and then, well, this is a very intense war and done. so we have reached a point where world leaders and certainly the united states, the united kingdom. so they, 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 hit 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 they defend their countries. but i, i look and i see a great recklessness in what's taking place. now speaking about this recklessness, i know that this september i 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. and he has so he has dropped on probation. what's interesting is the, is the federation. russia has a no 1st use policy and the president bowden has never threatened to

use nuclear weapons. he's made it clear, but that russia is a powerful nuclear power and that it will defend itself. but at same time, we have western powers that have use 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 nuclear weapon. can i ask you about this change assuming change of doctrine 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 its ill desire. but because that's simply how nations operate, then each nation reserves the right to defend itself. why do you think the biden administration and i would argue with the obama administration before him, abandoned this policy that served americans pretty well and that i saw with claim prevented them, you know, a nuclear apocalypse before think there's much less concern about the american people that there was with prior administrations we see this, this global governance taking hold where, you know, i, i call them the boys from davos, but that's just just a little piece of the whole thing. but you have these, these mega billionaires kings and princes on celebrities.

and they, they gather together and they formulate 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 that 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 in the 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 viagra ads, 2 rate 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 pop ridge. at this point the, the ukrainian government wanted to make peace in april, shortly after the war began before there were a great many casualties and much damage they, they advanced piece 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 like here. great. has so much role to play. i think they are simply cannon fodder so that you know the war, the war goes on, directed not by your crane by, by nature and the if you also noted any open letter that the ukrainian leadership

is actively seeking. weston guarantees of strikes against 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 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 like that russia would use tactical nuclear weapons as, as a 1st strike. i think the only possibility, but 1st 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 use nuclear weapons. i think it's a very big risk, and i think there sort of us a struggle going on over whether that should be done. now speaking about this lack of consensus and just the other day if you want to heal a respected american caller, a freshman, the 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 to russia, hold 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 chilled 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 certainly 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 on, contacted her at a cost of the fraction of the cost of the regional conflict. soon i'd be celebrated, if not as a strategic achievement 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 ran russia lives as well. absolutely, russian rushing lives. but again, going back to your crying we're, we're

a sensitively fighting 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 ha 1000

. i ah, the 1st time in history, an entire country's culture has been canceled to the very modern weapon. cancel, culture. really desperate, wonderful lucille malice will do it when we get just misleading the, with the phrase now particularly refers to counseling russian culture yet don't know what to create a few orders because it to when you're miles for cure,

which will be all there is cha, mozilla, that the most of the temperature random eat them, we what rushes created over the past 1500 years. there's no question. partially condemned, reviled and reject it. to sort of like you said, it was funny. at the mill of bramble, there's a lot closer on a whole bunch. thank you said a little short list. joining total condemnation, gross daily, and now includes just a asking to cascade shostakovich that i need to you all the pool left. but yes, she says that what the time will you do? obama lee? you're not going to do that a little bit more of a

business with us with you. i wish you good. i didn't miss you with key at the when washington keep the process is to dealer molly complete with us for go you guys to phone, assume the user. did you need video with i see with the school that did you do you put up a list of all but each with ah hm. mm

hm. welcome back to was the portsmouth richard black form of your genius. they senator and the retards. here is army colonel, senator, as we've been discussing before the break. moscow firmly believes that it's in the state of 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 these 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. and i think within europe,

there is also resistant with great britain they, they have a tiny army, so the direct involvement us is not us is significant. but i think it is. it is hard to say where it will go, because i take your crane as 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 were so 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

a number all 5 thinkers compare the current situation in your crane to afghanistan to reach the united states. 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, in some would argue the graceful manner. last year. do you think the same may happen in the ukraine than the americans and the american i 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 give it as an independent region. germany in particular, us has almost become a vassal state of washington. and it's a shame i,

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 region 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 prove 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, the, every one democrats and republicans were quite surprised by the election outcome. but it appears as though the republicans will take control of the house of

representatives, all of the, the bills dealing with money fact to originate in the house of representatives. this means that it is likely that there will be closer examination of how much money is being spent on the green war. and it is almost hard to tell how important a big republican when 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. so some of these things are very, very difficult to sort out at this point. now you mentioned the amount of money going out to support the war effort in ukraine, but a lot of funds are also going into,

i strengthening the nato forces in europe. i think since the beginning of this year and the number of native troops and eastern europe has, well, 240000, that's nearly 10 times more than it was last here. do you think, nita, 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 nature nato, to build up its 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, this of the russia. they only had $200.00 facts, $200.00 operational tanks for the entire country of germany.

that to me is clear, prove that germany considered the risk of war with russia at absolutely 0. they saw no 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 much stronger adversary? often the ukranian counseling done it had before in russia about experience for

it's 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 belief 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 let's leave on mutually beneficial and mutually respectful terms. i certainly hope so. the, the, the people of america getting 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 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 law office been magnificent about

i think, president who has been very, 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 they, profiteering well from the war and from some of the corrupt schemes in the countries that the parents have support politically. and it's clear that neither the russians know 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 american 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 of respect for enemies interest and the realization that they need to be respected at least, and that they're a 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 one 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 over brown was because he did understand and he did what he's nato did not want peace. and the global us did not warranties i think by they call them down. not because he was, he had certain ways of doing things, but because he wanted to reduce or involvement and 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 who believe that the russians love their children to and who loved our own children and who want to preserve whatever a modicum of stability and the piece that we have in the 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. one will to part. ah with oh,

what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy, even foundation, 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 successful, very difficult time time to sit down and talk with other things, both, both models you need to do both. got nelson's meals with a, a form already a lot of them but,

but your own floyd them by a a, [000:00:00;00] with a personal number here that we're talking with only one main thing is important for not as an internationally speaking to that is that nations that's allowed to do anything of 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're facing, which is fashion. with not load the oil in the not the world war note, the cold war rhetoric. this is the message at the g 20 summit opening as western members keep calling to further isolate russia over the conflict. a new brain and moscow continues to increase its cooperation with emerging world economies. the un general assembly adopt the resolution on russian war, reparation to your brain with dozens of members,