to address the public's concerns, but to identify leave as full compliance with controversial government policies. the fact that this political monitoring happened under the guise of contrary misinformation highlights how without serious safeguards, the concept wrong information is open to abuse and has become a blank check. the government use this in an attempt to control narratives on line . contrary to their stated aims, these government truth units are secretive and harmful to our democracy. so is this what cummings was talking about, sending the military to spy on those who oppose the narrative and rules crafted by the faceless, deep state actors he spoke of. who then use that information to craft response? is that the 1st battalion of idiots and morons, otherwise known as elected officials, can go back out to the front lines and defend in part by branding anything else that contravenes or contradicts the official narrative dis,

information. how exactly do they manage to square all that with the image of britain as a free democratic and transparent system to which other country should aspire? sometimes under the threat of sanctions, sounds like perhaps the u. k. should 1st try holding itself to that standard and see how it goes. that's so from me today, i'll next that june for cross pool. my colleague lori sushi will be with you that helped me out. i went home all day with a spoke

with with both both the models you need to do both got nothing smooth with a, a, a, a, a, a, with

the personal number you have that with, with a, [000:00:00;00] with hello and welcome to cross top or all things are considered i'm peter lavelle almost one year into the conflict. no major western leader is called for talks to bring peace to ukraine and europe. instead, we are witnessing dangerous escalation. the great tank debate is settled. will it be fighter jets next? where does this end? ah,

the cross talking escalation, i'm joined by my guess peter cousin, they can washington, he's a professor of history and director of the nuclear studies institute at american university as well as co author with oliver stone of the untold history of the united states. in bangkok we have brian or electric, he is a geo political analyst, and a former us marine. and in toronto, we crossed christopher black. he's a member of the canadian piece congress and an international criminal lawyer. i gentleman cross type rules and effect. that means you can jump anytime you want, and i always appreciate, i want to go to peter 1st in washington. i want to read a few headlines here that have come out in the last new cycle. so, number one, nato says, alliance is ready for direct confrontation with russia. second point, russia warren, to a full blown war. again, poland says it's ready to send f sixteens to ukraine in coordination with nato

and a headline from the wall street journal. some western backers of ukraine worry, but time might not be on ukraine's side. so peter, i mean, this seems to be full steam ahead with escalation here. but we have mix messages from a western capitals and then throw in with the russians. are reacting to, i mean, this is a collision course to where peter and collision course to insanity. i mean, we are, the situation gets more and more dire and desperate by the day and, you know, where, where is it heading? there is no orfram. the russian official, i speak to why don't wait on the battlefield, the ukrainians expect to win on the battlefield. nato is supplying more and more arms and there doesn't seem to be any inclination at all toward diplomacy. in negotiations, settling this name,

we know everybody knows that eventually is going to be resolved at the to go sharing table. biden says that milly sends that the russians know that to but nobody seems to have any impetus to get there. so that makes the situation more and more desk. well peter, peter rabbit, peter, you know, well, because you've been on the program since then, that there is a starting point and it was they did. december 17th, 2021 diplomatic note to data when the united states. that's the starting point right there in the west, ignored it. okay, that's where the starting point is, but the west dismissed it. that's why this happened here. me go to christopher in toronto, you know, i, i'm not a professor of international relations or law, but it doesn't make any sense to me that escalation is a form of deterrence. it's just the reverse. go ahead, christopher in toronto, that's about tried, but the entire position of native since the at least to be paid before the night

and who in 2014 is one of aggression against russia. and that's what they've intended all along. so it doesn't make sense to any rational person, but it does to those people that neo cons in charge in washington, a london who have ambitions to repeat what hitler tried to do by a concrete and destroying and taking apart russia and can the regional conflict and ukraine is their arm, fist against russia, and that's what they're trying to, to the present time, the failing and the sash to fail. it doesn't make any sense. in rational terms. you have to go back to what they really want. what is their ultimate objective? because it's classmates up and said many times that war is politics through other means. so they're trying to achieve something, but they risk destroying the world to try and achieve it because they cannot achieve it without a major conflict which leads nuclear war. well, chris,

or if i go to brian and band cock, i mean, we all know, i mean, they've told us over and over again. joe biden, on a number of occasions they put it must go essentially regime change, or you can get the radicals in the baltic states and poland, that dismemberment of russia. this is what they want. ok, well, obviously you've gotten to agree to that. okay, so, and on top of it, you know that, that very sophisticated foreign minister in germany says that europe is at war with russia. so, i mean, one of the russians missing here. ryan. well, i think what christopher just said nato's intention is to dismantle russia and this isn't something that started last year. busy in february, or even all the way back in 2014 the decades of preparation by the us and nato to encircle and contain russia. and i believe the united states and their allies, they realized that the window of opportunity to achieve this as wells in, circling in containing china,

the window of opportunity is closing. and so they're rushing to try to, to finish this before closes all the way. and this dangerous desperation that both of your other gas, some talked about. this is actually scary, and we're watching this and we're watching russia once again on the offensive ukraine losing ground. and unfortunately, the better russia does on the battlefield. the, the more worried i become regarding what nato will try to do out of desperation. peter react to that because i am, brian is really on onto it here because we all agree that will be settled on the battlefield. i can't see how ukraine can possibly win without nato intervening, and i don't even think nato can, can succeed in ukraine even though they, they are there. it's a co belligerent, unofficial. of course. ok, i mean the, what is, what has happened here is what,

what's really terrifying for all of us is that the west is made this existential when it, for russia, it is, it's to be or not to be. but it's not existential for the west, but they've made it into that. peter. yes, that's why we think of this is a form of his sanity. ah, the dynamic is very, very depressing at the, at this moment, russia is making gains on the battlefield. the spring offensive looks like russia will get 8 more gains before those tanks get there. even one subs task out there that will not be sufficient to stop the russian offensive. so what is they to do next? now they're talking about f sixteens. now they're talking about at attack adams, missiles, i think there's a price increasing escalation. but there is some pushback. we saw the commas by the president, croatia they see a similar most by the president, bulgaria. yeah. you see, or bon and there's,

and there is growing size of this unity. it nato. this idea that for a more fuel on the fire is a good idea by 70 increasing weapon systems, heavier and heavy weapons systems. there's a lot of opposition to that right now. and does that mean that's going to succeed? we don't know where there's also a couple other things. we have to remember that biden came to office, saying number one is going to restore american primacy. but number 2, he's going to go after china and a recent report by the rand corporation about the why the a long war is not in america's interest. i is very important just came out and we see this comments by general many hand saying within 2 years, united states going to be a war with china. and then you've got mike mccall, the head of the house armed services committee, or foreign affairs committee, saying that he agrees with many hand. so clearly their focus that they intended was

not russia. they thought they could hurt russia by going after china. and that's the main priority by the surround themselves, with 18 pop advisors from the committee for new american security. these are all the china hawks, so they would like to figure out a way to finish this one off quickly so they can focus on their primary objective, which is really china taken. now russia is collateral and, but they're happy to do that. of course, that's been an important part of america's strategy for decades. you know, a lot has been made of this ran report, you know, i'm sorry, but i just can't take it too seriously. it's not in america's interest. well, certainly it's not. it's not in anyone's interest. but there are plenty of interest involved in this conflict in ukraine. ok. they don't care about american security. they care about profits. ok? they want to make weapons, they want to export ok. they want to control the european military market as well. that has nothing to do about virtue when interest here, it's about greed and

a power play christopher and toronto. well there's, that's exactly right. and that's been away all the way since they attack yugoslavia, which was the 1st in my view, the 1st phase of this war against russia. that was to destroy yugoslavia, which they almost failed at doing that. they finally did by threatening the bomb belgrade carpet bomb belgrade. and that was the 1st phase network. this development of this war has been going on since then, as brian listed. and it, yeah, there is no morality. they don't have any laws. they deny that they're actually taking part in this war is belligerence, but they are, as you say, co belligerence, quite clearly. they try and qualify that by saying there's, they have limited neutrality because russia is the aggression aggressive state. they threatened to invoke article 5 of the nato treaty, or the russia can view it as already activated because all the data was fighting

against russia that what would they do if they activated article 5? since they're doing everything else already, they would seem to me a very steep escalation because that would give them the direct take off the mascot pretense to the not involved in this war. and both donald trump, them to let raised the nuclear war threat. and remember, the atlantic council on november stated that the american government, she ignored the russian nuclear deterrent and should start quietly placing luc, clear weapons and weapons of mass destruction in eastern europe to be used against russia. and they should start doing it. then that was back in november. so i think that's what scares me as a does brian at the more russian forces victorious on the battlefield. and more nato is exposed to they will use some pretext or stage something to invoke article 5. well, peter, that doesn't whole threat of trying to,

but russia has to be removed. right. we've already seen the destruction of the north stream pipeline. i mean, it shows to what lengths they will do to ensure unity among european nato allies. i mean, that's absolutely shut the door on, on germany being any kind of decision maker inside the alliance. and we saw with the great tank debate, which was a complete fraud in my opinion, it was all about escalation. i gentlemen, i have to jump in here. we're going to go to a short break, and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on escalation. stay with our team. the the a

. l 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 orders at conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. and the point obviously is to place trust, rather than fear i would like to take on various jobs with artificial intelligence, real summoning with obama protective phone existence with ah, welcome back across stock were all things are considered. i'm peter, let's remind you. we're discussing escalation.

ah, brian in block a of the program here, article 5 was mentioned and that was one of the questions i sent out by my producer here. and it's something that i've thought a lot about, and even at the very beginning of this conflict, i thought there's a certain inevitability that will, it will be invoked here. because if, if the, if it's more and more heavy weaponry, sophisticated weaponry is a sent to ukraine. which seems to be the intent. huh. that that shows that the west is a co belligerent and all of this. an article 5 is nonsense because it's just a cover. okay. when, if these abram tanks, which i believe will never make it to ukraine, but it say they, if they're being milk could be moved across the polish water. it's, it's fair game for russia destroy them. they're going in there to kill their, their soldiers. so it's really kind of turned into a almost a joke. unfortunately, even though it's could have catastrophic outcome here. so, i mean, this is something that, you know,

nato is going to have to reckon with here. nato is not nearly as strong as it thinks it is. it has 2 major militaries, the united states and turkey. the rest of it is basically neg, negligible. go ahead, brian. well, this is something that we have to keep in mind as we see all of these weapons plug into your crime. the russian military destroyed the military that ukraine had at the beginning of a special military operation between that period of time and now nato had sent an equipment from the warsaw pact leftover from the cold war to credit. and that, that was a lot of when we're talking hundreds of times, russia has destroyed that, which is what brings us to today, where they're talking about shipping western main battle tanks to crime. and these are weapon systems. i bet a lot of people are unaware of take months if not years to incorporate into a, into an army that is not familiar with them. and then when you're talking about

something like aircraft, it's even more complex and involved and the timeframe is even longer. so what are they actually really doing shortly in moscow? they know that these weapons are not going to be effective, at least not in the hands of ukrainians. so what is nato planning on doing? and this is the real big question. are they going to have nato operators operating this equipment? and i would argue that even then, it would not matter what they openly intervene and use everything they have in combined arms. warfare will not make a difference. and are they going to escalate to that point? and between yourself and your 2 other guests, it seems to suggest that they aren't incrementally moving in that direction. this, this is incredibly dangerous. yeah, peter, i mean, i think it was, is boris johnson a few days ago been disgraced boris johnson? i should say. i mean, he was, he's basically touting this line coming out of the atlantic council that, well, the russians have a news,

tactical nuclear weapons to this point. so they probably won't. i mean, what kind of buffoon says something like that in a situation that we've, we face right now peter the new york times the full and say that to me that the january 18th article in the new york times saying that us leaders are increasingly open to a ukrainian invasion of crimea, and with the some, based on the assumption that the, with all the red lines that nato has crossed already of russia's and russia has not responded significantly. and they're not going to respond to anything. and that the threats of use of nuclear weapons are simply a bluff. well, that's very, very, very dangerous. has any, does anyone on my panel and our viewers want to see that tested? i mean, this is absurd. this is absolutely absurd. keep going, peter. it's absurd. that the whole strategy is really very,

very dangerous. the idea of trying to defeat russia inflict this defeat, are russia. president kennedy said in his american university commencement address, june of 63, said to put a nuclear power in the position of suffering, a humiliating defeat. or use of nuclear weapons is either a failure of policy or a collective death wish for the human race. and that's the position where ultimately in, if the west succeeds in what is trying to do right now. which is why i'm looking for any off rab to get to negotiate a table as quickly as possible, rather than prolong what's left. i'm sorry, i'm sorry, i'm sorry peter, but this to tell the zalinski regime to go and surrender. then it's about, do this, is that, i mean that's what's gonna happen eventually. why don't we do it now?

ok and save hundreds of billions of dollars and save lives. ok, this is absurd. what the west is doing, propping up to one of the most corrupt regimes in the world. ok. and, and you want to keep giving them money and giving them hope. ok, that's ridiculous here. christopher, i can go to you. you know, you know, it's, you know, boris johnson new york time, you know, with nuclear weapons, haven't been used yet. but because russia with, you know, you can keep pressing the red line. let's go back to last year in february, prior to that, the russia said, you know, we have our demands for pan european security. we send them to you on december 17th . ok. and they said, if you don't respond in the way that we want or a leaf enter negotiations, there will be military technical re reaction. there was the special military operation. so i can't understand what, where these people are coming from. russians don't bluff, they act christopher. well, that's right, and we may see

a reaction as in john how much report of his analysis of the david ignatius ed and the washington post a couple of days ago and an interview, a blinking in which blink and proposed so a deal with russia and that op ed in which she suggested russia could retain the don bass of the air. is it seized partition ukraine, and then have a rump ukraine? and it wouldn't be part of nato, but it's is seen, i think, by russia is another attempt to buy time to rebuild the creating and rebuild nato. it may be that if, if article 5 is in vote, it may not go to the nuclear weapon that nuclear weapons use. immediately, it could be that they would then use article 5 to mobilize the west. as being suggested european states to increase the draft, mobilize the population like to have an ukraine, and they could try and mobilize nato and spend

a couple of years rebuilding the nato forces while the harassing ladder, when christopher, don't know, but make chris. chris really got brian here. i mean that this is something i said from the very, very beginning. there has to be a resolution. russia is part of the your, your ation land space. it must have insecurity guaranteed. and until that happens, they're not going to say, oh, take a cease fire and let you crane we build and lead you become absorbed into net. russia will not allow it. it's not going to do this again. no way know how it will get the resolution. it wants, it will get it unilaterally if necessary. brian. absolutely. as you pointed out, survey, they tested russia. russia, acted militarily ukraine. they have already tested the waters attacking crimea, hitting the bridge across the current straight. and how did russia react? they began dismantling ukraine's power grid, and there are many other options that russia has available to it to escalate even

further. so this is something that the west is aware of. they're aware that russia is in a situation, this is existential for moscow. and they know that they're been tending that o, russia isn't going to to react because they want to continue pushing as, as far as they can. we just look at other instances of the u. s. and nato. whether it was officially under the banner of nato or not in afghanistan, iraq, libya, syria, they eventually laptop canister and after 20 years, this, this shows how stubborn they are. and how much further past any, any point of reason or logic or rationality. they're willing to go in pursuit of advancing their geopolitical objectives. and so we have to ask how far they going to push. and you find this seems to be the end point. yeah, i mean when, when you have a gemini, you don't let it, you don't want it to go away and you get

a really do everything in your power to grasp it. because american hegemony is weakening around the world. d, dollarization and all of these other things here. peter, you know, the, we, they always talk about an offer and, you know, give the russians and offer a peer, but why? the west, particularly united states never sees that it needs an offer and does it. no, but i'm not in full agreement with other guests. that's why we have you on painter . we want to know if we need a radio indians, we need different opinions. that's why you're here. i'm saying that agreement that nato's a paper tiger, and that, that, this situation is so much in russia's military advantage. right now, russia has some initiatives. the russian military is not performed well. and the i a, we don't, i don't want to see nato being tested. i don't want to see article 5 being invoked

. i don't want to see world war 3 because the possibility of escalation to full scale nuclear war is very, very palpable. and so i, i think we have to stop talking about this kind of bravado and look at realistically at what we're facing now, which is a potential for real gridlock where does the bravado come from? where is it coming from? who started all of this? i mean, i am who had for us receiving change in your, in ukraine, in 2014 who i believe if you will never or the never go back at peter's just story peter. but who didn't enforce min skokie, who lied and was deceitful about that. who militarized ukraine? i mean, talk about bravado, really and, and is yeah, go through and you, and i've talked about that for a long time. and i will agree on that. however, that most of us did not think that potent was going to invade, i had for my, i have

a graph the world for months that it's going to happen. they don't bluff. ok, keep going, peter finish out there. he said that i'd say that that the west has created a, a best situation where nato expanded to rushes doorstep. and i did certainly didn't do anything to impose the minced to agreement and then boot and responded. but that was still the wrong thing for russia to do. the invasion was not in any way just to, well, that's what i mean. that's our way agreeable. we don't agree on. i think it's agree on that too. i think. and quite as an international lawyer, they had, there was quite justified our article, 51, it was legal and just all right, we're good to go into another. another program that i don't have time for. right now. i want to thank my guests and watch it in bangkok and in toronto, and when i think our viewers for watching us here at ortiz,

see you next time. remember across i do this for you, melissa. and this will stream manipulators or not, but missile is not at all what cold showed mr. bonnie, so the dodger. nick was laquia and rhetoric national center course rush. yeah. them for you daniel. is doing in house in admin. each was marty. goes to someone like which is 70 middle kenesaw police, venice los lunas with stanley kit to mozilla. that'd be the doors. yeah. which i said in, you'd see a check yet. no more. so been glove in the seamless tale, closer to the nazi to glower because you'll be blacked dyslexia. i still want to watch it from loud. awkward up. well,

you'll be put it down that you're not on that on it. i said, i would talk to you that, you know, he's, he's going to learn this link. wishing cargo. huh. or slip, or veterans shoot. the dog builds quarter. he's michael. but honestly it is ah, this alex hoppe headlines off international as the local authorities say, russian troops up in circle the ukrainian health city of trouble. and they don't have to go public. that is just a day off, the russian soldiers cut off a major supply route to the ukrainian military, a twitter account, citing alleged usaa bio labs in you credit and goes viral off to being reinstated by the platform. it does, however, support numerous claims on the issue by the russian ministry of defense