ah ah ah mm ah ah, ah hello and welcome to cross stock 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 cross stocking escalation, i'm joined by my guess peter cousin, akin washington. he's a professor of history and director of the nucular 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 let take, he is a geopolitical analyst and a former us marine. and in toronto, we crossed christopher black. he is a member of the canadian peace congress, an international criminal lawyer, or gentleman cross growth in effect. that means you can germany, tommy 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 new cycle. so number one, nato says, alliance is ready for direct confrontation with rush. 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 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 as me, 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, whether 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 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, peter, peter, you know, well, because you've been on the program since then, that there is a starting point and it was 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. when we 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 nato, 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 in washington in london, who have ambitions to repeat what hitler tried to do by conquering and destroying and taking a part, russia and in 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 closer, 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 to 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 food 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, it's been gotten do 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, 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, this is 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 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 would be, what is what has happened here is what, what's really terrifying for all of us is that the west has 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 insanity. ah, the dynamic is very, very depressing at that. 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 they to 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 other comments 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 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 research report by the rand corporation about that, 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 taken out. 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 ventures, 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 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 doing. but they finally did. i threatened the bomb belgrade carpet bon bailed, red. 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 as belligerence, but they are, as you say, co belligerence, quite clearly. they try and qualify that by saying there's a look. 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 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 vote and 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. 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 are victorious on the battlefield. and the more natal is exposed to they will use some pretext or stage something to invoke

article 5. well, i mean, peter, that all threat against 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 about short break, we'll continue our discussion on escalation, staying with our the the oh, i know when i was

shot the wrong. why don't we just don't the world? yes. to see i, an engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground. i'm put you in a place in to the with a, with a,

a no. go for them to push it up with a no, i did a with the course when you put a block or is it a voicemail but i am sending them to come here to school. she's new. i say yes. name way at the suggestion is up

with a welcome back across the dock. were all things are instead or i'm peter of else remind you we're discussing escalation the 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 it, 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. what if, if these abram tanks, which i believe will never make it to ukraine, but it say they that if they're being can 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 your 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. 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 times 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? and between yourself and your 2 other guests, it seems to suggest that they are incrementally moving in that direction. this, this is incredibly dangerous. yeah, peter, i mean, i think it 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 haven't used tactical nucular 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 january 18th article in the new york times say 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. 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. 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 a 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 we are

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 wasn't left. i'm sorry, i'm sorry, i'm sorry peter, but this to tell the zelinski regime to go and surrender. then it's about this is that, i mean that's what's going to 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 pricing 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 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 re add in the washington post a couple of days ago, an interview with lincoln in which blink and proposed 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 has another attempt to buy time to rebuild the creating and rebuild nato. and 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. whether when christopher, don't know, but 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

rushes will not allow it. it's not going to do this again. no way know how it will get the resolution. it wants and it will get it unilaterally if necessary. brian. absolutely, as you pointed out, that they, they tested russia, russia, act, that bill, it's 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. busy existential for moscow, and they know that they're 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 hegemony 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 off ram peer. but why do you do the west, particularly united states, never see that it needs an off ramp. does it now, but i'm not in full agreement with other guests. we'll figure out why we have you

on painter. we want to know is that 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, 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 sco. okay. 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 mom said it's going to happen. they don't bluff. ok, keep going, peter finish out there. he said that i'm saying that that the west has created a, a situation where nato expanded to rushes doorstep. and i did certainly didn't it 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. i hope that's where we stand with. are we not 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 are i, we're gonna go, we're going 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 are watching us here, darky, see you next time remember across ah ah, ah

ah ah. in the year of 1954, the united states of america engaged in warfare against the people of vietnam. the white house supported the corrupt puppet government of southern vietnam. in 1965 americans began their invasion following the aim to defeat the forces of vietnamese patriots. the pentagon was confident that the victory would be on the american side

due to its military superiority. however, the vietnamese turned this war into a total hell for the occupants. unable to cope with guerrillas, the american army started blanket bombing alongside using chemical weapons and napalm which burnt all alive. the village of my lay, where in 1969 american soldiers killed 504 civilians, including 210 children, became a tragic symbol of this war. all in all, during the whole period of this conflict, the usa dropped on vietnam more than $6000000.00 tons of bombs, which is 2 and a half times as much as on germany during the 2nd world war. in 1973, the american army under the pressure of the rebels, withdrew from vietnam. and only 2 years later did the puppet regime in saigon fall

. however, the vietnamese paid a high price for their freedom. more than 1000000 vietnamese people became the victims of american aggressors. blue black is the matter. and what does it cost to bill the matter? while the member, we define term now as companies try to state their claim and to find this new frontier. it encompasses using the web to meld the manufacturing and work and overlap with many aspects of facebook parent company, meadows vision right now, it is a complete mess of virtual world and a peas, alternate, and all method realities and gaming concepts. i'm christy i and you're watching the cost of everything we're today will be taking a closer look at the metaphors and breaking down the players and the cost to develop.