sites near damascus. the latest attack happened just after midnight local time with most missiles, reportedly intercepted by theory and air defenses. no casualties were reported. although 2 prior attacks, left one soldier wounded various syrian state sources, say israel as it targets and syria hundreds of times over the last few years, the most prominent attack struck the damascus airport back in september, killing 3 people and rendering the runway unusable. israel has said it targets any sites with connections to iranian military fighters and syria. vanessa bailey and independent journalists based in damascus shared her take on the apparent reasons for such airstrikes. israel at the moment is trying to effectively take out what it perceives as serious capability, both defense and offense. syria is working on a precision miss all program on suicide drone mission,

and course iran is helping with technology. so for israel, the important thing for them is to take out the underground development centers in damascus and aleppo. and that's what they're trying to do. but they can't do it effectively without actually sending war planes into syria. so what they been doing is trying to create a whole and syrian so that they can actually fun like syria target development center. so, you know, this is, it's an act of war effectively. it's an act of aggression that has been completely ignored by the so called international community. that's all for now. be sure to check out our t dot com for all of the latest breaking news and updates. we'll see you right back here at the top of the hour. ah,

ah ah. hello and welcome across stock were all things considered? i'm peter labelle. on this edition of the program, we asked 3 questions. how was 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, cross sucking 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 is 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. i, gentleman cross sock rules and the fact that means you can jump 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 started the conflict on that 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 there's conflict in 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 that russia is going to be fighting a forever war of attrition. and that's a strategic defeat for russia doesn't accomplish. it's 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 defacto natal 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 lunch government demilitarization, the total eradication of ukrainian military larry, the same question a central if i get it going to kind of can caps late with that we just heard from scott, i mean, i've been saying all along is that russia cannot accept the compromise in which it

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 nato. they're not to be trusted entities. the issue though, is that russia is not fighting just ukraine. russia is fighting nato and was 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 or lots more artillery. we're actually facing the situation. we're even the ability of the west, the nato to resupply ukraine is in the 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. that's why they're so nervous about it here. essentially, the 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 that 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, why 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 brutality 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 the drug world war to basically leveled the city with conventional weapons? it would, russia would seem to have that capability at any moment, which makes it very strange conflict where the, the power imbalance is so vast on the saw in vastly 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 a 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 if there's a lensky regime is still up in the air. and they could russia live with them still existing as a land locked basket can stay the question, i think russia could deal with that 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 going to be the result here. let me go back to scott here. you nothing about ukraine without ukraine, that 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 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. we're in a war right now. negotiations, but lensky said there will be no negotiations. i don't think he came up with that on, on his own scott. no. busy i mean, we, we know, april, in early april, the ukrainian government was in a position to come at least have serious discussions with their russian counterparts about a diplomatic, off ramp from this conflict. russia was, you know, prepared to, you'll limit the scope and scale of its special military operation objectives. and in exchange for, you know, the termination of this,

of this conflict. a ukraine was prepared to discuss it and they were told by the west. no, because the west, i think, emboldened by as you, as the other guest indicated by the failure of russia to live up to the expectations of american military analyst has perceived of 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, which live internally from a domestic perspective, if they negotiated a 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 into it and 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 is general 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 year board, 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 404700 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 superb. 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 to the united states still had a horse cavalry, and a 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, frank will continue our discussion on the conflict in ukraine staying with awe. so abortion was illegal in the united states until the case of roe vs wade. i had an abortion. i am a mother today because i had an abortion in 2012 and that abortion saved my life. and we are here to fight for women's right. by the constitution actually is no life and rewarding children. are persons they should be afforded the right to life is every other person they shouldn't be murdered, just because mom thinks that can be murdered. the overturning of roe vs wade.

well, it's a tremendous victory. it's historic victory. now we wrote this be very clear, the health life of women, this nation, now at risk with the 2nd world war affected millions of people. during the conflict, the balance of power was held by the leaders of 3 nations. the united kingdom, the united states and the ussr that die in the day. the men tried cruise the peak office normally because hitler was weak and new healing wake . and he was bluffing. he was the major political,

certainly one of the most prominent political leaders of the 20th century when they wish to report the germans of the germans. or when we support the russians. and that way, let them destroy each other. there was that kind of sentiment in the west at this time. the redrawing of european bo doesn't begun britain and the united states, and then just really plan to attack the ussr britain to survive. russia had to be sacrifice uses, which we like and dish davis, mr. ford from us is the luck of some ricardo. capital mitchum. alice. hello no. why not? the cold war? the gun welcome back. the cross walk where all things are considered. i'm peter labelle. to remind you we're discussing the conflict in ukraine. ah.

okay, let's go back to erin in philadelphia. want to stay with this. um the refusal to negotiate. erin, i don't, i'm just 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. the, and all of this ridiculous narratives, it had become doubt. 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 then they're the ones that are going to be in the, getting the short end of the stick, because yeah, nato will let, gets wounds. 8 it's biden's. war is biden's ball, but you know, it would be the ukrainian people end up getting the short end of the steak 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 america. friend. so what,

why won't they negotiate? i would say, 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 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 be being led to the slaughter really? yeah, scott, you know, it's been mentioned before and the many, many programs have 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 shock and awe. 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 feed through the vice and maybe like, you know, and the, the 2003 war against iraq go ahead. i mean, it is, this is

a huge problem in the west because we don't have an appropriate metric 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 russia's 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, new york 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 their, in kill them is that 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 that 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 napa 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 taken very hard. stan, i know that there's this a neo nazi element, but the right, i don't hate ukrainian food. well, it is good. scott is absolutely right here because this is really what this is with injected into the my don, this maryland anti russians element. ok. 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, for 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 it, 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 it's 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 in the us 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 west tolerate that? because that's for me, the biggest, if we look at in the biggest picture.