[000:00:00;00] a ah ah, lisa canter, russian state will never be tied as on the nose landscape with will ban in the european union. the kremlin. yup. machine. the state on russia today and split our t spoke neck. even our video agency, roughly all band to on youtube

with me some time. i'm rick sanchez and i'm here to plead with you. whatever you do, you do not watch my new show. certainly, i watch something that's so different. my little opinion that you won't get anywhere else work of it. please do have the state department, the c i a weapons makers, multi 1000000 dollar corporations. choose your fax for you. go ahead by change and whatever you do. don't watch my show. stay main street because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is called direct impact, but again, you probably don't wanna watch it because it might just change. and dwayne,

think the with the hello and welcome to cross stock where all things are. consider 9 peter lavelle. the sabotage of the north stream pipelines is back in the headlines in a big way. american and german media hint that some so called pro ukraine group might have been behind the attack. little evidence was provided in the west starting to have 2nd thoughts about the cube regime in the cross talking ukraine. i'm joined by my guess, wilmer leon in washington. he is a political scientist author and radio talk show host in new york. we have jim

carbonella, he is a political analyst, and in jersey city we have sarah flounders. she is co director of the international action center. her recent book is sanctions a wrecking ball in a global economy or across type roles. and in fact, that means you can jump anytime you want, and i always appreciate, sarah, let me go to you 1st in jersey city a month after seymour hersh is blockbuster report. and i think all of us would agree he's probably the greatest living journalist as of our time, certainly of his generation. one month later on the same day, the americans and german media come out with an alternative theory to the case. ok . i mean, i'm sure that's not a coincidence. ok. what do you, what do you draw from all of this? i mean, i said this whole conflict from the beginning as a propaganda war, but this one is, this is a really interesting wrinkle. go ahead, sarah. well, it's absolutely outrageously, almost ridiculous, and funny,

a very strange excuse. but it's also the role that ukraine plays as a proxy of the u. s. and as a complete on, and that means in anything they're supposed to take the fall. and it's like saying my dog did it, you know when you have a pitfall on a leash and it's doing the barking and so on. i didn't do it now. everyone knows, at this point, not only based on seymour hersh, his article, which was extremely well researched in depth and, and really interviews and new information from the very beginning. the north stream explosion was contested in the u. s. in europe, throughout and in germany. of course, by russia, seymour hersh, his article was important because it was really substances by a credible researcher that very clearly show the u. s. role. and. and before that,

even the u. s. had made clear that they would do this by and made it clear that we have our ways and we will stop the noise stream. so they stopped it and now they are putting up an excuse which isn't even intended to be incredible. it's just a way for us in germany to continue to follow germany knows very well who has absolute wrecked their economy. yeah, well mary, let me go to you in washington. i mean, it's really quite interesting. we look at the timeline potential of jeremy schultz . i refer to them is sergeant schultz on this program. he goes to washington dc for a day to meet the vital for about an hour. there's no press approach whatsoever. it's a very small delegation, gets back on his plane and then we have these reports coming out here. what in the world do you think we said in the oval office? you know, she's saying, i know you guys did it. i need a way out because german public opinion is moving against you against the american administration, but what it's doing it to its economy. i mean, i mean,

he's not the brightest politician, but he can see he can read the tea leaves, go ahead in washington. well, i think what president biden told him was, here are your marching orders, and your narrative will continue to be, i know nothing. i know nothing. i know nothing. important to remember that. initially the united states came out and said, well, obviously russia blew up their own pipeline than sweden came out and said, oh, we've done an investigation. but we can't release the information because of national security. and now seymour hersh comes out with his incredibly researched articles and says, i think there's a different culprit here. and now we're, we're fed this line of it's some pro ukrainian folks in a sailboat. that, that dove, you know,

to the bottom of the baltic sea carrying pounds and pounds of c for explosive. i guess the answer is when you have absolutely 0 credibility, and you have absolutely nothing you can say that is plausible. then you'll just say anything and expect because you're the united states that people are going to fall in line and agree with what you say and believe what you or they won't believe it, but at least they won't contest it. yeah, in our chem, in sweden and denmark, germany, they have conducted their own investigations. so if the, if they could prove the russians that they would have already told us, but they can't prove it, that's why they haven't released their investigation. it makes perfect logical sense. jim and new york. well, of course then given up on the russians, did it theory that was ridiculous from beginning to begin with. and after the scene, larry details and sarah says, very detailed explanation of exactly how this was done. and by whom now they given

up on that and they got to kind of so what they've done is, and then they went for, but, you know, they all said, every one of these governments had to be a state actor. this couldn't have been done by anybody, wasn't supported by the state actor. now, all sudden, after and wilma says that they call she'll send for a meeting and say the, here's the story and you're going with it. you know, it's the some yacht with the skipper and marianne, you know, and they went out with a 1000 pounds of, of c foreign dove to the bottom of the ocean. and it's, it's, it's really silly and see morris's reaction yesterday. we heard it was classic and that camping this stupid. but as wilma says, really, it's not about believing. there's 2 things that are going on here that are, you know, 1st of all, they have created now using the new york times in the washington post. now who hovered this story the times just mentioned seymour hersh asking to dismiss him. washington post, i think you mentioned that at all. so they're trying to what you're trying to do is create actually search engine optimist optimization. so when people look up now the story of the north stream sabotage,

these things are going to come up 1st and we have time to washing post and all the mainstream media that are going to repeat them. and to this is very interesting, wrinkling here where they're saying, you know, yeah, it was a few training group and we don't think zalinski had anything to do with it. but the economies have done some of some things that really might, might undermine european support from them. you know, if i was the under boss and i was listening to the couple of the, the to, to copy say, oh, you know, this guy has done a little bit off the reservation on his work with us. i'm starting to be a little bit worried about whether i was going to be cut out. and i think the united states has laid the groundwork for that in a bizarre way with this. i think that's a very good point sarah. i was in the new york times, as mentioned here, i think that it says everything that we need to know about today's media. seymour hersh used to work for the new york times. he was the greatest journalist, you know, in our lifetime, and they disavow his even existence. essentially. it is really amazing how they've

turned their back on journalism and just become an og refers for power. sarah. well, it's a completely complicit media that will carry any story handed to them by the administration at this point, and it's not even intended to be credible the new york times didn't even cover has just said seymour hirsch's, article when it came out, was a block buster you could see it everywhere and yet not in the corporate media, it was a non of dense. and seymour hersh has become a non person, not referred to, not mention. and these totally ridiculous stories are given front page of coverage and front page coverage means that the marching orders for every other media is to make this a prime time story. it's, it's ridiculous and it's criminal. it's really a criminal violation of any standard, even of journalism,

and it's why corporate journalism has less and less hold for so many people, they look everywhere else for news, but not the times and the post it wilmer. i don't know how much the u. s. and nato collectively spends on intelligence and covert operations and all, it's a huge amount of money by any standard, but they can't figure out who blew up the pipeline. i just have a hard time. you know, they shouldn't be funded. i mean, if you can't figure this out, ok, it's happened in a bulk and so, you know, they have satellites of all the, all the ships paying it. you know, as i go through the water and you still can tell us who did it. i mean that, you know, it's not only is their story not plausible, is that they, they, they look like they themselves look incompetent. they are all sergeant schultz at this point, go ahead in washington. well, i think also, in spite of all the intelligence apparatus is that they have, they probably need to call china because with the spy balloons,

china were able to tell them exactly who it was they did. but, but it's not a matter. it's, it's not a matter of credibility, it's, it's, it's not a matter of intelligence. it's a matter of narrative. it's a matter of objective and it's a matter of trying to justify or to trying to justify the what can't be justified. because you have to go back to the very premise of the conflict between ukraine and russia with the united states and nato being the motivating forces behind it. so if you start out with an irrational action that has an irrational premise, then all of your justification and rationale is irrational. yeah. how do you explain the in the unexplainable, how do you rationalize the irrational you?

one plus one will always equal 4 is far as they are concerned, no matter how many angles or how many different types of mathematics are calculus, you try to use. they will always tell you that one plus one equal for well, you know, it's really interesting jim is that seymour hersh has made it very, very clear that he's not done with his investigation here. so anyway, i a see my hers was given such a a gift here. so when he'll be able to do is sidebar, everything that german and it will, the official media saying, and he's going to be able to prove them wrong. i mean, the humiliation will only continue, but of course it will never be been in the mainstream 30 seconds before we go to the break. jim, go ahead. yeah, well you know, we're seymour hersh also said which is something she was oh, infrastructure companies of oil development in the world. know who did this. everybody knows who did this. you know, and this is the, you're not kidding anybody, is when we're says, this is not

a matter of being credible. it's a matter of demonstrating power almost to cohen a demonstration. we control the narrative watch. we can make you believe anything. then unfortunate as true for a lot of american now media consumers, not so much for the rest of the world. and that's the problem. well, the whole, the world, the world doesn't believe the official story. obviously i'm going to jump in here. we're going to go to a short break, and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on ukraine. stay with our team. ah ah ah, with by the middle of the 19th century,

practically the whole of india had been under the rule of the british empire. the colonial authorities had imposed that heavy death bringing the people into poverty and were exporting natural resources. and moreover, these authorities absolutely had no consideration for the provisions of the local population, treating them like 2nd class citizens. the british were showing signs of disrespect even to those who cooperated with them. the fact of ignoring the religious beliefs of the hindus led to the mutiny embassy boys, mercenary soldiers serving under the british crown. the rebellion began on the 10th of may 1857 in the garrison town of may river, north of india. in the form of a mutiny. the rebels quickly took over daily. the heroic resistance of the indian people lasted for one and a half years. however, the forces were not equal. the colonial authorities dealt with the rebels cruelly, the slaves, the boys were tied to the mouth of the cannon and were shot right through their

bodies for the amusement of the public. these type of execution was called the devil's when the obliteration of the mutiny resulted in the death of 800000 inhabitants of india. however, the british empire never broke the free spirit of the indians and their will for resistance. mm hm. mm. welcome back to cross talk. we're all things considered. i'm peter lavelle to remind you were discussing ukraine. ah, okay, let's go back to sarah and jersey city. the title of this program is ditching with a question mark care. and, you know, over the last news cycle, people i trust in the media consortium news dot com, people like that. you know, there's a lot of speculation here is the, is a, by the ministration. looking for an off ramp for it's totally failed policy and

dealing with, with ukraine because you've already mentioned, you know, it's, it's getting a little bit easier to throw zalinski under the bus. ok. because there's, from what we understand and maybe this is all manufactured, but there is a growing frustration within the administration that this hasn't worked out very well. and we have to turn our attention to china. that's what i keep hearing from a variety of sources here. but i mean it's putting in the official narrative is, are only heard from german media and the washington new york times is that, you know, they don't want divisions to grow between germany and ukraine. well, they already see what's going on here. so what, what do you think it really is mean when it comes into the larger picture of the conflict? well, 1st of all, the u. s. always needs a fall guy, and they treat their proxies really in a shoddy way. and they will drop them at a moment's notice. and also there's the u. s. quote, experts that will always say this is

a wrong war at the wrong time. so let's pivot from russia to china. that stuff went going on, but i do think that the biden administration is absolutely politically committed to this war and keeping it going. and the whole team is committed in that way. so they may drop zalinski or act like they're going to, but i think they're gonna try to keep this going in one way. it's been a success for the u. s. as a war. it's a total disaster for all of the people involved. but it broke the relations that tween germany and russia, and that was its intention between the you and russia not only on north stream on oil, on gas, but on the extensive trade, which was 10 times the size of their trade. the you trade with the u. s,

so they've managed to sanctions to break that and they want to keep that broken. they want to batter this down, even though it's a disaster for the entire e. you. and frankly, russia has in this war is moving forward and has been able to match them in every sense. so they're not expecting a successful outcome, but i think they're committed to keeping it going. it at this point, they're not negotiating on anything a substantial purpose. they are rubbing up against china. they are continuing on other fronts, but i don't think they've stopped this. yeah, but that was, that's a really interesting point because, you know, one of the problems with me go back to you in washington is and what is the definition of winning? what is the definition of losing victory and all this? i mean, the way i have looked at the conflict from the very beginning is security. now that everyone wants security, and that's the way to get to settle this. ok, but the west doesn't want to do that,

sarah. perfectly put it together. is it the u. s. is actually one on a strategic level. it's separated europe from its relationship with russia and maybe a, to some extent would to china. and what as we go along here. so, i mean, the, the deal with, with ukraine is that they have to find somehow to declare victory, which of course won't be victory, but that will be away for the conflict to be wound down. and that means sacrificing lensky, of course. go ahead and washington well, a number of things there that you've laid out. i think you started the question with how, what's the definition of wind and the definition of wind from the american perspective is shareholder value, lockheed martin has one. raytheon has one mcdonald douglas and boeing. they've won. i go back to the, our july of 2020,

i guess. and they asked the ceo of boeing who boeing preferred to win the election . donald trump or a joe by he said, doesn't matter to us. yeah. because we're gonna get, we're gonna get paid anyway. yeah. so. so the definition of wind for the united states, i think at the end of the day is shareholder value in terms of the relationship between russia and the e. u. i think it's still a little too early to, to call that game because one of the things that very few people discuss in this context is russia has a history that is centuries long. china has a history that is centuries long. the united states still hasn't reached 600 years, so they see a different timeline in horizon than we do. and that's why i believed their tactics . their strategies are different than ours. the united russia is fighting in artillery war and winning in artillery war,

because that's the kind of battle that russia is designed to fight, which is why they don't go around the world provoking and starting fights if you want to mess with russia, you got to come to russia and china is the same way. china isn't going around the world. well, many coups and starting fights. china is going to lay back and say, if you want to come to us, come to us. but when you do, you're gonna have to fight us on our terms. they have a different history that is centuries on the united states world view is incredibly myopic. it is incredibly short lived and short termed and, and so i think it's still a little too early to call the game on the relationship between the united states and the u, because more winters are going to come. it is going to continue to be cold during those winters and the people in the e you are gonna have to heat their homes. yeah, well it's,

it's very interesting. it's been so many to go to gym and in new york. so many people have talked about will europe make it through the winter? well, it's not this winter. that's the problem. it's the one coming up. ok, that's going to be a big problem. but i like wilmer is appointed or is it maybe it is too early to call? but i mean, if you look how the e u now is subservient to nato, nato is going to fight tooth and nail to continue its existence. okay, that's why we have the problem in ukraine to justify nato's existence, so that that's a hard one to call. but at the, at the same time, it rushes found alternatives. the sanctions have failed. okay. and considering the mens agreements how the germans and the french disregarded them, dis, honestly, the russians will say you people are not worth negotiating with. and i think they will turn their back. i living here think that's a very good idea. the, the financial system in the west is very, very toxic. russia got burned in 2008. they don't want to get back into the

sanctions. have failed. the world moves on, jim. yeah, the americans didn't think they would force russia as or for some faction, russia to overthrow the government because it's tougher, so much ruble would become rubble, etc. that didn't happen. and even though what you have now is, oh, there are new countries coming in to nato, and you and nato are more, more united to never blah, blah, blah. the problem is, this is a, this is a battle going on in ukraine that ukraine is going to lose. ok. my position is always to that. what you've got to look at here is who that this is not going to be some little negotiation that's going to, that's what the americans are looking for. now. they're looking for an off rep, although they're saying, oh, we got to give an offer, have to prove. but it's not true. needs are of, it's the american should ignore for it. because they know they're facing a situation where the russians, russian army may route to europe, ukrainian army. and they'll be faced with the position of

a terrible defeat, crushing defeat or using nuclear weapons to state it off. and they don't want to be in a position. so they're going to put down these now they can use feelers for negotiations and deals that are really essentially mixed free. but ms. 3, i'm going to work because math one and meant to were negotiated and they didn't work. and after the battle started, there were negotiations that the u. k. in the u. s. stopped in their tracks. so at the end of this, this, the end of this is going to come when the battle field situation results. but either by the defeat, something that can't really be hidden, the defeat of one side or another, either russia is going to be pushed back to which february 2022 lines, which is very unlikely. well, the ukranian army is going to collapse. the russians are gonna hold the for o boss plus plus crimea, and insist on a peace tree. a fit, assign declaration by the whatever ukrainian government is left, that those were

o blast, or russian and nato will never be in a cradle. never be a member. and i will end gym, i would also add b, demilitarized, no nato in structure whatsoever. or let me go to let me go to sarah. it's going back to the pipelines with sarah, what do you think? i mean, blowing up these pipelines was inactive terrorism, international terrorism, the same, i think the same people could use a false flag with chemical, biological, new killer, all swag operation and ukraine. i don't, i wouldn't put in pass them, sarah. well, us wars are always and have always been based on false flying operations, and that's the role of complicit media. to scream it from every direction to repeat it again and again. and this is true whether we're talking, iraq, afghanistan, syria, and all the way back to the main in the war on cuba and the philippines. and so on

. this way to us fights it's wars using false flying operations and complicit media . so will they attempt that again? yes. will it have a different result than in the past? i don't think so. i don't think so. the war, the war is going to continue on one level or another, but they're not succeeding. that's what's important to. ready understand that the sanctions failed. they said from the day one, this will be over and done in just a matter of weeks. russia will collapse, didn't happen. here. we are more than a year later. so their projections are totally false and the whole world knows this. the dollar has lost all of its standing and is now almost a fiction waiting for complete collapse. so there's big problems facing the u. s, which they are ignoring that have little to do with whether there's negotiations or a false flag because they're so severe. and where on the verge i,

i do think of an economic collapse that will be more decisive than the discussions on the ukraine because the u. s. measures have succeeded. well, and it's very interesting though, the way i look at it here is because the interlocutors in the west or so, so untrustworthy, that russia will have a, unilaterally decide when the conflict is over and we'll get it terms go back to december 17th, 2021 that's how it could, and folks read it, it's black and white. it was sent to it was sent to washington. that's how it ends . that's all the time we have. i want to thank my guests in washington, new york, and in jersey city. and i want to thank our viewers for watching us here. are see, see you next time. remember, cross up with

with ah, ah ah ah, ah, i want something wrong when i just don't hold any world. yes. to shape out the same becomes the african engagement. it was the trail when so many find themselves worlds apart,

we choose to look so common ground. ah, 3 here. i everybody, i'm rick sanchez. you know, i've been doing news for some 30 years and 2 different languages all over the world . and obviously here in the united states and i've interviewed for us presidents mikhail gorbachev and fidel castro and started afford $1000000000.00 business. so i have learned from all of those experience that if nothing else, we need to be honest, news should be honest. it should be direct, it should be impactful. this show we do it and it's called direct impact.