so other floors, well you can tell further into any of those stories by checking at ortiz, twitter feed, new updates, interviews, analysis, and plenty more. besides every few minutes there you will not be mm mm mm mm mm. welcome to worlds apart. worse coolers 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 resistance 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 is 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 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 keys with russia and china. and the way to do that for us 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, you know, these ethical, ever escalating proxy wars, such as the bio restoration 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, the word 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 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 the ukraine and also sending a powerful message to another adversary. i'm talking about china here. well i think there's a lot understand sides or i guess not a not so much a proceed, 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 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 sexual war. so, but more importantly,

i think the greatest threat that us a 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 a war 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 this basic life assuring, filling on this planet because fear, fear actually allows us to, you know,

see the danger and tried to prevent it. 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 nikki, the war to large extent. i mean, the answer we're left or what the previously on, so we're left here and you're in america now become a pro or left only courting a potential nuclear war. world war with the russian federation. and, and, 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 undertaking with no potential world war with russia completely unnecessary. and there is no u. s. strategic national security interest and you created all, i would say there is 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 mr. penny 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 a job, postings 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 question. there's a huge disconnect between the american people and our leaders. i mean, we have someone like sen, cinnamon, minority leader, mr. connell, who has stated that the number one 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. then you create new craters, the country country, half a world away from united states. whereas a neighbor is a neighbor of russia. and so we need to need to support an immediate peace deal with russia. 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, really 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 re sometimes in both rushes and china's affairs. is there any thing that moscow and beijing can do to disabuse these people of 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 enjoy service. been lawrence in the us, it's us,

madeline, and military intervention. it would include arm shipments to countries with russia and china service service meant loans that are causing unnecessary conflicts and increased risk to 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 to at least try and 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 per trail of president putin, as a, you know, as a psychopath, has, is, it's 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 see about president putin in 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. that doesn't mean i agree with the russians invasion ukraine. absolutely don't. but we need to see an article recently in the national interest in which i stated that the american needs to have more strategic kathy, 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. rather, a preventative more to prevent ukraine from going from a to faculty member to a full member of they don't, i think us, that's absolutely rushes, you know,

legitimate national interest to do. and we have to recognize rushes, a legitimate security concern, as if we're ever to the end, 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 that, you know, private citizen, but he's not a private citizen. he is a president of the united states entrusted with some of the most destructive powers in the world. and yet me hear him and 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 compromise his 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 cognitive 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 and 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. clearly we need, we need a more rational actor here or the last, 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 door and ukraine. and specifically, not avoiding the word 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 the courts,

which up until i think 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. you know, the dom 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, it is a ceasefire. in which a it recognizes russian 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. we'll be back to this conversation in just a few moments. second. ah, hi.

ah ah, just mm hm. mm. mm. welcome back to world to part with david pine, a former us army combat arms officer, 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 that of 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? an 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 traveled to ukraine to convey a, an offer of you know, to essentially see where oper for both russia and 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 binding ministration was willing to agree to ukraine neutrality . i think that's they continue to pursue this. you know, this unfortunate dream of praying, they don't membership, which is 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 or visit the russia is pretty similar to a 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 tell terrorism by blowing. i've been 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 and 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 and much like russia during the great preacher article or in the, you know, we're used to fighting total wars bombing cities. superstructure. 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 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. the us national security interest. and they're 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 you, craig, so i mean, there's only, please don't forget to do that by advice, is there and get it. he's the commander in chief and any progress 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 says managed to be that the bible restoration 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 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 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, 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 widen 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 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. great is great. army forces have hidden in schools and hospitals, which is in, in contravention to the convention. and you know, for causes them to be legitimate military targets. but of course,

no rush is not after next you crate it. in fact, it would be 2 of the war. russia, these terms are 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 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 tenant agreement, march 31st, assemble in with russia. brutus community piece by withdrawing from 3 and o 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 the crusade that they 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 russia, lesson, converting, rushing 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 think the bottom line is the bottom this ration would like to restore the the status quo ante, which is, which would be to, for russian troops to withdraw to their, 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 close the door for former soviet republic, south side of the baltics. and that, i believe entirely, avoided this warrant and said what we see through biden restoration is, is a desire to, to essentially use ukranian troops and civilians is cannon far. i mean, to, to weaken russian militarily. just a mr. pine. i think this is actually 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 that appearances, but when it comes to, you know, you know, turning a neighboring country into and military battle ground against us. that's quite

a different matter. yeah. i still think it's something that russia refused tolerate, understandably, it's something us would never taller. in fact, i would argue that us present would be even even more firm and decisive and depending us interest then, you know, who's doing what's in rushes best interest. unfortunately, buying is not doing what is in america's best interest. you just meant and put in and i want to ask a question. it's 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. and he's 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 pedal 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 of the u. s. foreign policy of liberalism, germany is, has been a really failing 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 security architecture of europe. or perhaps even as, as a member of nato, or through the o. s. for perhaps more realistically, through the o. s. c e, with a security agreement from a lot of the stock to a guy cooper, which would ensure the security and peace of europe for decades. prep centuries ago

. now, one last question i have time for, and i want to quote the usa general on my bradley, somebody who advocated against extending at the korean war in to 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 bites or to offer 20 percent of ukrainian territory. that essentially, that which russian is already annex as, as part of the russian federation to a owns it. i mean that 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 the buy in distress is they've essentially subcontracted usaa russell policy to you. trade in soleski is not a rational actor. he's, he's be comments about his desire to have us engaged in a preemptive nuclear strike against russia. that's never going to happen. finest mostly attended present. we're perhaps on so it was no risk of new to the we're 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 cease fire is the way to do that, what i see happening in the near future is a rush's quarterly 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, on the russian military's part in a, you know, a concrete,

a wide swath of ukrainian territory as well as capture 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 russian. i think it should be a negotiation between the u. s. a. russia and of us can, can represent you crazed us interest without having ukraine at the table while. ah, mr. pine, i think you are very optimistic, but maybe that's being eric and 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 thinking. thank you very much and thank you for watching hope to sir. again, i will to pardon. ah,

a and i a

ah ah yes ma'am. i have to say that russia is forced to suspend our involvement in the new start treaty. but the country you will not abandon the pack. the last surviving agreement on nuclear disarmament between russia and they made the remarks during his annual address to the russian parliament on tuesday or no died over the motives of the crime or it's perpetrators. that was russia's view about the new extreme pipeline that fell, died up a special session of the un security council. moscow is demanding an international .