from which now they can further develop, that's what the united states is trying to prevent. so if the competition of technologies and staying ahead in order to compete in one sense, but the by the ministration, is also very, very concerned with the develop with chinese development of its belton road of its, of its ability now to bring other countries together under the auspices of the shanghai cooperation organization as well as bricks and which china is a member and it's becoming and the united states sees that now as a threat. it won't talk about it, because biden has the chinese to have something on on by, to be honest with you. and i don't think that the buyer wants to pursue that too far. but so they're going to focus more of their hostile intentions and what have you on russia, which is not as strong as china in, in the military arena, a lot of moving parts, their former us pentagon. she'll make

a move. thank you so much for breaking that one down for us. thank you, rachel. and that's all for now. be sure to check out our t. v dot com for all the latest breaking news and updates. we'll see you right back here at the top of the hour. ah ah. hello and welcome across stock were all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle. on this addition of the program, we asked 3 questions. how is the conflict in ukraine likely to end? why does the west refuse to negotiate an end to the conflict? and how will be international order likely change as a result of the conflict in ukraine? ah, i cross fucking the

conflict in ukraine. i'm joined by my guess. got rid or in del mar, he's a former intelligence officer and united nations weapons inspector and tampa. we have larry johnson, he's a managing partner for a burg associates and a former cia analyst, and us state department counterterrorism official. and in philadelphia we crossed a erin. good, he is a political scientist historian and author of american exception empire and the deep state are gentlemen cross scrolls and the fact that means you can jump in any time you want. and i always appreciate, scott, let me go to you 1st and del mar, i know we've been talking about this for months and months now, almost devoted every single program since the start of the conflict on the conflict in ukraine. but i think sometimes it's important to kind of step back and look at the very big picture here. so the 1st question is, i said in my introduction, how do you think does conflict and ukraine is likely to end? this conflict will, in, with a complete russian victory of that's the only possible solution. russia can

tolerate nothing less than this, having engaged in this conflict to the level it has. russia cannot tolerate a situation that allows this ukrainian government as it's currently configured to continue to exist and possess a military that's been empowered by nato, for the sole purpose of killing russians to have any anything other than the total defeat of the ukrainian government, ukrainian military means the russians are going to be fighting a forever war of attrition. and that's a strategic defeat for russia doesn't accomplish its primary goal in this conflict, which is to create the conditions for a new european security framework. i don't think russia wants a new european security framework that has empowered, emboldened ukraine, acting as a de facto nato proxy right on its border. so the only way this conflict ends is, as russia has said, with all objectives of the special military operation met. that includes denies

vacation, that's the elimination of this lynch government demilitarization, the total eradication of ukrainian military larry, the same question to you. and if i can kind of can capitalize with that we just heard from scott, i mean, i've been saying all along is that russia cannot accept a compromise in which they will have to do this again in the next 5 years or the next 10 years. that's why there must be a definitive outcome. there's no win win here and somebody likes to say in the west . larry, i agree with scott that the bottom line is there's not going to be and they go shaded settlement. this is not going to end to diplomacy. i think russia has come to the correct understanding that there is no basis, no foundation for negotiating with the united states north natal. they're not to be trusted entities. the issue though is that russia is not fighting just ukraine. russia is fighting nato and it's fighting the united states

. and yet natal in the united states have very, very limited military power. they can actually project. all they can do is, you know, sort of like a drug pusher continuing to supply, sent them all to some addicted attic like ukraine, and just continue to pump it in, hoping that they'll be able to come back and buy more product. but the reality is, ukraine's military capability has been eroded each and every day. it's not, we're not seen the, you know, the sudden arrival of fixed wing aircraft rotary way or improve missile strikes are a lot more artillery. we're actually facing the situation where even the ability of the west, the nato, to resupply ukraine is ending. so ultimately, how this ends, militarily, it will end up with the defeat, not just of ukraine, but the defeat of nato. yes, and that's what i think a lot of people nervous,

and that's why they're so nervous about it here. essentially, same question, there may be praise in a little bit differently. the binding ministration has already made it very clear that he believes it's unlikely that ukraine could ever win on the battlefield, but they nonetheless continue to supply it with ample amounts of money in arms here . i mean that is very hard to twist your head around because that means a lot of ukrainians are dying and a lot of people are making money in the arms industry and the taxpayer is paying for it. i mean, there's some, definitely winners and losers and not arrangement if they can't win. why do they continue the conflict, aaron? well, in 1956, i believe it was. you had the uprisings in hungary, which were backed by cia and other elements of the u. s. and this ultimately, where do a crackdown from moscow and the, the u. s. did not intervene. and as a result, these, this movement was crushed. and it was used as a propaganda victory for the u. s. perhaps they are thinking that russia and that

they can make some case for russian battalion after this, after this war and for propaganda purposes, it's difficult to say russia has yet to turn key into dresden as the, you know, the british in the u. s. did a drug world war to basically leveled the city with conventional weapons. it was russia would seem to have that capability at any moment, which makes it very strange conflict where the, the power imbalances so vast on the saw in fastly, in favor on the side of the russians. and but they have yet, they've been slow in the way that they've gone about this. i think that was a surprise to the us who is, but who and it's been spun as russian weakness, but i don't think that's really been the case. so i don't see how it is without a russian victory and less nato in the u. s. inter overtly, and which would lead to a nuclear war. so i don't see how a russian victory can be avoided the question as to what will happen to the

zalinski regime is still up in the air. and they could russia live with them still existing as a land locked basket case all day? i the question i, i think russia could let deal with act quite easily because it will be use problem . ok. the you can take care of a bastard child called the new ukraine. i think that's what's good to be the result here. let me go back to scott here. you, nothing about ukraine without ukraine. that's they love to say that. ok, but that wasn't the case. it's them, bull, i mean. and so, what kind of agency does the lensky have in this situation? because it looks like any kind of neglect, we can't use the word diplomacy because diplomacy is to avoid wars wherein a war right now, negotiations but the landscape said there will be no negotiations. i don't think he came up with that on, on his own. scott. no, i mean we, we know, april in early april law, the ukrainian government was in a position to be at least half serious discussions with the russian counterparts

about a diplomatic off ramp from this conflict. russia was ill prepared to, you'll limit the scope and scale of its special military operation objectives. and in exchange for, you know, the, the termination of this, of this conflict i, ukraine was prepared to discuss it and they were told by the west. no, because the west, i think in bolden bye is your is the, your other guests indicated by the failure of russia to live up to the expectations of american military analyst has perceived the, the low key approach russia was taking as a sign of weakness. and so they said, oh, we can exploit us and we can actually further our objective of stripping you train away. so we don't want to negotiated settlement that limits our ability or we want to expand this conflict. and so they shot down diplomacy. it began the process of a massive infusion of military assistance transform into ukrainian army into

a de facto nato proxy of it. and this is set it up. so even now, when today we have a situation where the west is realizing, holy cow, we're going to lose that we need a different off ramp to minimize to mitigate the consequences of this last ukrainians have double down. they can't negotiate a way out. there's no way ukrainian government live internally from a domestic perspective if they negotiated settlement that gave russia crimea, the bombast, care songs, upper asia, that just isn't going to happen. so there can be no negotiated settlement. only thing that's going to happen here is unconditional surrender on the part of ukraine . then. oh, fully nato will find a way to, you know, solve its own wounds in a responsible fashion, not overreacting. don't let you go and go indoors. ukraine or romania loanable dover, things of that nature. yeah. but then larry mean,

what is the use of nato if it can't win against russia? because it was designed against russia. ok. that's why it's so it's existential for this useless, outdated alliance. ok. they made it out to be or not to be and it's their fault and they're going to pay the consequences for larry. there they are. a beta operates much like a fantasy war game or a video game in their own minds. they can accomplish a lot of things, but the reality is they don't have the, the true strength, the actual number of soldiers that they can move quickly to the front. the 5 are, i was sort of surprised this last week with cbs news coming out and telling that the 100 for board as well media ready, ready to invade another playing? well, why did they arrived in june? so they've been there. they've been there at least 5 months. so now why all of the excitement and, and that boils down to the,

the simple fact that with the counting the presence of the 100 and 1st airport, along with general david tre, us now to call in for some sort of multinational force modeled after what went into a rock in 2003. these are signs of weakness and desperation because they realize nato kid, you know the 40. so 4700 members of the 101st airborne, all they are as a lethal speed bump for the russians. russians will roll over them and kill a lot of americans. and it's not like the united states and germany and the u. k. have the 23400000 troops standing by that they could easily deploy nato's fixed wing aircraft ability to penetrate. rush in air spaces, nell rushes, anti or missile defense system is super busy. the west has nothing compromise. so when you put all of this together, what, what you're seeing is that nato is beginning to recognize that it's just the white

elephant. and it, it has no more relevance to the 21st century. but the parallel as us, on the eve of world war 2, the united states still had a horse cavalry, and the horse calvary was no longer, no longer relevant to war. all right, gentlemen, we're going to go to a short break. and after that break, we'll continue our discussion on the conflict, the new brain stake with a with a

ah ah, once it was a year old if i give but i need the store in this shakira shorter one. and i'm not trying to stay last name. can you know when i'm with a finance national z m a. when you get on with a welcome back across stock, we're all things are considered. i'm payroll about remind you we're discussing the

conflict in ukraine with okay, let's go back to erin in philadelphia. i want to say with this, um the refusal to negotiate. aaron, i don't understand so much about this conflict coming from the west doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. um we and the entire, you know, this was an unprovoked attack. you know, all of this ridiculous narratives that have come down, meaning that there was no pre history to any of this here. and i can't see how this not negotiating, not talking benefits. ukraine in any way, is matter fact. they're that they're the ones they're going to be in the getting the short end of the stick. because yeah, nato will like it's wounds. it's biden's war, biden's ball, but you know, it, the ukrainian people end up getting the short end of the stick here. because if you don't negotiate then, then the russians have no reason to stop what they're doing. i mean, i don't understand the logic here. if you,

if you crane truly is important to the west, go ahead aaron. well, they're not really important to the west. i think it was henry kissinger who said it's dangerous to be america's enemy, but deadly to be because friend. so what, why won't they negotiate? i would, i'm assuming that nato is really the sovereign in ukraine, and zelinski knows that between nato and nazis, or the neo nazis in ukraine. that are, you know, a minority, but a very violent and well armed intelligence connected minority that he doesn't have a lot of room to negotiate unless the us says so and can get it. he has some kind of protection. i think he, he had been told he could have negotiated peace with russia. he would have done that and been fine with that. that was the platform that he ran on. but yeah, it's a tragedy and the ukrainians are being slaughtered. and i don't see what the u. s. plan is long term. i tend to think more and more these days that the us actually

plans to lower the russians into invading ukraine and expected them to roll over, roll over them over all over the country like the u. s. did in iraq. and that's sort of the gist of an intercept article, although they spin it in a different way. so perhaps the u. s. plan was to get them into some kind of afghanistan occupation, but i don't think russia really wants to occupy those parts of the bitterly anti russian parts of ukraine to begin with. so it's the u. s. seems to be just a string with a long, maybe hoping for some kind of gambit or miracle that will reverse their fortunes. but it's hard to see what the strategy even is at this point. and the you can't seem to be the being led to the slaughter really? yeah, scott, you know, it's been mentioned before and in many, many programs. i've done this since the complex started, but it's very interesting how, particularly the americans, maybe the british, when they, when they analyze russians, military efforts in ukraine, they see it through the prism of shocking are they, they can't seem to comprehend what the russians are doing. the russians are bogged

down, they have no ammo, they have no morale, but they see it through the vice and maybe like, you know, and the, the 2003 war against iraq. go ahead. i mean, as this is a huge problem in the west, because we don't have an appropriate metric to to do this. you know, and i have to admit, i was guilty of the same thing. when this conflict started. i was applying my experience from desert storm and saying i was mirror imaging, how we approach that conflict on to russia. what i knew were rushes, military capabilities. what i didn't factor in was the history of the russian and ukrainian people. i didn't factor in that. you know, this is the equivalent of new york going to war against new jersey. yeah. i know, you know, new jersey girls marry new york boys near boys, mary, new jersey girls. they have family, they have friends that lives communities and some of their war with one another and what you expect in the role in there and kill them as if they don't matter of this war has a,

a psychological of reality attached to it because of that the complex history in between russia, ukraine, that the west just doesn't get, we just don't comprehend. we don't know how to adapt our own prejudices about how war should be waged to this reality that this is almost an effect. a civil war. yeah. between people who have coexisted peacefully. um, you scratch a russian, you get a ukraine, you scratch ukraine, you get a russian, we in the west, don't get it. we don't understand why russia isn't going in whole hog, because that's what we would do against the iraqis. because we have no emotional connection with the iraqis. but i'm telling you right now, new yorkers would knock on new jersey. the way we bond iraq, they would go in soft. they would say, we don't want to do this. let's work this thing out. the new jersey would feel the same way. that's ukraine in russia. i know the ukranian government is taking a very hard stan. i know that there's this a neo nazi element,

but the right don't hate ukrainian food. well, it's good. scott is absolutely right here because this is really what this is, was injected into the, my don, this maryland anti russians element. okay. and very much supported by the west, by the way, that was their, their leverage to create this. they wanted to create an ethnic, they do it all over the world. by the way, to up the 1st time. larry, i want to talk about for the rest of the program. i think we're all in agreement here, and i know my viewers are, is that scott said it right from the top, you know, victory for russia. what does that mean for the international system? because i don't think the us is the and it's how is it going to take it to? well, go ahead. larry. the system created in the immediate aftermath of world war 2 is dead. it just doesn't, you know, like a chicken running around with a check off doesn't realize that it's dead, washington, london, or land, or much the same condition that started with the, with the imposition of the sanctions on russia and disrupting the international

financial order. once you remove russia from swift and instruct is simply just a mechanism for communication between international banks. the incentive to set up an alternative financial system increased dramatically. and then when you couple that with the time to pressure and bullying, washington is trying to bring to bear on china, india, other large countries which actually do have some significant economic resources. even brazil. then the, the, the mechanism of staying within the old international order. or the desire to stay with that old old international order evaporates. and you've now had both russia, china, india, brazil, south africa, working towards constructing an alternative financial order. that's number one. and now we're even seen signs of, from, from the russians of, you know, maybe we just need to walk out of the us, the u. n. this become a useless organization from the standpoint of both russia and china. and once that

happens, we have now completely destroyed the foundation that was the basis of peace in the aftermath of world war 2. so we're, we're on the, we're on raleigh, i think the threshold of a genuine multi polar world as opposed to this unit polar world. that we've experienced over the last 20 years with the united states writing. you know, we're in charge. yeah. but i agree with that, aaron. i mean russia, china, india, brazil can live with a multi polar world. ok. they've actually pushed for it. ok. can the west can the tolerate that because that that's for me, the biggest, if we look at in the biggest picture, it's about maintaining western hegemony and that is of slowly seeping away. and, you know, a hedge mom doesn't like to see that happen if they can stop it. go ahead aaron. it may well be that the ukraine war is something like the suez crisis for the u. s.

empire. when the u. s. set out during world war 2 to establish a global empire after the war law planned by wall street council on foreign relations. there was a position to that in the u. s. establishment in the form of the vice president henry wallace, who instead called for a century of the common man and this idea of a world world order governed by international law, generally speaking, and that would allow technology to be dispersed to the global south. former colonized countries at the time this they were still colonized. this was abandoned in favor of the american century. ok. so the century of a common man or is very similar to the idea of a multi polar world with national law. like what china has been proposing in recent years, and this may be what happens. it seems like europe is going to be devastated by the fall out of this, this conflict in ukraine. and it seems also like, you know, the global south has every incentive to want to kind of ties with the exploitative

neo colonial system that the u. s. has presided over since the end of world war 2. so henry wallace failed to establish this kind of world through carno, and the non aligned movement were picked off one by one over decades, or they just died or other things happened. but that, that failed. there was an attempt in the seventy's for a new international economic order. gorbachev's was calling for something like this at the time of the around the time that the soviet union will dissolve. but it looks like there may be a shift to an actual multi polar world in the wake of this because the u. s. power is evaporating. and that's what makes it so dangerous that we're the real risk is the, the u. s. empire. that's why the u. s is risking nuclear doomsday over ukraine, which is absolutely absurd on its face. again, scott, i can't let the progress of the 30 progressive democrats letter go, go unnoticed here. what do you think about that? i mean, never that supposed to be the, the moral, a bastion of

a true foreign policy. you middle class foreign policy. what a flip flop, what an embarrassment, what a shame, scott. and what an exposure of the reality owes the dissolution of the, the american singularity, the american hedge amman, look, these are people who no one ultimate truth. while their campaigns may be financed by special interests, therefore they must, with policies in place that a feed, the hand held that that makes the hand that feeds them happy. they get elected by the american people, and the american people aren't happy with this current policy by large american people are drifting away from the notion of supporting ukraine with billions of dollars. while we need help the democrats that this letter was written because they saw the writing on the wall, they're going to get wiped out in the midterms. i. one of the reasons is because of the economy, and it's very difficult to explain to american people who want it further

investment here at home. why we're giving billions in a wasted effort in ukraine. so they wrote a letter, they got ahead of the, of the head of their skis in terms of the white house. so they were slammed back. yea, you know what's going to happen again, get wiped out in the mid terms and other republicans who come in the republicans known or to stay in power. it's not big that they have to be pro prudent. it just add to an act policies to keep the american public happy so that they can get voted in the next time. and this is what the end of the american empire looks like. it's not going to be so much dealer military giant running around the world, going crazy. it's gonna be this slough slow death of the american people just saying we're done. we're finished isolation as of, that's what we're going to see. i don't think you're going to be seen nuclear war be seen in, well, i don't think fingers crossed because these people have do very crazy things again, particularly recently. let's hope your prognosis plays out or i tillman,

that's all the time we have many, thanks them. i guess in philadelphia, tampa and in down lar, and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at r t c next time. remember across the ah, ah, ah, ah ah, move to no one. no, sir, no, no. hon. who are job? no, no. what dog was real to what they should end up unit 73. 1 was a unique organization in the history of the world. what they were trying to do was

to simply do nothing short, then build the most powerful and most deadly biological weapons program. that the world had ever no real good you know, took production issue or sure doug did that. they're not eligible. no new son, new rochelle. he one more mom. she knew margaret thought this is meant new against them all. more enough. i've been there and i've got to learn much sale. i got your name. i understood. i wish to not have got doors, whole new room or got more pushed in jail . it's i had to put on with their mother and all everybody built a couch. nice. oh boy,

good to go on what the on this the well she my and new other. i'm all, i can send more on all 7 more good student i don't the year you'll not all put them out that they give us a lot look forward to talking to you all 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 our personal intelligence at that point, obviously is to great trust i rather than share a job with artificial intelligence, real, somebody with a robot most protective own existence, with

a, with dominating the world is some of the west has put a stake in its game. this game is certainly dangerous, bloody, and i would say a lot of americans stark assessment of quote, the west game against the world. it is beat that the annual session of the valve discussion club, the russian leader address a number of global issues with information terrorist usaa candidate as blacklisted by ad for suggesting a diplomatic solution to the brain. more research to diane's or so i don't think it's, you know, the wisest thing to do if you're interested in the.