[000:00:00;00] ah ah ah mm mm mm mm welcome to wells apart. war scores have long pointed out that having the united states as a security backer has to create

a potent moral hazard for its allies who often become geopolitically inflated and more resistant to your compromises. piece proposals, but when it comes to the war in the ukraine, is washington even interested in peace? well, to discuss that i'm now joined by david pine, a former us army combat arms officer and military affairs commentator, mr. pine. it's great to talk to thank you very much for a time. thank you so much for me and your show. now, i know that in addition to your military career and analysis, you're also an avid historian. you read a lot of history books on 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 that the most wars that the united states has bought or has supported, made it less secure. do you think the warranty crane 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 and negotiate compromise agreements much as much as russia is proposed . i might, i might know and, and not to pursue these ethical, ever escalating proxy wars, such as the bio restoration is currently pursuing against russian ukraine, national security interest just like beauty in the eyes of the beholders. and i've heard many russian analysts suggest that for the americans, the war ukraine is a 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 the, 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 the ukraine and also sending a powerful message to another adversary. i'm talking about china here. well i think there's a lot of percent debt and sides or i guess not a not so much ever seen it, but little mention downsize the us involvement of warranty grade. and one of the biggest ones, of course, is the unilateral disarmament. conventional assortment of the us military. the u. s . 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 involvement 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 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 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 and 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. and so we're left here and here in america has now become the pro war left only according to a 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 would say anti war, 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 and means of geopolitics. the continuation of agile policies. by all 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 2nd question. there's a huge disconnect between the american people and our leaders. i mean, we have someone like sen, sentiment, minority leader, mich to connell, who has stated that the number one most important issue is

a support in 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 very, very much more important issues than, 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 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 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 shoot, 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 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 spirit on stuff in the western hemisphere. but we rarely a sphere influence to russia and china. but it's, it's a simply

a fact that rush to china also and joyce has been lawrence 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 with loans that are causing unnecessary conflicts in 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 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 this 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, nor, and wiser than that he will be, in fact more responsible and not just start the nuclear war, even if he's pushed to the limit. the most surprising thing that i say about president and his behavior, of course, of this worries that he's profoundly rational after he's shown amazing restraint in the face of massive western provocations. a doesn't mean i agree with russians and vision ukraine. absolutely don't, but we need to see, i wrote an article recently in the national interest in which i stated the american needs to have more strategic empathy 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 in an ex all texas 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. rather a preventative more to prevent ukraine from

a boy from a to faculty member to a full member. they don't, i think us, that's absolutely in russia's, 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 you know, this cock, ongoing conflict with the russians ration. now. you mentioned our president, putin being an irrational decision maker, and i want to ask you about the president biden. and i would never dare to ask such a question about that, you know, 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 serve the american army? how do you feel about that person in such calling to say, 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 and it's 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 us. i mean, i would argue that a bind as much work in a rational actor based on his decisions in his actions in the course of door and ukraine. in specifically, not avoiding the word you created the 1st place when all the russian president was

asking for, essentially was a written guarantee from the u. s. a nato, that ukraine would never join data in their support for the needs to the courts. which up until i think 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 worst of the best case that you create faces a ceasefire in which a recognizes roughened annexation of a 5 different a prior ukrainian bloss. 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 been billed me back to this conversation in just a few moments 2nd.

ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah with

ah ah 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 president 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 this to us is that when you have such an elderly leader, usually what happens is a lot of it 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 biden administration? yeah, you know, there is a really interesting article that came out in newsweek recently. i think it's quite credible in which it stated revealed that the director of the ca, travel to ukraine to convey a, an offer of, you know, to essentially see where oper for both ration. ukraine in which of us would recognize russian 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 buying ministration was willing to agree to ukraine neutrality . i think that's they continue to pursue this, this unfortunate dream of ukraine natal membership, which has been really this, almost the sole cause of this. you know,

this entire conflict between russia and ukraine and in through the call or the collective west in general. you know, from my vantage point here in the us policy on ukraine over russia is pretty similar to prison. biden's, well awareness or the stability of his cognitive powers because one day they say one thing and the next day they say the other. and you have written yourself that the united states has also admitted to helping ukraine target and kill dozens of russian generals. they are supplying rocket launchers to enable them to destroy targets on the russian territory including crimea. and on the top of that, we have just heard the same or hershey pulitzer prize winner report on the american intelligence services authorizing a couple of acts of industrial, tow 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 pre k 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 the us, of course, our way of warfare is, is much like world war 2 and much like russia during the great future article or, you know, you know, we're used to finding total war, bombing cities, civilian infrastructure ok, 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, 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're creating a very dangerous and unstable world in europe. that could easily spiral out of control. i mean, president goodness 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 his very good. he's the commander in chief and any preference 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 be that the bible restriction 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 year is to make an impression that that rash actually was. do you know, go off your green because, i mean, it's a huge territory and russian doesn't have the resources to support all of that. i think, at least as far as i'm concerned, the, the primary goal of the russian military operation is security. a strategic security and for anyone who's 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, 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 factor, you know,

to see 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 are you gradients. great. army forces have hidden in schools and hospitals, which is in contradiction to the 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 lensky quickly, you know, immediately accepted russia's offer to begin negotiating. so essentially, that was that all russian troops would leave the dog boss, read,

leave all over 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 tenant agreement, march 31st assemble in which russia, brutus commitment to peace by withdrawing from 3 great, you know, boston in oregon, ukraine. and then us responded by escalating and telling those lisky not to except negotiations anymore. i would like to ask you about the, how you see the desired outcome of they said crusade that they, by the 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 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 bible ration would like to to restore the the status quo ante, which is which would be 2 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 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 joint that they closed the door for a former soviet republic outside of the baltics. and that was, i believe, entirely avoided this warrant. and it said we see for the bible restoration is, is a desire to,

to essentially use ukrainian troops and civilians as cannon fodder. i mean to weaken 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 weaponized in ukraine as a, 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 a military battle ground against us. that's quite a different matter. yeah. i so think, you know, it's something that russia refuse tolerate, understandably, it's something you would never tolerate. in fact, i would argue that u. s. president would be even even more for firm and decisive and defending us interest in goodness. then, you know, who's doing what's in russia's best centers. unfortunately bind is not doing what

is in america's best interest. you just mentioned, put in and i want to ask a question at sort 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 paddle supremacy under the guise of a nest san 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 of liberalism, germany is, has been a really failed disastrous policy. you know, that's,

that's kind of the part for policy. we adopted in the wake of our cold war victory . and so, you know, i say victory. there was no, i mean there was no, you know, treaty signed, there was no surrender ceremony. was it? it was a victory in a 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. pref sentries 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 then when that momentum runs down,

god help america. i sometimes feel that god's really needs to help us all at this point of time. looking at where things are going in there. well, do you still have any hope for, for sanity or for rational resolution to all of this? well, i think i do have some hope, particularly with florida, offer offer 20 percent of ukrainian territory that essentially got which rushes already annex as part of the russian federation to better united states. owns it. 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 australia is they've essentially subcontracted usaa russia policy to ukraine 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. finance

mostly attended president. we are perhaps out so it was no risk of new to the were on our end, but yeah, that's so it, we just need to get get a return to sanity, you know, and 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 border 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 well as captured large number of ukrainian troops. that 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 us can, can represent you crazed us interest without having ukraine at the table. well, ah, mr. piney, 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 to end there, but i'm very, very grateful for your time today thinking, thank you very much and thank you for watching hope to hear again, we'll define, ah, ah, with

mm. with i have to say if russia is forced to suspend our involvement in the new start treaty. but the country will not abandon the pact, the last surviving agreement on nuclear disarmament between russia and the latimer made the remarks during his annual address to the russian parliament today. also a new report from beijing liaison while it colds, the perils of us had gemini, i think a picture of the lands washington goes to achieve that. they should not mobile democracy and also ahead relations between russia and china. a rock