now, i know that in addition to your military career and analysis, you are also an avid historian. you read a lot of history books and that passion of yours began at the tender age of 11. if i'm not mistaken. and the conclusion that you derive from all of that is the most wars that the united states has bought or has supported made it less secure. do you think the war in ukraine is going to be the exception? no, no, not at all. in fact, it may be one of the greatest examples of making us less secure. i mean, us national security interests, obviously, 1st and foremost is to preserve the great power peace with russia and china. and the way to do that forest is through pursuing a diplomatic, negotiate compromise agreements much as much as russia is proposed. i might, i might know and, and not to pursue, you know, these escal ever escalating proxy wars,

such as the biter ministration is currently pursuing against russia and ukraine. national security interest, just like beauty are in the eyes of the beholders. and i've heard many russian analysts suggest that for the americans to warn you, korean is various we deal. you mentioned the proxy war and it's actually a fairly well developed military doctrine that sees a war on the foreign land as a, as an acceptable. and in fact, you know, genius could change or genius alternative for the kinetic, for the actual kinetic conflict in which the united states would have to lose money and soldiers. so why would they even abandon this? we deal when they can counter the nuclear adversary through funding war in ukraine and also sending a powerful message to another adversary. i'm talking about china here and well, i think there's a lot of percent debt and sides or i guess not a not so much

a proceed it, but little mention downsize the us involvement of the warranty grade. and one of the biggest ones, of course, is the unilateral disarmament credential assortment of us military us military has been sending vast amounts of weapons systems, precision guided munitions in both rocket launch systems to ukraine. and these are weapons that we would need in order to fight and to fight a fight, a war with great power such as china, for example, let alone win such a war. so, but more importantly, i think the greatest threat that us moment is, is accomplishing is that it's increasing the chances of a cyber or nuclear exchange with the russian federation. and that's, that's where we don't want to fight because it's a war that could result in massive destruction on both sides. now, this is actually a very interesting observation of yours,

that the united states itself is left without more than weaponry. and maybe that's due to the call calculation, that it would not have to face the battle with either russia in china. and in fact, i've heard the number of russian, the very respected russian military analysts suggested one of the reasons why the united states allows itself to behave in such a way. in relation to both of these countries is the loss of fear and the loss of this basic life assuring, filling on this planet because fear, fear actually allows us to, you know, see the danger and tried to preventive. do you see any truth to that that the united states has become fearless? yes, absolutely. and that's one of the main problems i think with the u. s. foreign policy and national security policies that we no longer have the fear of nuclear war. to large extent, i mean the answer were left or what the previously, i think were left here in america,

has now become the pro war left only courting of potential nuclear war, world war with the russian federation. and it is, you know, things that kind of change like conservative such as myself or not. i wouldn't say anti war, but we're very averse to these massive risks such as, we're undertaken with no potential world war with russia completely unnecessary. there is no u. s. strategic national security interest in you created all i would say there was no interest us interest in ukraine, or if it's a very vital interest for the russian federation that ukraine be restored to a neutral buffer. state separated it from, from nato countries. now and this up on, you mentioned that you described yourself as a, as a conservative. and i wonder if there has indeed been a change of paradigm in the american strategic and security. thinking from seeing a war and sort of and means of geopolitics. the continuation of agile policies by

other means. but something that you do at the last resort to we're seeing war as simply a way of doing business in this day and age. has the war become more acceptable to them? american security and military establishment? well, i think there's a huge disconnect to the question. there's a huge disconnect between the american people and our leaders. i mean, we have someone like sen, sentiment, minority leader, mitchell connell, who has stated that the number one most important issue is a support ukraine militarily. and that's a huge disconnect. no one, no one america in america really feels that way or very few percentage wise. and we have much more important concerns. domestic concerns, obviously the, from china, which has been highlighted by the chinese airship incursions, which we've recently shot down. so a lot of greenish, more important issues then you create and you create as a country country, half

a world away from united states. whereas a neighbor is a neighbor of russia. and so we need to lead to support in immediate steel with russia and ukraine. cease fire arms disagreement on the current lines of control, and then we need to include neutrality for you. great, as well as now you've written before that during the entire cold war, america was led by a foreign policy release from trauma to bush, who understood the inherent limits and constraints of the years power. but for the last couple of decades, with the only exception of trump, it's been led by people who believe that the united states not only can but perhaps, should interfere a very vividly very of noxious li, sometimes in both rushes and china's harris. is there any thing that moscow and beijing can do to disabuse these people off of that very

offensive and very dangerous notion? well, that's a really good question. i don't really know the answer because you know each, each, your super power has a sphere of influence. whether we americans like to can see that or not we, we always concede our own sphere of influence that be in the western hemisphere. but we rarely a sphere of influence to russia in china. but it's, it's a simply a fact that rush to china also and joyce has been going in the u. s. it's u. s. mentally. and military intervention. it would include arm shipments to countries within russia. and china survey service with loans that are causing unnecessary conflicts in increased risk. so world war 3 of in terms of how chinese and russia leaders can, can try to change our foreign policy. and i mean, that's an answer. i'm afraid i don't have an answer to right question. at least,

try to help us understand the psychology of the us decision makers because i'm sure in the military intelligence community knows that at least russia has the kinds of weapons that can inflict enormous damage to the united states. that you guys at this point of time have no defense against. and despite all these portrayal of president putin as a, you know, as a psychopath, is, is, it's a frantic as an irrational person. is a calculation that he will be, you know, say, nor, and wiser than that he will be, in fact more responsible and not to start the nuclear war, even if he's pushed to the limit. the most surprising thing that i say about president putin and his behavior, the course of this war is that he's profoundly rational after he's shown amazing restraint in the face of massive western provocations. that doesn't mean i agree with russia's invasion, be great, absolutely don't. but we need to see,

i wrote an article recently in the national interest in which i stated that america needs to have more strategic plan for russia. if we were to put ourselves in russia shoes and texas were to become independent right. allied with russia and china, we would invade bomb and internets, all texas, and call it a defensive war. and much the same way in a rush to see this as i understand it. as a pre preemptive or rather, a preventative war to prevent ukraine from a boy from a faculty member to a full member of nato. and i think that's, that's absolutely in russia's, you know, legitimate national interest to do. and we have to recognize russia as legitimate security concern as if we are ever to, to end, as you know, as scott, ongoing conflict with the, the russian federation. now, you mentioned our present put in being a rational decision maker. and i want to ask you about president biden, and i would never dare to ask such a question about the private citizen,

but he is not a private citizen. he is the president of the united states entrusted with some of the most destructive powers in the world. and yet me hear him, you know, making statements that he has san perished in the rockland, the whole world knows that he died from cancer and many other not just gaps, but the statement that clearly demonstrate how compromise his cognitive ability is, how compromise his memory is how do you feel as an american, as a person who was, who serve the american army? how do you feel about that person in such cognitive faith, making decisions about global one piece? you know, it's extremely alarming. we don't really know who lisa lisa, united states for america. it's, you know, sometimes we think it's fine, but as you say, he still checked out cognitively. it appears to be someone else, and so we didn't elect, you know, we like to joe biden to be

a president. and yet he lacks the ability to serve. so i've been calling for his recitation, or is a removal from office by impeachment, or other means 25th amendment. i clearly we need, we need a more rational actory or the u. s. i mean, i would argue that a bind as much work in a rational actor based on his decision in his actions in the course of the door in ukraine, and specifically not avoiding the war you created the 1st place when, when all of the russian president was asking for essentially was a written guarantee from the u. s. the nato, that ukraine would never join data in their support for the needs to of courts. which up until i think the february 22nd of last year president couldn't state it, should be the basis for a peaceful coexistence between russian ukraine. and that was a, that was an arrangement far more advantageous to ukraine. if you know, the don boss region would have been fully restored to ukrainian control, albeit with substantial self relent and autonomy. and now worst of the best case

that you create faces that is a ceasefire in which a rush it recognizes russian annexation of a 5 different a prior ukrainian of loss. well yes, mr. pine. it's a pretty bleak situation on there on the front lines right now, but let's pause for a 2nd here. we'll be back to this conversation in just a few moments. second, ah, are i rick sanchez? and i'm here to plead with you. whatever you do, you do not watch my new show. seriously. why watch something that's so different. my list of opinions that you won't get anywhere else, work of it please, or do you have the state department to see a weapon makers,

multi 1000000000 dollar corporations, choose your fax for you. go ahead. i 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 things what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms. race is often very dramatic, that development only personally and getting to disease. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical. i'm time to sit down and talk with

. mm. welcome back to worlds apart with david pine, a former us army combat arms officer and military affairs commentator. mr. pine, before the break, we touched upon prison biden's cognitive capacity and you know, my own country. i was born in the winning years of the soviet union. it has had its own experience with senile leaders. and one thing that it show that these to us is that when you have such an elderly leader, usually what happens is a lot of, you know, behind the scenes clans and various interest groups fighting with each other for influence. do you see any signs of that within washington or within the, by the administration?

yeah, you know, there is a really interesting article came out in newsweek recently. i think it's quite credible in which it stated reveal that the director of the ca, travel to ukraine to you know, convey an offer for, you know, to essentially see for offer for both russian ukraine in which of us would recognize russians. territorial annexations of ukraine exchange for peace. and that is, you know, that's exactly what needs to happen. but i think the missing piece is i don't, i don't believe the bible ministration was willing to agree to ukraine neutrality. i think that they continue to pursue this. you know, this unfortunate dream of great no membership, which is been really this, almost the so cause of this, you know, this entire conflict between russia and ukraine and in through the call with the collective west in general. you know, from my vantage point here,

the years policy on ukraine or via russia is it's pretty similar to a present biden's. well awareness or the stability of fire, his cognitive powers. because one day they say one thing and the next they say the other. and you have written yourself that the united states has also admitted to helping ukraine target them kill dozens of russian generals. they are supplying rocket launchers to enable them to destroy targets on the russian territory, including the crimea. and on the top of that, we've just heard the same or her show pulitzer prize winner report on the american intelligence services authorizing a couple of acts of industrial tel terrorism by blowing up the north stream pipelines. i wonder if that is, you know, typical american conduct, or is it an overkill even by the, by the pretty lose american standards. i mean,

do you see any changing, any shifting of the norms here? well, i think this is were almost in unprecedented territory because us, of course, our way of warfare is, is much like world war 2 and much like russia during the great preacher article or in that, you know, we're used to finding total wars, bombing cities, civilian infrastructure, ok, and of course, lately we've engaged or limited wars, but this is a really in a war. i mean, this isn't just afghanistan. we're, you know, we're trying to counter us. so the soviet occupation both gas down, this is, this is a war of the heart of europe. and it's a war, you know, it, which, which russia uses existential. and so these type of actions, all the actions that you just mentioned, are really irrational in an absolute opposition. us national security interest and they are creating a very dangerous and unstable world in europe. that could easily spiral out of

control. i mean, a president who stated that there's absolutely nothing that he's not willing to do to win the war and ukraine. so i mean, there's only, please don't forget to do that by says very good. he's the commander in chief and any program or any person in his position would have to swear to the same. yes. and so he's willing to escalate all the way to the tactical level if necessary to win. i don't think. i think he understands. that's likely not necessary, but you know, i just, i just don't see it. this man is to me that the bible restoration is acting this way when we have no national interest in ukraine. i mean, if russia working next, all of you created tomorrow, it wouldn't affect you. s or nato national security. in my opinion, at this point, i don't want our viewers to make an impression that rush actually was. do you know, got a few cream because, i mean, it's a huge territory in russia doesn't have the resources to support all of that. i

think, at least as far as i'm concern they, the primary goal of the russian military operation is security. a strategic security and for anyone who is ever cited military history it's, it's not hard to understand what's hard to understand is why the united states would push so vehemently against pre be understandable, requested by russia. i mean, any great power, as you said, would that would ask for nothing less. and i've heard you suggesting that perhaps one of the potential answers to that is that for white and the, the fighting of russian ukraine has become a sort of religious dogma. what do you mean by that? well, what i mean by that is that there is a painful fact. you know, the c ukrainian war propaganda saying that, you know, trinity demonize, russia, you know, on fox news,

i hear the russian army referred to as an army of terrorists. i mean, it's just, it's not true. there's no, there's no facts to back that up. thus far, russia has refrained from direct attacks against civilians. no, of course. so you radiance. great army forces have hidden schools and hospitals which is in contravention to achieve convention and you know causes them to be legitimate military targets. but of course, no rush is not after next you crate it, it's in fact, it would be 2 of the war, russia, terms to ukraine, which lets you quickly, you know, immediately accepted russia's offer to begin negotiating. so essentially that was that all russian troops would leave the dos street leave all of ukraine, but of course crimea, which is part of russian the dom bus region in exchange for peace in raleigh. and

they actually came to a tentative agreement, march 31st assemble in which russia proved its commitment to peace by withdrawing from 3 or, you know, boston in oregon, ukraine. and then us responded by escalating and telling those lisky not to accept negotiations anymore. i would like to ask you about the, how you see the desired outcome of the crusade that the biden administration is waiting. what is the ultimate goal here to punish russia and if so, what does it mean? does it mean, you know, teaching right as russia lesson converting, rushing america's image, or perhaps a raising russia of the map? and if that's the case, i mean, in practical terms, what do they actually want to achieve? you know, i mean, there's been so many different statements made. ultimately i said the bottom line is the bottom, this ration would like to, to restore the the status quo ante, which is, which would be to,

for russian troops to withdraw to their free for february 24th position when they were offered in geneva during the last sunday by putting them between put an invite and they didn't take that offer. yeah, i mean it's completely illogical. irrational, why we didn't do that? essentially, it was really a matter of pride. it by the, by administration refused to close the open door policy for nato. that any nation in the world can, can join date on it. it's, it's really ridiculous. you know, we could have had a policy that allowed for other european countries other, other than the former soviet union to join. but they closed the door for a former soviet republic outside of the baltics. in that one, i believe entirely wanted this warrant. and it said we see through the biden restoration is, is a desire to, to essentially use ukrainian troops and civilians. is cannon fodder. i mean to, to, we can russian militarily and mr. pine. i think this is actually

a very important point because it's one thing when you have pride but you know, sending and weapons and weapon, isaac ukraine, and essentially a battering ram against russia is, you know, it is a thing of a different don't else magnitude, you know, russia could, you know, i think, compromise around that appearances. but when it comes to, you know, you know, turning a neighboring country into a military battle ground against us. that's quite a different matter. yeah. it's something you know, it's something that russia refused tolerate, understandably, it's something us would never taller. in fact, i would argue that us pros, it would be even even more firm and decisive independent us interest. then, you know, who's doing what's in rushes best interest. unfortunately, biden is not doing what is in america's best interest. you just meant and put in. and i want to ask your question as sort of continue our discussion on the religious

nature of this bat and battle. because i've heard to, to make repeated references to the bible to and i think for him it's also an ontological battle on his rational comes down. essentially, to asserting that the united states once to replace god once to put itself into place. i've got to be the only judge of good and evil, what's permitted and what is not on this planet while also not subjecting itself to this kind of scrutiny. so essentially put in argument that is the washington tries to peddle supremacy under the guise of a mess. in isn't, do you agree with that? well, no, i wouldn't go that far, but i would say that the u. s. foreign policy is liberal vision, gemini, is as been a really failing disastrous policy. you know, that's, that's kind of the foreign policy we adopted in the wake of our cold war victory. and so i say victory. there was no, i mean, there was no, you know,

treaty saw there was no surrender ceremony. was it, it was a big create, a sense that we know they had rushes an enemy. and that was a huge, missed opportunity because we had the opportunity to incorporate russia and the security architecture of europe. perhaps even as, as a member of nato, or through the o. s. reps, laura? realistically, through the c e with security agreement from glad to start to cooper, which we ensure the security and peace of europe for decades, perhaps century to come. now, one last question i have time for, i want to quote the us general omar bradley, somebody who advocated against extending the korean war into china, back in the 1950s. and he said that the time that america was running on the momentum of a godly ancestry. and when that momentum runs down, god help america. i sometimes feel that the gods really needs to help us all at this point of time. looking at where things are going in their world,

do you still have any hope for, for sanity or for rational resolution to all of this? well i think i do. i do have some hope. i particularly with the vitamins reported offer, you know, to offer 20 percent of ukrainian territory. that essentially, that which russia has already an x as, as part of the russian federation to the united states own. i mean, they would have to ask you craniums after that, after all, don't they? well, i don't think so. i think that the problem with that, with the buy in distress, is they've essentially subcontracted usaa, rush of policy to you, crated in soleski, is not a rational actor. he sees me comments about his desire to have us engaged in a preemptive nuclear strike against russia. doesn't we're going to happen by this, the most it kind of present we ever had out. so it was no risk of new to the we're on on our end. but um yeah, that's so it, we just need to get a return to sanity,

you know, in a commitment to piece and i think i do think a ceasefire is the way to do that. what i see happening in the near future is, you know, rushes reportedly on the verge of a massive winter spread offensive involving press, an additional half 1000000 troops on you crazy, poorer. that's likely to occur in the next couple of weeks. and i think there's gonna be a massive success on, on the russian military's part in a, you know, a concrete, a wide swath of ukrainian territory, as well as captured, large number of ukrainian troops then will essentially brain western leaders to, to our senses will. and will be forced to admit that ukraine has just been defeated and has been defeated. and as result, we'll have to, you know, we'll have to come to negotiate table thrush. and i think it should be a negotiation between the u. s. in russia and the u. s can, can represent you crazed us interest without having ukraine at the table while. ah,

mister pine, i think we are very optimistic, but maybe that's the american spirit i. i hope that i definitely join your hopes for peace and for a rational way to the ceasefire. we have tended there, but i'm very, very grateful for your time today. think and thank you very much and thank you for watching hope to sir. again, unable to find ah ah, ah ah ah, ah,

ah, ah, lou needs to come to the russian state. little never the tires on the nose landscaping with rural van in the european union. the kremlin media machine, the state on to russia for date, and our t spoke neck. even our video agency, roughly all band to on youtube with

mm ah, the lives of this, our russian brother. but it is soon said to give his annual speech to the country to parliament, the anniversary of the operations to crane a yet another series of earthquake with 6 people reported killed in about 300 of them ended as a whole. previous massive quote in the region, half the past, 40000 about discussing increasing their presence in africa. so i think that the.