so important to everybody in the world, it just simply makes no sense. but at the same time, i think a lot of policymakers, especially at the white house and at the department of state. really believe that this is a possibility. and that's why they reached out. as the old saying goes, that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it for mercy. i analyzed john kieriyaki. thank you so much for your time and insight and be sure to try out his new show. the whistleblowers right here on our, to international and that's all for now. research. i got r t dot com for all the latest breaking news and updates. we'll see right back here at the top of the hour with

ah mm hm. mm hm. hello, welcome to worlds apart. americans never had a problem starting wars especially far away from their shores, but putting in that to them has often been a bloody mass, barely hear after it's graceful. pull out a sunday bite in administration. got itself involved in the ukrainian conflict with no formulated exit strategy at this point. are there any better options to finalizing these conflicts and wars the end of the world?

well, to discuss it, i'm now enjoying by richard black, former virginia state senator and retired to years army carlo sen. it's a great on a great pleasure for me to talk to you. thank you very much for giving us this opportunity. the thank you. i'm very pleased to be there wiki are on i'm very concerned about the events that are taking place. and so i look forward to our discussion now before we got to the details of the current confrontation, i want to give our view is a little bit of a sense of who you were in your active military life. and i know that before becoming an elective official, you spend 32 years in uniform 1st as in marine pilot. and then as an army lawyer. and i guess it's no surprise that the man who saw wars up close and personal would be concerned about them. but i wonder if i in your viewed the

ukrainian conflict, stands out in any way from all the other wars that the united states has been involved in. well, this is a very intense war. and we have reached a point where world leaders and certainly the united states, the united kingdom. they have become extraordinarily reckless in what they are doing. there is no indication that the parties are seeking peace. now on, when i say to parties, i'm talking about nato talking about my own country, the united kingdom, and the, you know, i'm just very hopeful. i've been unlike so many of the people who make war. i've actually participated. i've been wounded. i've had my radio men killed right beside

me. i've flown combat missions. i've had my helicopter by enemy ground fire on 4 occasions. so i wasn't hesitant to, to step forward and to fight like so many young men do when the defender countries . but i, i look and i see a great recklessness, what's taking place. now speaking about this recklessness, i know that this september, this past september, you sent an open letter to congress expressing your concern about all these lose talk around the potential use of nuclear weapons against russia. what's most troubling to you about this issue? the united states traditionally had a policy of no 1st use of nuclear weapons, and that was done away with by president biden. he has, he has dropped on probation there. what's interesting is that is the federation.

russia has a note 1st year's policy. the president, bowden has never threatened to use nuclear weapons which made it clear, but that russia is a powerful nuclear power and that it will defend itself. but same time, we have western powers that have used a lot of loose talk about nuclear weapons at the same time, creating confusion about rushers position, which has been fairly clear that there is no 1st use that is the doctrine of russia . no 1st use of nuclear weapon. can i ask you about this change seeming change of doctrine on, on the american side? because as you pointed out in one of your articles, successive american presidents from eisenhower all the way to clinton, they all approached

a nuclear confrontation with apples cushion. and i would add that there was always this realization on the american part that the other side hasn't strategic and tactical imperative that if washington does something, most school will have to respond, none because of it's ill desire. but because that's simply how nations operate them . each nation deserves the right to defend itself. why do you think the biden administration and i would argue the obama administration before him abandoned this policy that served americans pretty well and that sound would glean prevent. and you know, a nuclear apocalypse before think there's much less concern about the american people when there was with prior administrations. we see this, this global governance taking hold where, you know,

i call them the voice from davos. but that's just, just a little piece of the whole thing. but you have these, these mega billionaires kings and princes celebrities. and they, they gather together and they formulated policy ostensibly informally. but it is very important. and they, they sort of, their doctrine flows through all the nations, and it's a very different dangerous development because these are risk taking people by nature. and just to clarify this, do you think that as an ignorance or do you think that as a deliberate policy to sort of push to russia until, until what that's also a good question? well, 1st of all, i don't like that ukraine has much to do with the whole situation. i don't think that the united states or the united kingdom have the slightest interest in ukraine

itself. that's simply something to mobilize people around. i think that ultimately, their goal is to undermine the russian federation and to gain dominance over russia itself. i think that is the, that is the design in the purpose of now, and if we consider the motives of the, of the, of the russian side. i think one of the primary concerns for the russians right now is the potential use by western proxies, or rather the potential creation by western proxies of the causes belly to draw, to americans in as. and i have to say as a form of water porter. we have seen that in syria, we have seen that in li, big with all those bug was allegations of, you know, the, the li, been army being supplied with my address to rape women and the chemical attacks in

syria. do you think the ukrainians, i capable of something like that or would it even make sense for them to come up with something like that? i think it's important to realize that the ukrainians are, are coverage at this point. the ukranian government wanted to make peace in april, shortly after the war began before there were a great many casualties and much damage. they advanced peace proposals to russia. russia like that these proposals, they were finalizing the agreement, pricing was amenable to peace. and boris yeltsin, unexpectedly flew to kiev and ordered them to halt, ordered them to continue fighting. so i don't think you really have so much role to play. i think they are simply cannon fodder.

so that you know the word, the word goes on, directed not by your crane by, by nature. and yet you also noted any open letter that the ukrainian leadership is actively seeking. weston guarantees of strikes against the russian nuclear facilities in the event of russia using tactical nuclear weapons. how do you interpret that? because from a military perspective, i mean many people in law school would argue that russia should never consider using these type of weapons because it has many other means at its disposal. why with russia ever employ these kind of, you know, pretty dangerous weaponry. if it has, if it has either means to achieve its goals, i don't think that russia would use tactical nuclear weapons as, as a 1st strike. i think the only possibility,

but for strike would come from nato forces. and there, i don't think there's a complete consensus over doing it, but i think there are certainly a strong element of thought, both within the white house and the one number 10 downing street to to use nuclear weapons. i think it's a very big risk, and i think there sort of was a struggle going on over whether that should be done. now speaking about this lack of consensus and just the other day, if you on a heal a respected american caller, a freshman and a former adviser to president trump said in one of the interviews, the americans have to have what you called strategic empathy, about putin and that they need to understand how the guy things do you agree with that? and if so, it doesn't mean that washington at this point doesn't understand. most goes rationale, despite being so heavily involved and invested in this bloodshed. don't really

think that washington cares about the russian perspective. it is not difficult to see why russia was finally forced into this war in february 23rd 24th. because these are russian speaking people. these are ethnic russians on the border in the don bass. the crimea, in the areas that russia told over the ukrainian border. so it's not too hard to see why russia would be concerned about the fact that ukraine was making war on the dog bass. they cho, 14000 people and they were finally, russia was finally forced and into the war. i think at some level there's understanding within the white house and in great britain of russia's position,

i simply don't think that they care. i think it's a very machiavellian war. now, as you can imagine, many russians that look very supportive and to put it mildly of the american role in ukraine. but they're also a lot of analysts here in moscow who give washington credit for getting ukraine against russia at a pretty low cost. it's out because, you know, the level of support is still, i mean it's significant, but it's nothing compared to the expenses in iraq or afghanistan. and essentially what the americans are doing now is waging a proxy war against the nuclear arm, contacted her at a cost at a fraction of the cost of the regional conflict. soon to be celebrated, if not as a strategic at human done at least a tactical victoria they have achieved that. it is, it's essentially a proxy war. it's a puppet war. the lives that are,

are lost or ukrainian. and ron russian lives as well. absolutely. russian rushing lives, but again, going back to your crying we're, we're a sensibly biting for ukraine or, you know, arming them and so forth. we don't care in the slightest, we don't care if remain woman and child ukraine dies. the purpose of this war is de toe against against russia. and the idea that we can gain dominance and some control over the, the bass resources of russia. that's really war as well as sen. that's a very chilling statement. bad to ponder over it. let's take a very short break right now, but we will be back to the discussion in just a few moments. stay tuned. ah

huh. so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race is on, often very dramatic development. only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successfully, very critical time. time to sit down and talk with

a ah one come back to one of the parts with richard black form in virginia state senator as the retards, years army current. senator, as we've been discussing before, the break must go firmly believes that it's in the state of a proxy war with washington. it also believes that the current administration made a strategic decision to change the current balance of power, which must go at least explains all this creeping militarization of ukraine over the last 8 years. but for now these conflict still looks like a regional one. do you think is going to stay that way? how do you estimate the possibility of a direct face to face confrontation between our countries?

i think it's difficult to tell. there is resistance within the american people towards an expansion of the war to involve americans in combat. i think within europe there is also resisted with great britain. they, they have a tiny army, so the direct involvement us is not us is significant. but i think it, it is, it is hard to say where it will go because i take your crane has, they have suffered tremendous casualties. russia has also suffered tremendous casualties, but it's more difficult, i think, for ukraine to replace those casualties. in any event there's, there's at least resistance among the american people. and

we were just sharp to say, like, i can't tell you for sure. we're you know, as i mentioned in my introduction that americans usually don't have any problem starting wars, but not very good at ending them. and i've heard them and number all 5 thinkers, compare the current situation in your crane to afghanistan to reach the united states and invaded for a number of geopolitical and your strategic reasons. but still couldn't band reality to its wishes and had to withdraw in a very, some would argue the graceful manner last year. do you think the same may happen in the ukraine than the americans and america's leadership will simply exhaust itself in the, in the ukraine. i don't know, i know that there is resistance in congress to the continued flow of money into ukraine. we will see what happens in europe. europe has

really become so dominated by the united states that it's difficult to keep it as an independent region. germany in particular, as has almost become a vassal state of washington. and it's a shame i of the german and but i have to admit that seems to be their present state. we just, there is, there is a lot of shifting taking place right now because of the political facts of the recent election. so we're, we're your sector, wait and see what happens. now, speaking about the election. so essentially, i know that you made a prediction before the mid terms that no thing is likely to be done. and i think that predicts and to be right. do you expect any movement in the american position now that the democrats seem to have to secure them better,

better results for themselves than expected? yes, they, me, everyone, democrats on republicans were quite surprised by the election outcome. but it appears as though they may, republicans, will take control of the house of representatives, all of the bills dealing with money after originate in the house of representatives . this means that it is unlikely that there will be closer examination of how much money is being spent on the being more. and it is almost hard to tell how important a big republican way in versus a small one will be. because now we have an element within the, the republican caucus that is opposed to the ukrainian war and they may

still be able to bring some pressure to back. some of these things are very, very difficult to sort out at this point. now, you mentioned the amount of money going to support the war effort, the ukraine, but a lot of funds are also going into strengthening the nato forces in europe. i think since the beginning of this year and the number of nader troops in eastern europe has 12240000, that's nearly 10 times more than it was last year. do you think nato at this point is fully prepared for an open confrontation with russian not only weapons wise, but also in terms of the battle field experience of its troops? i think there's a move in that direction to where the nato nato to build up is forces to, to become more combat. ready. it's interesting that before all of this began, i stumbled over the fact that germany,

which has the greatest interest in national security, they should be russia. they only had $200.00 facts, $200.00 operational tanks for the entire country of germany. that to me is clear, prove that, that germany considered the risk of war with russia at absolutely 0. they saw a note from russia. senator, you can blame the germans for that because i think many in russia also believe the a, including among military personnel. they believe that a kinetic war is impossible and yet that, you know, the, the issue of battlefield experience is becoming a crucial issue in this conflict. and in one of your articles, you mentioned that the russians are now fighting one of the most challenging forms of warfare, urban combat, which is very brutal,

very difficult. but as we know, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. don't you think that if russia succeeds in defending an interest in ukraine, that america will get a much stronger adversary after the ukrainian counseling done it had before in russia? about experience a great deal of difference. when you talk about urban combat, it is a very bloody type of combat. you know, i spent time in syria spend time with the syrian forces who i supported very much against the terrorists that were invading. and then there's a tremendous amount of knowledge that you gain from engaging and urban warfare. we, americans don't have this and neither do europe names at this point. now i also want to ask you about the difference in diplomatic culture, because i think, well,

at least i, i went to believe that the russian diplomatic countries file less transactional and some of the western diplomatic countries. and there is, i believe, almost the mystical, believe that them malevolence will sooner or later catch up with the actually, i think the russians also believe that the ark of history is long and it's bending in the right direction. but we just interpret the right direction differently. do you think our 2 countries can ever agree to leave and left leave on mutually beneficial and mutually respectful terms? i certainly hope so. the, the, the people of america gain nothing from this war, nothing. it is. it is simply these global leaders. they're, they're the ones who stand to profit, not the, not the people of america. and certainly people of russia have nothing to gain by war. they simply want to protect russian speaking people on their borders. and

i will say a foreign minister live raw has been magnificent about i think, president who has been very a very steady hand he's, he's dealt with an enormous problem and he's dealt with, i think with skill. but some of the leadership of the west is very erratic and unnecessarily aggressive. and i think there's a, there's an element of personal greed involved with you have the sons of things, politicians who get involved in not inviting the war, but in profiting from the war. now you mentioned that as well as some of the children of prominent american politicians and definitely profiteering will

from the war and from some of the corrupt schemes in the countries that the parents support politically. and it's clear that neither the russians, no, the americans benefit from this confrontation, and i would add that i think the russians historically are far more familiar with the horrors of war than the americans simply because of our history and geography. and because of that, i think russians have a very particular attitude towards enemies. we think that applying force and aggression is legitimate, but it always comes together with a certain degree with respect for enemies interest and the realization that they need to be respected at least. and that they're in minimum for your own sake. and i think president putin expressed that on many occasions when he was talking about naziism being born out of the humiliation of the german nation during the 1st world war. do you think that kind of attitude toward adversaries exist in the west wood,

the west ever this back to other countries interest for its own sake? i think an intelligent person needs to be able to see signs from the other person's vantage point. this is just, it's something ordinary in everyday life. you have to understand what the, the other side is concerned about. i think i think the war never would have occurred under president trump, not because he was bigger or tougher. but because i think president would have called and said look, here is, here is our situation. here are the things that are vital, national interest to us. and, you know, i would hope that you would understand. and i think president trump probably would have understood. however, i think one of the reasons that he was sort of overthrown was because he did understand and he did. these nato did not want peace.

and the global us did not warranties, i think by they call him down. not because he was, he had certain ways of doing things, but because he wanted to reduce our involvement in nato, he wanted to cooperate with other nations. well, are even with our president trump, i, i want to believe that there are still many more americans for who believe that the russians love their children to and who loved our own children and who want to preserve whatever and logical most stability and the piece that we have and on this planet senator has been great pleasure, nice as i said, a great honor for me to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. thank you. i'm for please, and thank you for watching hope to hear again on will the part. ah.

oh, a only one main thing is important for knox ism, internationally speaking to that is that nation's visits are allowed to do anything, all the mazda races. the reason us had germany is so dangerous, is it the law? the sovereignty of all the country. wars business and business is good and that is the reality of what we are facing,

which is fashion. with dozens of new and member states, abstain or vote against the look to force russia to pay ukraine, war reparation. it's the biggest drop of support for ukraine related resolutions adopted by the general assembly. since the start of the conflict. as the g 20 summit begins in indonesia calls are rolling from western members of the group to further isolate brush out over the conflict in ukraine. this as moscow continues to increase is cooperation with emerging lot of economy. the western must take responsibility for it's a global polluting activity that's.