are rapidly running out of time. you know 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 would they do was a engine is what were they saying? what was about there was something to pull out of the recalling, 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 away in the united states. and they were denouncing nato as an imperialist block. so, i mean, you have a pretty vociferous rejection from it, 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, a, 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 guess 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 a,

i don't know with d o need to come to the russian state full narrative as tight as i'm phone and the nurse landscape div asking him the american house southland and up with it within a 50 babel did. okay, so man is 2000 speedy, one else with we will ban in the

european union, the kremlin media machine, the state on russia today and split ortiz sport that even our video agency, roughly all band on youtube with, with the phones wanna offer ukrainian integration into the west or north nato. it was rather european union. and the whole new premium crisis, which we see now in full scale, started with the ideal association agreement, 2013. of course, now we see that there is basically no difference between the european union. but at that time, european union emphasized that is thing completely different,

and russia actually accepted a oh, a lot of 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 know, number people who come to the book and then you make inclusion. they are pro russians or not. phobia means also cerebral phobia.