diplomatic, negotiate compromise agreements much as much as russia is proposed. i might, i might know and, and not to pursue, you know, these ethical ever escalating proxy wars, such as the beta restoration is currently pursuing against russian 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, the war ukraine is a very sweet 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 the, as an acceptable. and in fact, you know, genius could change or genius alternative for the kinetic, for the actual kinetic conflicts 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 for seen it, but little mention downsize the us involvement of warranty grade. and one of the biggest ones, of course, is the unilateral disarmament credential assortment of the us military. us military has been sending vast amounts of high tech 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 bite, 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 the moment is, is accomplishing is that it's increasing the chances of a cyber or nuclear exchange when the russian federation. and that's,

that's why 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 does 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 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 these 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

. national security policy is that we no longer have the fear of nuclear war. to large extent, i mean the anti war left or what the previously, i think were left here and here in america has now become the pro war left only hoarding of potential nuclear war. world war with the russian federation. and you know, things that kind of change so conservative such as myself are now i wouldn't say anti at work, but we're very averse to these massive risks such as we're undertaking with no potential world war with russia completely unnecessary. there is no u. s. strategic, national security interest and 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 a means of geopolitics. the continuation of agile policies by other means that 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 2nd question. there's a huge disconnect between the american people and our leaders. i mean, we have someone like sen, sentiment, minority leader, mitch mcconnell, who has stated that the number one, the most important issue is a support in ukraine material. 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, your ship incursions,

which we've recently shot down. so a lot of greenish, more important issues than you create and ukraine 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 an immediate peace deal with russia and ukraine. cease fire arms disagreement on the current lines of control and then, and that you need to include neutrality for you. great, as well as now in written before the, during the entire cold war, america was led by a foreign policy release from truman 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 affairs. is there any thing that moscow and beijing can do to disabuse these people 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 superpower 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 and 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. i would include arm shipments to countries within russia. and china service series went launched that are causing unnecessary conflicts. and increased risk to world war 3 of and 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 the 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, as it gets a frantic, as an irrational person, is a calculation that he will be, you know, say, 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 in his behavior the course of this war is that he's a profoundly rational actor. he's shown amazing restraint in the face of massive

western provocations. a doesn't mean i agree with russia's invasion, be great, i 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 for russia. if we were to put ourselves in russia shoes and texas were to become independent from the allied with russia and china, we would invade bomb and internets, all taxes in color, defensive war in much the same way. you know, russia sees this as i understand it as a, a pre, a pre emptive, or rather a preventative more to prevent ukraine from a boy from a to faculty member to a full member of they don't. i think us, that's absolutely in rushes, you know, legitimate national interest to do, and we have to recognize rushes, a legitimate security concern as if we're ever to, to, and so, you know, this cock, ongoing conflict with the russian ration. now,

you mentioned the president, putin being a rational decision maker, and i want to ask you about the president biden, and i would never dare to ask such a question about a private citizen, but he's 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 we hear him, you know, making statements that he is sasan perished in iraq when the whole world knows that he died from cancer and many other not just gas, but that statement that clearly demonstrate how compromised his cognitive ability is how compromised he's memory is how do you feel as an american, as a person who was, who served the american army? how do you feel about that person in such calling to state, 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's so 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 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 the 25th amendment. clearly we need, we need a more rational actor here or the last, i mean, i would argue that a bind is much more of an irrational actor based on his decisions in his actions in the course of the door and ukraine. in specifically, not avoiding the word you created the 1st place when, when all the russian president was asking for, essentially was a written guarantee from the u. s. the nato. ukraine would never joined a know in the support for the needs 2 courts, which up until i think the february 22nd of last year president 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. you know, the dom boss region would have been fully restored to ukrainian control, albeit with substantial self reliant and autonomy. and now course the, the best case that you create faces a ceasefire in which it recognizes russian annexation of a 5 different a prior ukrainian 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. we'll be back to this conversation in just a few moments. second, ah, a so what we've got to do is identify the threads that we have crazy foundation. let it be in arms. race is on often very dramatic development. only personally,

i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical. i'm time to sit down and talk with ah 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 there that have 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 bite and 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, for both russian ukraine in which of us would recognize russians. territorial annexations of ukraine exchange for peace and that 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 ukrainian neutrality . i think that they continue to pursue this. you know, this unfortunate dream of a 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 collected wes, in general, you know, from my vantage point here, the years policy on ukraine or via russia is pretty similar to a present. biden's are well aware in this 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 share pulitzer prize winner report on the american intelligence services authorizing a couple of acts of industrial tell terrorism by blowing up the north stream pipelines. i wonder if that is a, you know, typical american conduct, or is it an overkill even by the, by the p to lose american standards? i mean, do you see any changing, any shifting of the norms here? well, i think this is, we're almost in unprecedented territory because us, of course, our way of warfare is, is much like world war 2 english, like russia during the great future are or, you know, you know, we're used to fighting total war bombing cities, civilian infrastructure, and and of course, lately we've engaged more 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 about gas down. this is, this is a war on 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. the us national security interests. 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 always, he's only gave it to do that by advice is very good. he's the commander in chief and any program or any person in his position of 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 i,

you know, i just, i just don't see, it's this man is to be that the bible restriction is acting this way when we have no national interest in ukraine. i mean, if russia were to next, all of you created tomorrow, it wouldn't affect you. s or nato national security. in my opinion, at that point, i don't want our viewers to make an impression that that rash actually was. do you know, go off you cream because, i mean, it's a huge tire. true in russian doesn't have the resources to support all of that. i think, at least as far as i'm concerned they, the primary goal of the russian military operation is security. a strategic security and for anyone who has ever cited military history it's, it's not hard to understand what's hard to understand is why the united states would push, saw vehemently against pre be understandable, requested by russia. i mean, any great power, as you said, would,

would ask for nothing less. and i've heard you suggesting that perhaps one of the potential answers to that is that, for why don't the, the fighting of russia, ukraine has become a sort of religious dogma. what do you mean by that? well, what i mean by that is that there's a painful factor, a 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 just 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, are you. great is great. army forces have hidden schools and hospitals, which is in contravention to the convention and you know,

causes them to be legitimate military targets. but of course, no rush is not after the next you crate, it's in fact, it would be 2 of the war. russia, these terms are 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 over ukraine. but of course crimea, which is part of russian the dom bus region in exchange for peace and neutrality. and they actually came to a tentative agreement, march 31st, assemble in with russia. brutus commitment to peace by withdrawing from 3 or, you know, boston in oregon, ukraine. and then us responded by escalating and telling us lisky not to accept negotiations anymore. i would like to ask you about the, how you see the desired outcome of the sack, who said that the bite and administration is waging,

what is the ultimate goal here to punish russia and if so, what does it mean? does it mean, you know, teaching right at russia less than converting russia america's image, or perhaps 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 auntie, which is which would be 2 or 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 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. and that was, i believe, entirely going to this warrant. and it said we see for biting restoration is, is a desire to, to essentially use ukrainian troops and civilians as cannon fodder. i mean, to weaken russian militarily. i think 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 weaponized 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 appearances, but when it comes to, you know, you know, turning a neighboring country into an military battle ground against us. that's quite

a different matter. yeah. i still think, you know, it's something that russia refused tolerate, understandably, it's something you would never tolerate. in fact, i would argue that u. s. president would be even even more firm and decisive in defending usa percent . and then, you know, who's doing what's in russia's best centers, unfortunately, biden is not doing what is in america's best interest. you just mentioned, put in and i want to ask a question at set of continue our discussion on the religious nature of this battle . because i've heard put to make repeated references to the bible to and i think for him it's also an ontological battle. and his rationale comes down essentially, to asserting that the united states wants to replace. god wants 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, i'm not subjecting itself to this kind of scrutiny. so essentially put his argument

that is, that washington tries to peddle supremacy under the guise of a mess and isn't d agree with that? well, no, i wouldn't go that far. but i would say of the u. s. foreign policy of liberalism, germany is, has been a really fail and disastrous policy. you know, that's, that's kind of the part for policy. we adopted in the wake of our cold war victory or so, you know, i say victory. there was no, i mean there was no, you know, treaty signed, there was no surrender ceremony, wasn't. it was a victory in the sense that we no longer had rushes an enemy. and that was a huge missed opportunity because we have the opportunity to incorporate rusher and the 2nd security architecture of europe. or perhaps even as, as a member of nato, or through the us. perhaps more realistically, through the o. s. c, e with a security agreement from a lot of the stock to a vancouver, which would ensure the security and peace of europe for decades,

prep centuries to come. now, one last question i have time for, i want to quote the usa 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 the world, do you still have any hope for, for sanity or for rational resolution to all of this? well, i think i do awesome hope, particularly with florida, offer offer 20 percent of ukrainian territory that essentially got which russians already annex as part of the russian federation to better united states owns that. i mean that they would have to ask ukrainians 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 russell policy to you, crated in soleski, is not a rational actor. he sees me comments about his desire to help us engage in a preemptive nuclear strike against russia. doesn't we're going to happen by this. the most in attended president we ever had out, so it was no risk of new to the were on, on our end. but yeah, that's so it, we just need to get, 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 a 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 going to be a massive success on the, on the russian military's part. in a,

you know, a concrete, a wide swath of ukrainian territory as was 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 in as a 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 of us can, can represent you crazed us interest without having ukraine at the table. well, ah, mr. pine, i think you're 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 sci fi we have tended there, but i'm very, very grateful for your time today thinking, thank you very much. thank you for watching hope this year again. well, to find ah

ah, we lou needs to come to russian state little, never the tires on the nose landscaping divest with eclipse in the 55 we did. okay, so mine is gonna be the one else with we will ben in the european union,

the kremlin media machine. the state aren't russia today, and school ortiz spoke neck. even our video agency, roughly all band on youtube. with me, a still glad they ship off that get what is the best time to do on the i do about them. this is on the vocal. believe it was of it i'll said to this isn't a pretty complicated vig community with what i see school for car with net force backwards but sunk same. you're not that much scheme report to me cut order. the stuff is different. don't love it really on your snow krinski part of it,

which it is said to jeff. so i use the menu to when you even gone can be coma, loosened up and become lost. somebody empty, you community that the comma a lovely knob is all right. you supposed to start off the keys affected door only out of the july, the media with us. that's clear but, but then with the routing gospel movie, you're right. nobody see whether you to close is looking at them a some of this with my last credit will it was, it was the case was and then your big us over for you will that they should i see it. yes. to notice, to pick up and now we're still a depressed african littleton, colorado isn't when one of them, 11 us getting up with a

with i have to say that russia is forced to suspend our involvement in the new start treaty brush or suspend his participation in the thought nuclear weapons treaty with america, but it's not abandoning the effort that announcement today from vladimir putin in its annual address to the russian part of the west con, ignore the fact that it is impossible to defeat russia. that's another message from vladimir putin who says western partners are seeking to transform the local conflict, a new frame, its way global confrontation. meantime, the russian foreign ministry demands the american ambassador, show up and explain the sabotage of russia north stream pipeline. that's as a former us marine tell dorothy he received a letter from a.