amid concerns, the government couldn't pay for his promises. the bank of england was even forced to intervene to prop up the collapsing pound as panic, correct? global investors, mister car tang only managed to hold onto his job for 37 days, making him the 2nd shortest serving finance minister in decades. the new finance minister is jeremy hunt. truth previously served in the cabinet and a number of ministerial roles, including as foreign health and sport secretary. his time in the health department involved a number of controversies including n h s under funding. as well as attempts to bring in time limits on abortion. political analysts and editor of red star radio, alexander mckay says the only person to blame for lives trust is current problems is was trust herself. well, i think the she catastrophically mishandled her early time in office. i am her and

quote, saying push this many budget through with no consultation. she moved to sack him when ne turbulence got too much for her to back. busy but really it is trust herself who is the most damaged now because her entire agenda has been destroyed. she has you turned on every single commitment that she made and that she promised to the tory party electra to vote toryn. and now she is desperately appointing jeremy humps, who is a long term building, a political establishment figure in the hope that he will bring some stability to the turbulent markets. i doubt it will work too, but in fan as to trust and she is not somebody with whom i would politically agree with it all. but when she said, i'm quoting said that there was a problem with the british economy, and that it was suffering from years of low growth and stay and stagnancy. she was actually wrong when she said that the problem was the,

her solutions of cutting taxes on the one hand and increasing spending all while the bank of england was raising interest rates is a combination that was, can prove to be completely incoherent. that's all for now. be sure to check out our t dot com for all the latest breaking news and updates was the right back here at the top of the hour. ah ah, ah. with hello and welcome to cross. were all things considered on peter lavelle? every once in a while, the masked slips, nato secretary general stilton berg said,

the obvious one saying, if put in 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 defensive alliance. the cross talking nato's war, i'm joined by my guest. nikolai petro in kingston 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 served both n s a and the office of secretary of defense are cross roads. and in fact, that means you can jump in anytime you want. and i always appreciate nickel. i'd like to return to what stilton berg said, i'm going to repeat it here. a military victory for russia and ukraine would spell

defeat for the entire western alliance. well, i mean, that's saying the obvious though nato continue continue to say it 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, 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, nikolai. 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 tag dentist 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 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, 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. it exists for the attempt to destroy russia, to dismember russia, to impose regime change. so they can lew 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. ready 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, 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 the summer that we left afghan a stand, 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 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 our missile barrage, essentially knocking out 30 percent of the cleaning, the electricity grid. the pain dial can go much, much higher. nobody seems to be reacting to that. ok, 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 prudent? i mean, isn't this a time to talk nikolai? oh, well, pushing presidential adviser, mr. wolfe recently responded to all these statements made by the ukranian government that they would never engage in negotiations with russia.

ok, by simply saying the same as bon 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. one of 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, 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 shouldn't 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, sir. well, really, russia has no choice because although, again and again from every direction they have called for negotiations and have from the beginning of 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 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 you're 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, crating fear mongering as usual because this what is 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 all we 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 cropping up of the ukrainian government over the last. i don't know how many years. so yeah it's, it's a, it's a if there's a game being played in franklin ship, 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 we will suffer the most by decision made in washington. well, actually, you know, we talk about us resisting any emergence of a multi holler world, which we know is what's behind it. we say, well, we don't russia 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 gotten a lot of financial problems, a lot of issues, but i barely, we have to go to a hard break. and after that hard break, we'll continue our discussion on naples what state with with blue in the lease of canter. russian state will never.

i've stayed as i'm phoning the most. i'm seeing with eclipse in the 55. we did. okay, so mine is $25.00 and speedy. one else with we will van in the european union, the kremlin media machine, the state on russia today, and school ortiz sputnik given our video agency, roughly all brands on youtube and pinterest, and with this new for you. but they should be medial

low exposure to you with what you need to have project. schuler a with with us your vehicle can vehicle so just wanted to circle for joseph motion school. not heard of that other was the money done love spoon, which was to the stay home with either woodman. ah

a welcome back. across stock. were all things considered on peter level to remind you were discussing nato's war ah. okay, go back to nick, like, by last counted 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 involved in international finance, you got screwed. okay. because of the switch system, but other than that very, very little so far. okay. have to be careful what i say. but, you know, we see i seeds, lensky sending out tom demands that the u. s. underwrite its 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 grift. so yes, by i was struck by an editorial in the economist magazine recently that 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 it must have been very difficult for them to write something like that. i'm glad peter that 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 their 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, it 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 may. and they're both very, very poorly for the future of the west. i think it, let me go to sarah. i mean, i absolutely agree with nick. like what he 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 quite. well, i don't know what ukraine is, right? they just last for, but it's 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 oh, all through europe. it has no productivity. what kind of price is it? europeans will be so poor. they can't buy anything from america. i don't understand any of the economics of this years. 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 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 sarah, but ocean, 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 affect 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 with re re round everyone. there are plenty of people in ukraine that wanted to be used and still like being used. ok. a karen that were of nazi propaganda? 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 wes grass. they a message, a note, and ultimate and 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 west can negotiate, not negotiate, they can arm, they can of 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 use, 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 and 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 banning 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. if 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, 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, 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 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. you 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 use 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 united 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 themselves. well, i mean, we can go back to the cuban missile crisis. at the end of the day, the 2 liters, the 2 governments understood each other were not even close about right now. it's all the time we have one think, my guessing things in mount jackson and in jersey city. and i want to thank our viewers for watching us here. are the see you next time? remember cross ah, ah, a

with china is set to open. it's 20th congress with its decisions defining the next 5 years of beijing's domestic and foreign affairs. south africa is being pushed by the west and to an unfavorable energy transition deal taking on high interest alone. the developing countries can't afford, as well as endangering is the economic growth. and the red cross faces pressure from sea. yeah, over the mission to work on the conflict and you frame page being forced to explain a lack of access to ukranian prisoners of war amid accusations from.