ah sherwood, together with ah! hello and welcome to cross stock, were all things are considered on peter lavelle every once in a while the mask slips. nato secretary general sultan burg said the obvious one saying if putin wins. this is not only a big defeat for the ukrainians, but it will be a defeat and dangerous or assault. yes, nato is at war with russia so much for the claim of being a defensive alliance with

cross sucking nato's war. i'm joined by my guest nichol. i 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 about koski. she is a retired united states air force lieutenant colonel who serve both an essay and the office of secretary of defense. are a crosswalk rose in effect. that means you can jump in any time you want, and i always appreciate nickel. i like to return to what a stilton bird said. i'm gonna 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 cadina's aid is not a co belligerent and it is not russia is not there, it's not in the military conflict with russia. but by saying that de facto 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, make life. 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. okay, well sarah, essentially the same thing because it was when we see what we okay with, for example, political reporting here, nato eyes 10 year plan for ukraine. i mean, they're talking what 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, the 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 if 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 ukraine as a proxy and they have no intention of ending. it won't come from a nato decision to end this war. karen and that war may become at a certain point and they can't pursue it. they've been really set back. that doesn't mean they will stop. other attempts to other countries. i'm sure they won't stop here. here and if we can put it into context here, i mean, if you look in 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. karen. i think i think

that's right. and also if you look at the art of it, and we will talk about nato being a proxy, 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, if 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 puppets re. 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 break up 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 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 in the 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, and reaction to the sabotage the crime me in bridge. and i would also say north stream is that we had of 2 days of a missile barrage, essentially knocking out 30 percent to be cleaning the electricity grid. the pain dial can go much, much higher. nobody seems to be reacting to that. okay. i mean,

this is shocking, 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, 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. why has no intention of talking to proven? i mean, isn't this a time to talk nikolai? oh, well, who presidential advisor? mr. wolfe recently responded to all these 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 ukranian a lead 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. what does the actual military campaign of the progress of which as far as i can tell, is very murky and, and full of contradictions of the other is the propaganda war in which the united states is, has and its allies, and 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 near 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 how 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 us 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 e u. economically and creating a normal division, an opposition and, and that is our position is important, people are making themselves heard. but the plan of the whole of the rulers of all

of the decision makers is to drive this more 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 it 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, creating 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 have 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, if it is, 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 rush, 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 popping 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's, 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 this. the people they 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 would. that's got a lot of financial problems come on issues. but on the, on that i'm not going there. we have, we have to go to a hard break and after that hard break, we'll continue our discussion on next week. we're staying with with oh, oh oh boy, this will bust a bulk he should buy for the mother when he was an annual g d p. per capita was about 4000 euros. a normal dollar

with a primary cost, the seal from corpus rooney. with sue's restoring your mobile home to come out, please 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, you has constantly roth by political and corruption scandals. wow. but all that didn't stop mo, google obtaining you candidate status in 2022. ah . net technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except where said shorter is it 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 fear a job with artificial intelligence. real, somebody with a robot must protect its own existence with ah, welcome back. across stock were all things are considered out in peter le belts remind you we're discussing nato's war. the okay go back. cynic like, by last counted least 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 involved in international finance, you got screwed. ok because of this with this them. but other than that very, very little so far. ok, i'm to be careful what i say. but, you know, we see, i see the lensky sending out demands that the u. s. under right, it's budget for this 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, i, i was struck by an editorial in the economist magazine. recently. they pointed out that while europe and the west is sinking into recession, rushes 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 did. you mentioned the word brinkman ship because the, the key error here is that the personal leading the brinkman 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 their possibility of achieving success and on the ground militarily. the last point i want to make and i don't think isn't, 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 did, what did they talking about? again, political so much 10 year plan for you quite. well, 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, what we see the infrastructure, the country are 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 qu, 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 us. 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, it's 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 and more euro's i think we all have a pretty good idea where that money's going. i called the, the hunter biden effect if you know what i mean. well, it certainly so many of the weapons that go as soon as they are over the border, they disappear. and we know there's a huge, you know, great market in this, in, 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 ghana. stan sent to a rack where they operated under u. s. 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. it's really boomerang back on the u. s. of course, on the e. u. even more. but ukraine from the beginning was used and, and they want to continue to use it. yeah. well, that's where we are. is round everyone. there are plenty of people in ukraine that wanted to be used and still like being used. ok. a karen that we're not to prop again? sure. 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 the december 17th picture. rushes, security demands of the west gress day, a message, a note, and 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 is, i see the, the, the west can negotiate, not negotiate, they can arm, they can money all this, but rushes aims. if not change, they will not cease and desist until their security get 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, in europe was ukraine. i mean, is a black hole for any type of corruption and not 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, you know 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 for 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 dominance globally. now of course, their fantasies, there's no doubt, you know, we have $31.00 trillion dollars in debt that 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 and idiotic it. it actually becomes a little bit on the evil side. yep. you know, nick, oh, 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 mortgage our 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, put in 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. busy and hold on to power for as long as possible. well, i mean, nichol, 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 it 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 has been, 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 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 at our dc you next time. remember, across stuck with ah,

a deal law exposure to deal with the project with school. the other was the money and i love the school

with my beer that would limit when i was wrong, when i just don't a have to say the same becomes the advocate and engagement. it was the trail when so many find themselves, well the part we choose to look for common ground. a spoke

with madison both both the models you need to do both with a with a a with the rest. the personal number here

with the republic of moldova ranks is one of the poorest countries in europe. a vocal issue by good. the mother, when you visit annual g d p per capita is about $4000.00 euros. and even that poultry amount is mainly made up of remittances, central abroad by migrant. moldova workers. loss does that. we've got a mobile with the economy, revolves around agriculture for children. when you're a wordpress political mobile watch, their professionally wrap up either on their primary kosky seal.