the cross talking nato's war, i'm joined by my guess, nikolai petro in kingston. he is professor of political science at the university of rhode island in jersey city. we have sarah founder's. she is co director of international action center. her upcoming book is sanctions a wrecking ball in a global economy. and in mount jackson, we have karen grabowski. she is a retired united states air force, lieutenant colonel who serve both n s a and the office of secretary of defense are cross talk roles and effect. that means you can jump in anytime you want. and i always appreciate nickel. i'd like to return to what stilton bird said, i'm going to repeat it here. a military victory for russia and ukraine, which fell defeat for the entire western alliance. well, i mean, that's saying the obvious though, nato continues conveniences, aid is not a co belligerent, and it is not russia is not, it's not in the military conflict with russia been by saying that, in fact, it's true. and i would say on this side of the pond,

a lot of people believe exactly the same thing. that's why the stakes are so high. go ahead mic like i agree with you completely and like you said, what else is new? but that, that's why rhetoric has become more and more i would say clearly, and he western identifying the west as the primary and tannist to russia here. and i think because of these kinds of statements by leading western politicians, his assessment has also become more widely accepted if not in the west than throughout the rest of the world. ok, well sarah, essentially the same thing because it was when we see what we look at. for example, political reporting here, nato eyes 10 year plan for ukraine. i mean,

they're talking to the next 10 years, instead of the next 10 days, the next 10 weeks here. i mean, this all gives them all more reason for the russians to say, you know me, using ukraine as a surrogate is a proxy against russia is all the more real and that, that nato is not going to cease and desist that is not going to look at the facts on the ground, it's not seriously going to talk about negotiations. mean this is quite extraordinary. go ahead, sir. well, nato is committed. it exists for the attempt to destroy russia, to dismember russia, to impose regime change. so they can loo, russia. that is the purpose of nato. so yes, ukraine is, is a proxy. and so are all the other new members of nato and nato, from its very founding 1949 when it was committed to the destruction of the soviet union. it exists as really a criminal alliance of pirates and looters in an effort to destroy the russia

today and earlier. so we shouldn't be surprised that they're using the crane as a proxy and they have no intention of ending. it won't come from a nato decision to end this war. karen, that war may become at a certain point that they can't pursue it. they've been really set back. that doesn't mean they will stop, other attempts, other entries. i'm sure they won't stop you here and if we can put it into context here. i mean, if you look at american foreign policy, what is the strategic value of ukraine? i mean, it's never been. all of a sudden it is. and i would even say in a european context that ukraine doesn't play any planning strategic role in their security thinking. but all of a sudden it does. and this is creating a moral hazard on for both sides, i would say go ahead parent. i think i think that's right. and also if you look at

the arc of it, and we will talk about nato being a proxy, it is, it is funded by the united states. okay, so it's a criminal pirate alliance. i agree with that funded and managed for the most part by the united states. so it is, it is a u. s. actor in many ways. and if i was a european, i would be ashamed that have a headquarters of nato there. and, and to celebrate nato because it really celebrates puppet tree. but if you look at the longer trend all the way back to, well let's start with clinton. we can go further. but bill clinton and yugoslavia the breakup of yugoslavia, what's, what's on the other side of that? well, former russian territories, and that was a nato operation. then we had invasion occupation of afghanistan, and course iraq was a nato operation as well, the rock against iran. but look at afghanistan, 20 years in afghanistan, a nato operation in many ways. and nato was part of that. why? it is not anywhere near europe,

but it doesn't matter. it was part of it. and then we abruptly left, you know, but 19 years too late. but we left, oh, already preparation for, you know, making a new theater and ukraine hadn't had been in place. but in the summer that we left afghanistan, 6 months before we left, we're simultaneously working in planning for what's happening and in ukraine today . and again, yes, nato caused that united states cause that, that was, that is a theater facilitated by the west. and russia has responded to it, in fact, in a conservative way so far. i'm really glad you said that nikolai, where we had over in the beginning of this week here in reaction to the sabotage of the crimean bridge. and i would also say north stream is that we had a of 2 days of herb i'm missile barrage. i essentially knocking out 30 percent of the ukrainian electricity grid. the pain dial can go much, much higher. nobody seems to be reacting to that. okay. i mean,

this is shocking of all our roofs, which is kind of pales in comparison to what the united states does when it goes into a country. but there doesn't seem to be any kind of rational reaction. it's like, oh, well, you know, the, we need to start putting, everybody needs to start putting the brakes on these here, but it's just the opposite. that's happening. we have the g 20 coming up. biden has no intention of talking to putin. i mean, isn't this a time to talk nikolai? oh, well, who presidential advisor? mr. wolfe recently responded to all the statements made by the ukrainian government that they would never engage in negotiations with russia. ok, by simply saying the famous bond line never say never. and i think the assumption is that the ukraine, you may leave for all its fervor now to prosecute the war

will nevertheless be forced to face. reality is on the ground if the tide of war should turn visibly against them. and that i think is why we're having 2 wars conducted simultaneously. one of the actual military campaign of the progress of which as far as i can tell, is very murky and, and, and full of contradictions of the other is the propaganda war in which the united states is, has and its allies have been able to muster. and create an artificial environment of support of roughly 90 percent for ukraine. and much of this as a study by the university of adelaide has shown much of this is artificial and created by boss. but nevertheless, it forms part of the environment which allows the west to continue to

prosecute this war. well, it's interesting, karen, i'm sorry, sarah. well, you know, if you have bad narratives, it creates bad outcomes when it comes to policy, kind of reflecting on what would nichol i just said here might be the problem i have at this point in time. if nobody wants to negotiate, then why should russia pursue its military goals and ukraine? i mean, there's nobody to talk to. and nobody wants to go on forever, particularly people in russia. i can tell you that. but if there's no interlocutor, then what's the point of trying to figure out what the other guy is thinking other than the propaganda that we've been hearing here? russia will continue achieving its goals, whatever they may particularly be. go ahead, sarah. well, really, russia has no choice because although, again and again from every direction they have called for negotiations and have from the beginning. nato, which is a us commanded military force. us equipped military force in europe and far

beyond has shown no interest in negotiations of any kind and stopped cold when ukraine even began to discuss negotiations. so it is u. s. policy makers who are refusing any form of negotiation and we got to take note of where the refusal is coming from the interest of us policy makers. and this is true, republican and democrat, this is true for lately the entire u. s. establishment. they have no interest in ending this war. they are interested in dragging it out and seeing who else they can drag into it. it is absolutely pulling down the you can nomic lee and creating a normal division, an opposition and, and that is our position is important. people are making themselves heard. but the

plan of all of the rulers of all of the decision makers is to drag this war out to drag russia in every way that they can. and so, once a war started and, and engaged, russia has no choice, but to continue militarily until there's a real effort, it negotiation, but to very dangerous with what makes a dangerous karen before we go to the break here is that, you know, there's this talk of nuclear weapons, and i'd like to point out to our viewers that didn't come from the russian side. it came from the western side, invoking nuclear weapons, crating fear mongering as usual because this what would it, what's being set up here is a trap to make russia over react and say, oh well we had something must be done. is they always say here, that's where it is very dangerous here because this is brinkman ship. go ahead. karen, it is, it is brinkman ship. and it's also preparing the propaganda landscape for the

explosion accident or on purpose of some sort of nuclear weapon or weapon of mass destruction, of some sort in preparing people to expect it so that when it happens, we will blame it on the west. we'll blame it on russian. of course when, when in fact, it is very likely that if it happens, it will be something that we have been behind much is the north stream attacks and much is the propping up of the ukranian government over the last. i don't know how many years. so yeah it's, it's a, it's a, it's, there's a game being played. brinkman ship it, it's a dangerous game and i think, i hope you know, but, but if you know, if there is use of nuclear weapons, it's going to be in ukraine. ok. i mean, this is your ally. ok. this is what's really insane about is the people that will suffer the most by decision made in washington. well, actually, you know, we talk about us resisting any emergence of a multi polar world,

which we know is what's behind it. we say, well, we don't rush you to rise up, we don't want china to rise up. in fact, the united states also does not want b u, that's rise up. not that it will. that's a lot of financial problems or issues, but i barely, we have to go to a hard break. and after that hard break will continue. our discussion on nato's was staying with with a a ah,

with when i was showing the wrong one, i'll just don't move any rules that you have to fill out. this day we comes to an engagement equals trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground. i was just all if you're busy many times, but i want to with with you, i guess with you i'm with

from beach still easy for this patient, but i to in the board in the book there with

a welcome back to cross stock. were all things considered on computer labelle to remind you we're discussing nato's war ah. okay, go back to nichol. i by last count at least that there been 8 rounds of sanctions against russia, with no discernible effect on life everyday life. here. i'd like to point out if you were all the international finance you've got screwed. ok because of this with system, but other than that very, very little so far. ok. i'm be careful what i say, but, you know, we see, i see the landscape sending out demands that the us under right. it's budget per seat for the rest of this year and all of next year. i mean, it seems to me,

i'm sorry, i'm very cynical. this is a pretty good griffin. so yes, i was struck by an editorial in the economist magazine recently that pointed out that while europe and the west is sinking into recession, rush is coming out of it. knowing the ideological bent of the economist, this is an extraordinary admission. and i think that it must have been very difficult for them to write something like that. i'm glad peter, as you mentioned the word brinkman ship. because the, the key error here is that the personal leading the bring spin ship is in fact doing so because they think they know how far to push and when to step down. and that is not always the case, especially when your ally is in

a feverish delusion about the possibility of achieving success and on the ground militarily. the last point i want to make, and i don't think is, is made often enough, is that on a geo political level for the west and for the united states, strikes me as an error of colossal proportions to when you crane at the expense of losing russia that is just the kind of trade off in geo political strategy that you never want to make and they're both very, very poorly for the future of the west. i think it, let me go to sara. i mean, i absolutely agree with nikolai what he had just say here, but i mean, what is ukraine? i mean, what, what did they talking about? again, political so much 10 year plan for you crate. i don't know what ukraine is, right? they just last 4 of its regions. i mean,

the more the west helps from 2014 to the present, the smaller the country gets. and, and of course, when we see the infrastructure, the country being degraded because of this conflict here. i mean, i don't see what the price is. okay. i don't see what the price of american hegemony all through europe. if he has no productivity, what kind of prize is it? europeans will be so poor. they can't buy anything from america. i don't understand any of the economics of this here. go ahead, sarah. this war was never meant for the benefit of anyone in the ukraine. ukraine went from being the most prosperous public of the soviet union to being the poorest country of europe. after the 2014 cool, what u. s. domination and control run by a fascist really a gang of nazis meant for the ukraine was mass privatization cuts in every social

program. destruction of the unions in every way alluding of the economy that was fine by the u. s. it was their intention. and it bound ukraine. all the tighter to u. s. policy makers made them totally dependent on every handout such as afghanistan was. it's impossible to even picture the rate today of, of impoverishment in the ukraine. so ukraine is being used as a proxy force as a military force, but it's also an economy is under the control. but, but sarah, but garage and, but we all know, we all know that biden is sending billions and billions more the and the you has the step up with more more euro's i think, we all have a pretty good idea where that money's going. i called the the hunter biden affect if you know what i mean. well, it's certainly so many of the weapons that goal as soon as they are over the border,

they disappear. and we know there's a huge gray market in this, of, in weapons. and in the resale of weapons, and all other goods. it's not, it's, none of it is for the benefit of the people of ukraine. and even though ukraine wasn't a nato member, they were forced that their military was used and sent to afghanistan sent to a rack, where they operated under us command. so, it's not a question of defending ukraine or, or any thing that benefits the people. and yet this policy is a spectacular failure on the part of the us, the sanctions that they sought to impose through this have been a howling blunder and truly boomerang back on, on the u. s. of course, on the e. u. even more. but the ukraine from the beginning was used and,

and they want to continue to use it. yeah. all right, let fair. right. let me re re round everyone. there are plenty of people in ukraine that wanted to be used and still like being used. ok. karen that is rank of, of nazi propaganda or it's true. it's power. karen, you know, one of the things that, you know, there's that we can discuss this all we want, but the, the, the biggest picture is, and i guess i call it be december 17th of picture rushes, security demands of the wes dressy, a message, a note, an ultimatum, whatever you want to call it, to nato, and to the united states, it was completely brushed off here. but those things stand this as i see the, the, the, the west can negotiate, not negotiate, they can arm, they could of money all this but rushes aims. if not change, they will not cease until it desist until their security demands are met. ok, that's it. okay. you can do all the, all, you know,

the lindsay and bogue and you can all do all that nonsense. but rushes demands have not changed. ok. and if nato exists or doesn't exist, after it's immaterial, russia will get what it wants out of this full stop. karen? yeah, i think, i think, fundamentally that's the case, but you gotta look at why the u. s. is willing to destroy ukraine entirely, and as it's used, if you don't previously already, as a tool, nothing but a tool for corruption. in fact, one of the things that was that sir, didn't mention is the most corrupt nation in europe was ukraine. i mean, is a black hole for any type of corruption and government, money laundering and that kind of thing. so that's the purpose of ukraine. it's still serving that purpose. to a great extent, i mean, all the old weaponry from all the nato countries is being poured in without regard to if it works, if it doesn't work that works together. if anybody can use it, it's irrelevant. we're dumping that in that weaponry so that we can then justify to our own populations, you know, new refreshed, defense spending. meanwhile,

the battlefield isn't just ukraine. it is europe, it is germany. it is the hero. what you asked the question. we asked the question, why with the u. s. want a deflated weakened dependent european continent. why would we want that? well, you know, the glory days of america were under the marshall plan to many of the thinkers that, that is on our foreign policy. they this is, this is glory days. this is the potential for a new era of american dominants globally. now, of course, their fantasies, there's no doubt, you know, we have $31.00 trillion dollars in debt. they can't be paid back. you know, we're printing money. we this is not a sound dream, it's not a sound program, but it is the program that the u. s. is embracing and it and it really is. it goes beyond corrupt in idiotic it. it actually becomes a little bit on the evil side. yeah. you know, nickel, i mean, i don't want to be a history di tier, but you do remember the morgenthau plan for germany?

there was a lot of d destro zation, you know i, i think that it's the morgenthau plan for the entire european continent now. well, it was i, but i forget, i think it was churchill who said the russians don't want war. they want the fruits of war today, we're talking about the same objective for the united states as the global head. your mon and i think again bulletin is probably more correct and wrong in his analysis of world events. when he says this hedge amman is going to cling to power as long as it possibly can. it's not going to go off quietly into the night. it's going to be a violent effort to claw and hold on to power for as long as possible. well, i mean, nickel i, i look at it this way, you look at the crew that's in the,

by the administration right now. it's the same crew from obama. ok. they look at this is all unfinished business here. i'm thinking of victoria new and didn't people like that? it's like, they see. this is their last chance. one last chance to, to, you know, to humiliate russia, to pull down a few notches and, and in doing so, it in peril. i mean, we are on the brink, we've already used that word here. and it seems to be used in, in the, in the us, in a very casual way, listening to biden speak. i was terrified that a president of the nodded states would speak that way. nikolai is bizarre to me, that they are, these leaders that you mentioned are appropriating the language of realism to pursue a totally unrealistic and highly ideological liberal international affairs program . and that's why we've had, i think,

the intellectual opposition in the united states, as a difficult time. busy holding our political leaders to account because they're talking out of both sides of their mouth and you don't know what they're actually thinking, except you can intimate that perhaps it is to hold on to power for themselves. well, i mean, we can go back to the cuban missile crisis. at the end of the day, the 2 leaders to 2 governments understood each other. we're not even close to about right now. it's all the time we have. i want to think my guessing things in mount jackson and in jersey city, and i want to thank our viewers for watching us here to see you next time. remember, cross stuck with ah, a vocal issue my for the mobile,

when you vision annual g d p per capita is about $4000.00 euros. not does that. we've got a mobile, a watch there. yeah, for sure. i was off of my, i got my primary coffee sealed from corpus really and kids put them in your prison when you find them on the line to come out, meet your lowest thought they would have thought of unemployment is off the charts . moldova territorial integrity and sovereignty. we respect a country which enjoys financial support from the u. s. n. b u is constantly robbed by political and corruption scandals. but all that didn't stop mo, google obtaining you candidate status in 2022.

i knew that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except where such order that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. and the point obviously is to great trust rather than fear a various job with artificial intelligence. real, somebody with a robot must protect its own existence with ah, yeah, yeah. now i can you media if it's deploy smear to

nothing, you know them up comes in a book that probably natalie she radiates. you'll showcase in under nathaniel. that sounds good. it's a, it's a boy. why is it up to a boy a, [000:00:00;00] a quote i'm in my chair to says, laura doesn't want that much extra mom, but i know it's up a minute or every once in a while the mask slips. nato secretary general stilton berg said,

the obvious one saying if putin wins, this is not only a big defeat for the ukrainians, but it will be the defeat and dangerous for us. all. yes, nato is at war with russia so much for the claim of being a defense with alliance. with its reveal that the green corridor is being useful committee. terror acts with any question about the existence of this corridor. vladimir putin, him, the grain deal could be at risk if it's pro, when the explosives you've missed in the recent attack on the crimean bridge were taken out of odessa in a grain trust. he was speaking in a meeting of the leaders at the cia countries and an enormous regional summit in catholic stop. space ex boss, i'm really in a loan mosque says he's just taking a ukrainian envoys advice to get lost by no longer providing his darling infinite