why 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, to preserve the great power piece with russia and china. and the way to do that, or 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 biden registration 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 war ukraine is a very 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 can magic 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 and sides or i guess not, not so much for seen it, but little mention downsize the us involvement the 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, you know, 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 with 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 russia in china. and in fact, i have heard the number of russian very respected russian military analyst, 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. 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 for a large extent. i mean the answer we're left or what the previously i. so we're left here and here in america now become a pro or left only courting a potential nuclear war, world war with the russian federation. and it is, you know, things have kind of changed 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 and this up on, you mentioned that you describe 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 the american security and military establishment? well, i think there's a huge disconnect to this question. there's a huge disconnect between the american people and our leaders. i mean, we have someone like sen, sentiment, minority leader, mr. connell, who has stated that the number one,

the most important issue is the 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 any 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 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 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 harris. 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 of your super power has a sphere of influence. whether we americans like to conceive that or not we, we always concede our own sphere of influence that be in the western hemisphere. but we rarely a corridor, a sphere of influence to russia and china. but it's,

it's a simply a fact that rush to china also a joyce has been lawrence in the u. s. it's u. s. madeline and military intervention. it would include arm shipments to countries with russia and china service services, 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 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 see about president putin in his behavior, in the course of this worries that he's a profoundly rational actor. 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 the american needs to have more strategically 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

a boy 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 a legitimate security concern as if we're ever to, to end this call, ongoing conflict with the rush ration. now, you mentioned the president, putin 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 that, you know, private citizen, but he's not a private citizen 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 gaps, 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 calling to stay 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 he say, he still checked out cognitively. it appears to be someone else. and so we intellect, 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 the 25th amendment. i clearly, we need we need a more rational actor here, the u. s. 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 the door in ukraine. and specifically, not avoiding the orange gray. the 1st place when, when all of russia present was asking for a essentially was

a written guarantee from the u. s. the nato, that ukraine would never join data in the support for the meats to the courts, which up, up until i think the february 22nd of last year, president clinton stated, 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 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, the ukraine faces it is a ceasefire. in which a rush it recognizes roughened annexation of a 5 different a prior ukrainian of loss. well yes, mr. pine. it's a pretty blick citation on there on the front lines right now, but let's pause for a 2nd. we're building back to this conversation in just a few moments. second. ah,

ah, with ah, i really thought that we were going to die in fly. i crawled all the way to the right. and then i hid behind death. by years before i was even born and this has happened again and again and again and again again, because people continue to stick with the system i any other day. and only one of them came home. basically we want to make sure that certain things that are just

too dangerous or regular civilian should be in the hands of those people who are unsafe as hawkins take no way to start really hard. i'm rick sanchez, and i'm here to plead with you. whatever you do, you do not watch my new show. certainly why watch something that's so different. my little opinion that you won't get anywhere else work of it please, or do you have the state department, the c i a weapon, bakers, multi 1000000000 dollar corporations. choose your facts for you, go ahead. i change and whatever you do. don't watch my show, stay mainstream 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. mm thing . 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 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, by the administration? yeah, you know, there is a really interesting article. it 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 of, you know, to essentially a c 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 ukraine neutrality. i think that they continue to pursue this. you know, this unfortunate dream of rain. 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 pretty similar to your 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 a 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 tell a terrorist 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, 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 preacher article, or in that, you know, we're used to fighting total wars 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 trying to counter us. so the soviet occupation both 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 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 you, craig, 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 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 i, 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 were to next, all of you created tomorrow, it wouldn't affect you. s or nato national. and, you know, security, in my opinion, at this point, i don't want our viewers to make an impression that rush actually was. do you know a few cream 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 they,

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, 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 of 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 sea 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, 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 and 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 the next you crate it, 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 dog austria 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 which russia proved its commitment to peace by withdrawing

from 3 great, you know, boston in oregon, ukraine. and then us responded by escalating and telling those liskey not to something go she anymore. i would like to ask you about the, how you see the desired outcome of the crusade that the bite and 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 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 think the bottom line is that the bias racial would like to, 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 and 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. in that one, i believe entirely wanted this warrant. and it said what we see through the bible restoration is, is a desire to, to essentially use ukranian troops and civilians. 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 a 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 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 refused 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 usa percent. and 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 set of continue our discussion on the religious nature of this 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 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 nest san 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 gemini, is, has been a really fail and disastrous policy. you know, that's, that's kind of a foreign 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. 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 this talk to a guy cooper, which would ensure the security and peace of europe for decades. prep 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 the 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 their 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 over typically with florida offer offer 20 percent of you created territory that essentially got rushes already annex as part of the russian federation to try 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 is, with the bind distresses 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 have us occasion a preemptive nuclear strike against russia doesn't we're going to happen by this last year. i did present, we're perhaps 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 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 gonna be a massive success on, on the russian military's part in a, you know, a concrete, a wide swath of you korean 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 been defeated and has been defeated. and 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. 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, and we'll define ah ah, well mister barton goes to the care of the west. president's unannounced trip can be interpreted in a number of ways, is one of them an active desperation to keep washington's coalition of the willing together just before the anticipated russian offensive. we will soon find out

in the 1950s, the us used former nancy's against the soviet union in the 21st century. they engineered kuta, the fish, the former soviet republic, into on confrontation with moscow. will certainly if the united states and the u. k . and the rest of the western world had not engaged in conflict with the ukraine and with the soviet union and its successor of the russian federation. we would not have the horrible situation we have today. i think that if the american stopped, we would be at peace and the role would be a lot better place as the economy the world will function considerably better than is doing now.

with for marjorie selman douglas high school. welcome much wildlife activists, emma gonzales. a great guys are more than students, you become active and they're angry and they're doing something about it. this is a real revolution ah.