ah ah ah a question of your mind you thought it? i mean you flee above us? she was a little boy and aboard the fuel? the revision of magic you pretty much puzzled. they said,

look and you live muscles, yuki, lukewarm, the initial be, well live club. not significant dealer post on zillow, while it museums can use to put value a new one. you did or change, but he also still received on the zaki of your lewis playing him. okay, i didn't so much of that. going to thought that all gone wrong begins justice abroad. lou you what i see the senior bus is no groove. you medation says dc la to toyota gumbo sub 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 defense of 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 sack rules and impact. that means i 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 host, i'm not 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 i would say 30 blind to my school joining together. so the west is expanding nato again, in response to a war,

predominantly caused by nato expansion. is this wrong? okay, do i misunderstand something here? go ahead scott. no, i think you, you've encapsulated actually perfectly. i mean, you know, the other interesting thing happened is a nato finally said, look, we're, we're not partners with russia anymore. well, natal has been a partner with russia ever. natives, never taken partnership with russia seriously. and we now know thanks to yon stone burge, maybe slip of the tongue. the nato 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 okay, well this is what we're going to do it 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 closer look at what's going on in the ukraine, where the process is being destroyed before seriously tried to control russia, but at least they're going to go through the motions. ok, ted, ted so. 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 in scots right from e. i would say it shows the centrally 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. 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 is about everyone in your below. very clearly, that's not the case anymore. and you know, the mascot finally slipped the gaps finally out of the bag. but for many years it was, it was only practical allies like say,

germany 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 our security and a piece of stability in the euro. atlantic area. ok. and so why you're there and that when in the belly of the beast as it were here on the, the facts being created on the ground and the battle field 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 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 jen stoughton burg, for example, made or secretary general and they're practically giddy. they view this is an incredible opportunity. it seems. and now it's not just rush obviously,

but it's china 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, 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 the cold war era levels. exactly. is scott in this, in it with the adding, so sweden and finland here, which, you know, the, the nato border with russia. now it expand like 800 kilometers then that gets,

it 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 in nato countries of boy, the russia, the more there is the likelihood of something going wrong. and i think that this, 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 a 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 conclusion like what it didn't work out. we didn't have been a conflict here. maybe we should totally rethink that. 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 corps headquarters in poland. it's just a headquarters. there is no 5th corps. and by point is $40.00 and the spy stuff out there. wow, who's going to pay for it? i mean, germany says we're going to build, you know, 300000000000 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 that 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, is i finally think kind of interesting historically that we could see german tanks in the baltic. republics. i mean there was some makes her 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 theo of into intense mania. ready which 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 the, 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 year. 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 would credit for actually being an anti russian alliance. and now fine with the math is flipping reclining are saying they're worried about who they're planning against. if 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 that are just appear, there's 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. more know. 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 haven't been wrangled over for weeks. by minion, 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, nato 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. then 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, what, i, what is the mood of a military alliance getting together? i mean, are there cocktails or they say, 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 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 and 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 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. it's a 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 blue, blue, blue, blue, blue. with a 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 that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. and the point obviously, is to create trust rather than a various job in with artificial intelligence. real, somebody with a robot must protect its own existence with ah, welcome back across huck where all things are considered on peter bell to 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. 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 united states, it's greatest supporter and underwriter, abandoned it, in afghanistan and, and the mission, there was a failure of and yet, here we are a year later in nato setting itself up for a show your of even greater magnitude,

it, there is no serious military analyst in the world who thinks that ukraine can turn this around. you can pump is 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 trained 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 so seriousness defeat will be, and been watch nato. good, 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 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 right, but then they're going to be desperate for energy. and then they gotta blame russia anyway, which of course is a topic for him that still another program here. but i mean, when we know whatever it takes, what does that mean? ok. i mean, you can, ukraine cannot be a 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,

they're going green. they're getting rid of fossil fuels and they're going to replace them with renewables, 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 here now. it's really, it's winter time. and a couple of states and the eastern seaboard have been within hours of brown outs, if 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 borders extending towards territorial waters. what they left out, the most important part, which is the last period, 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 here. 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 lindsay didn't listen to us. you know, somebody is going to have to take the fall for this. okay, because i cannot see under any circumstances, the quote unquote 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. okay. now it's, as scott pointed out, the humiliation afghanistan 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, 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, the de facto 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 u. s. has bases in, in, in europe, turkey has a real army and it has its, you know, it, metals and it's a 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, you know, we have russia, quote unquote, being isolated on the world states 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, 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 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 is a guarantee. it's not yet, it's nothing of the sort. it means that we'll think about coming year, defense prior 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 out me tweaks, we might do you. yes. and also if i could add onto it here, your carbon footprint is too big. ok. all right. and where are those trends in your schools? ok. what it is, is this is, you know, moving the goal post. this is exactly, 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 were 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? were they saying what was going to pull out of there were calling to pull spain out of nato. they were calling to restore real actual strategic autonomy to europe to be able to function, you know, in the interests of european as opposed to in the interest of the small ruling

await, in the united states. and they were denouncing nato as, as an imperialist block. so, i mean, you have a pretty bo separates rejection from, from many 1000 we 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 yeah, i mean, you do have a pretty thorough rejection of the principles being espouse gear, but obviously, you know, we're just going to hear about d 7 and nato don't confuse that with democracy in the people's well, because they are anesthetic old gentleman. that's all the time we have. i want to thank my gets in delmar, madrid, and intense mania. and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at rtp next time, remember

i a minute barbershop a year ago on up with a question here with

a phone to on our all for ukrainian integration into the west or north nato. it was a rather european union and the whole year, premium crisis, which we see now in full scale, started with the idea of 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 something completely different, and russia actually accepted this ah,

a ah, the rocky road to europe despite claims that membership is, would, inc, here reach the blocks commission, cheap ones ukraine must 1st tackle is entrenched corruption dollars in state to the streets in india, the beheading of a hindu shopkeeper was filmed and posted on line to muslim suspects, have been arrested over the killing hundreds and gather in madrid, and a protest against police violence resulting in the death of 37 migrants who tried to cross the moroccan.