is a ah in time i'm rick sanchez and i'm here to plead with you whatever you do, you do not watch my your show. why watch something that's so different opinions

that you won't get anywhere else. welcome to please or do you have the state department, the cia weapons makers, multi 1000000000 dollar corporations, choose your fax for you, go ahead. change and whatever you do. don't watch my show, stay main street because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is called direct impact, but again, you probably don't want to watch it because it might just change the way the the hello and welcome to cross talk for 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? the, the cross talking escalation. i'm joined by my guess, peter cousin, they can. washington is 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 cross the christopher black. he's a member of the canadian piece congress and an international criminal lawyer. i gentleman cross groves and effects. that means you can jump anytime you want, and i always appreciate, i want to go to peter person washington. i wanna read a few headlines here that have come out in the last news cycle. so number one, nato says, alliance is ready for direct confrontation with russia. second point,

russia warren, so 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 a full steam ahead with escalation here, but we have mixed 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 as may we are is 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 supply 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 says 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 paint, but peter, you know, well, because you've been on the program since then, that there is a starting point and it was, they just december 17th, 2021 diplomatic note to data when the united states. that's a starting point right there in the west, ignored it. ok, that's where the starting point is, but the west dismissed it. that's why this happened here. let me go to christopher in toronto. you know, i, i am 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. that's right. but the entire position of native since the at least and be before the might 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 and washed in london, who have ambitions to repeat what hitler tried to do by conquering and destroying and taking apart russia and the regional conflict. and ukraine is there arm fist against russia, and that's what they're trying to, to the present time. the failing and the sanction to fill 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 close to, it's often 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 will lead nuclear war. well, closer if i go to brian in bangkok, i mean, we all know, i mean, they've told us over and over again. joe biden, on a number of occasions they put in, must go essentially regime change, or you can get the radicals in the baltic states in poland, that dismemberment of russia. this is what they want. ok, well, obviously we're going to agree to that. ok. 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, what is 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 in circle and contain russia. and

i believe the united states and their allies, they realized that the window of opportunity to achieve this as well as encircling and 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 gaps have 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 it, 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 was what was really terrifying for all of us is that the west is made this ex essential 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. and even one subs tanks get there. that will not be sufficient to stop the russian offensive. so what is later do next? now they're talking about f sixteens. now they're talking about at attack ems. missiles, i think there's a price increasing escalation. but there is some pushback we saw the communist by

the president, croatia. they see a similar most by the president, bulgaria. yeah, it 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 sending increasing weapon systems, heavier and heavy weapons systems. there's a lot of opposition to that right now. that does that mean that's going to succeed? we don't know with, 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 the 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 didn't 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 taking. now. russia is collateral and, but they're happy to do that. of course, that's been an important part of america strategy for decades. you know, quite 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 and 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 a military market as well. that has nothing to do about virtue when interests here, it's about greed and 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 said, 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 a little they have limited neutrality because russia is the aggression aggressive state. they threatened to invoke article 5 of the nato treaty,

or though russia can view it as already activated because all of dana was fighting against russia. but 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 pretends to the not involved in this war. and both donald trump, them to let raise the nuclear war threat. and remember, the atlantic council on november stated that the american government, she ignore 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 it does, bryan, that the more russian forces victorious on the battlefield. and the more natal is exposed to they will tell you some free text or stage something to invoke article

5. well, i mean, peter, that doesn't how all of it goes against trying to, but russia has to be removed. right. we've already seen the destruction of the nord 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 the the ah, is your media a reflection of reality?

the, in a world transformed what will make you feel safer? tyson lation, whole community. you going the right way? where are you being that somewhere? direct. what is true? what is faith in the world corrupted. you need to this end. ah. so join us in the depths or remain in the shallows use. ah, welcome back to cross stock. we're all things are considered. i'm peter a voucher manager. we're discussing escalation in the brian in block

a 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 inevitably that will, it will be invoked here. because if it's more and more heavy weaponry, sophisticated weaponry is sent to ukraine, which seems to be the intent 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. ok when, if these abram tanks, which i believe will never make it to ukraine, but it say they that if they're being could be moved across the polish water, it's, it's fair game for russia to 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, you 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. why? this is something that we have to keep in mind as you see. all of these weapons flawed into ukraine, the russian military destroyed the military that ukraine had at the beginning of the 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 equipment 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 that a lot of people are aware 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? surely in moscow, they know that these weapons are not going to to be effective, at least not in the hands of ukrainians. so what is natal 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 than between yourself and your 2 other guests? it seems to suggest that they are incrementally moving in that direction. this is incredibly dangerous. peter. i mean, i think it is boris johnson a few days ago. the disgrace 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 haven't used 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 faced right now peter the new york times the full and say that to me that the, the january 18th article in the new york times say that u. s. leaders are increasingly open to a ukrainian invasion of crimea and with the a 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 lapse. very, very, very dangerous. any, does anyone on my panel and our viewers want to see that tested? i mean, if this is absurd, this is absolutely absurd. keep going. peter is absurd. but the whole strategy is really very,

very dangerous. the idea of trying to defeat russia inflict this defeat on russia. president kennedy said it is american university commencement address, june of 63, said to put a nuclear power in a position, a suffering 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 go see a table as quickly as possible, rather than prolong left. i'm sorry, i'm sorry peter, but this to tell this lensky regime to go and surrender. then it's that i do this. 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, popping up 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, so, you know, boris johnson new york times, you know, with nuclear weapons, haven't been used yet. but because russia with, you know, you can keep pressing the red lines. 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 brief inter negotiations, there will be military technical re reaction. there was this special military operation. so i can't understand what, where these people are coming from. russians don't bluff, they act christopher that well, that's right. and i may see a reaction as in john how much report of his analysis of the david ignatius re,

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 he 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 ukrainian army and rebuild nato. and it may be that if, if article 5 is invoked, it may not go to the nuclear weapon to nuclear weapons use immediately, it could be that they would then use article 5 to mobilize the west as being suggested in europe in states to increase the draft mobilize the population like to have a new crane, and they could try and mobilize nato and spend a couple of years rebuilding the nato forces while the harassing. whether when

christopher, don't know, but chris chris, let me go to the 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 been security guaranteed. and until that happens, they're not going to say, oh, take a seat, 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 the survey, they tested russia, russia, acted billets, hourly and ukraine. they have already tested the waters attacking crimea, hitting the bridge across the curt 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 that they're aware that russia is in a situation. this is existential. busy for moscow, and they know that there been tending that, oh russia is me going to to react because they want to continue pushing as, as far as they can. we just look at other instances of the us 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 that 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,

in germany is weakening around the world de 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 do you do the west, particularly united states never sees that it needs an off ramp. does it now, 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 indian, we need different opinions. that's why you're here. i'm saying that agreement that nato's a paper tiger. and that, 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, we don't, i don't want to see nato being tested. i don't want to see article 5 be 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 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 who had forest resume change in your, in ukraine in 2014 who i believe it will never or they never go back at peter's. yeah, sorry, 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, and as you go through and you, and i've talked about that for a long time. and, and we agree on that. however, that most of us did not think that potent was going to invade. i had my, i have a graph, the world for mom said 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 situation where nato expanded to russia's 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 well, that's what i mean. that's our way agreeable. we don't agree on that. i think it's agree on that too. i think quite as an international lawyer had, there was quite justified our article, 51, it was legal and just our i, we 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, darky, see you next time, remember across, ah ah,

ah ah ah, with the discovery of the new world at the end of the 15th century, there appeared atlantic slave trade. the slave traders from european countries started building forth on the western coast of the african continent to transport the african inhabitants to america, to be forced into hard labor. until the middle of the 17th century. portugal had played the main role in this atrocious business. then great britain,

france and the netherlands took the leadership, or the span of 400 years of legal and illegal slave trade. about 17000000 people were forcefully shipped across the atlantic. not including those who died on the way due to unbearable living conditions. modern historians estimate that for each slave ship to america, there were 5 who died while captured during transportation, and cruel obliteration of rebellion. this ruthless people tre practice by the leading european countries, took away tens of millions of african lives. the organisation of united nations classifies that trans atlantic slave trade as one of the gravest human rights abuses in that history of humanity. this is the biggest act of deportation of people ever seen by mankind.

with news for you, melissa, and his hope similar nickos are not but missile. you smile, dental, what cold showed, nathan understood, the dodger. nick was low or korean. read to a single course rush. he had them for it and he was doing in house. and i mean, each was smart, it was to someone like, wish 70 middle kenesaw policeman us with some the could to mozilla. you, georgia was your head in your theater. yeah, no more than glad you in the seamless tale boys do not see too loud because you'll be blacked dyslexia dice didn't want to watch and loud enough where you'll be put it down, but you're not on that. i'm not said i would just do that. you know, you, she's going to learn a sling pushing cargo of flip over to, to talk to scott or he's mark or, but us,

please look. ah, a local authority say russian troops of encircled the ukrainian health city of r kimmel, in the den. yes, great public. that comes just the day after brushes, military cuts off a major supply route for a key as forces or stories at this hour the i m f predicts the russian that called me will grow in 2023. that's that spike western leaders declaring sanctions imposed on multiple will bring the nation to it needs a stunning claim from a want to top advisor to former british pm forest johnston.