the thank you, i'm very pleased to be where we're kiera. 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 viewers a little bit of a sense of who you were in your active military life. and i know that before becoming an elected official you spend so did you hear anything uniform 1st as in marine pilot them down 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 so 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 i, 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 travelling 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 a provision. what's interesting is that is the federation. russia has a note 1st years 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 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,

then 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 i found, with claim, prevented them. 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 the 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 believe in 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 pop 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 like you great has 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 you kindly, 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 his 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 they're 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 february 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 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 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 on, 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 ran russian lives as well. absolutely. russian rushing lives, but again, going back to your crying we're, we're a stance to blame 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 senator, 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, ah

1000 with a i want to

with this with you over with you. i'm with

each other still easier for this patient, but in the board with mm hm. mm. welcome back to my apartment which are in black, former virginia state senator and retired here is army curled. sen, as we have been discussing before the break. moscow firmly believes that it's in a state of proxy war with washington. it also believes that the current ministration 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 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 ukraine because 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 would yourself to say, like, i can't tell you for sure. we're, well, you know, as i mentioned in my introduction that americans usually don't have any problem starting wars, but they're not very good at ending them. and i've heard them and number all 5 thinkers compare the concentration in your queen to i'm gonna start to reach the united states. invaded for a number of i do political and you're strategic reasons, but it's still couldn't band reality to its wishes and had to withdraw in a very, in some would argue, disgraceful 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 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, 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 recent election. so we're good yourself to 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, 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, the 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 trips in eastern europe has, well, 240000, that's nearly 10 times more than it was last here. d thing need 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 of 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 tags 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 no threat 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 conflict done it had before in russia about experience for it's a great deal of difference when you talk about urban combat 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 name to 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 a belief, almost the mystical belief that them malevolence will sooner or later catch up with the actually i think the russians also believe that the arc 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 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 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 to a foreign minister, love raw has 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, 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 award, winning, 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, that parents support. politically. 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 put an express 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 interpreted person needs to be able to see times 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. these nato did not want peace and the global as did not warranties. i think by they call them down. not because he was, he had certain that ways of doing things, but because he wanted to reduce our involvement and nato, he wanted to cooperate with other nations. well, 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 and i, 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 with oh, a watch and it was a year and a shorter one and i'm not going to stay like i went back

a national z. m a not by mia. so 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 often very dramatic. that development only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very difficult time to sit down and talk only one main thing is important for not as an internationally speaking to that is that nations that's allowed to do anything, all the mazda races, the reason us head gemini, 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 the west coast, it's ukraine agenda and most of the world, once a peaceful solution message from russia's foreign minister, the ongoing g. 20 summit, a international nato's change, a crate and to keep fighting on the battlefield. but some u. s. official recording but people talk that same k as kyle beach, russia by military means and the west math take responsibility for its role in global pollution. not the call of the cult 20.