right, his recent piece on some stack and he writes without evidence. he says he has anonymous sources. he says can deal those sources. and the recent piece was typical. it was based on things that didn't happen. a joint press conference that didn't happen a joint statement that wasn't made. a lack of media attention to show says visit. this is an evidence of anything. when i look at the extreme pipeline, my 1st question would be, who benefits and who loses? and so i never thought the russians were involved because that was $11000000000.00 investment, and i think they're going to block their own investment, the major gainer and all this was of course you prank because it forces russia to use the pipeline that runs through the ukraine. ok, before we before we believe that the desire to new york times report that sy hersh alleges were fed to them by the white test. what do you mean sy? hersh has been a discredited journalist in recent years. did you not read? is abu ghraib revelations during the iraq war 20 years ago. if you don't read

itself about the chemical i'm talking about, i'm not talking about the older sy hersh. ok. what about the chemical weapons in theory? i know it's what about meal. i wouldn't have been granted what about k o w 70 name through? he will all is recent pieces of concerns area. you know, he was the greatest investigative journalist at our time, the last few years. i think he's been chased, chasing prizes and chasing awards. and therefore, he picks up on beaumont, evidently, based on what evidence you're basing on basing on things that he's written about. and i know something about like the destruction of the malaysian airliner by russian forces that were in occupy ukrainian territory. a believe the russian cover up of that. he points to see i in question, in terms of the north stream there's, there's no evidence whatsoever. and this idea that the cia and the german intelligence service have been asked to provide a joint statement of alternative theory that seems very unlike it to me from the

way i know the cia works and the way german intelligence works. i mean, i would just be very careful with sy hersh. i know it suits your attitudes about north stream and what happened. but i don't think it's consistent with logic or fact in those are my attitude about anything. does anyone really leave the cia you? are there for 2 decades, you in the cia now? of course not. when you read my book whistleblower, i testified against a cia director and you need to do a little more homework. no, i understand that. but of course, what you are saying now is exactly what i her, she is arguing that your believing that the new york times during the desired story about the largest atrocity of recent decades, the north stream explosions is from that playbook. that's inside. she is lay the sub stack. i'm saying the sy hersh is written an article without any evidence, citing anonymous sources. i haven't to know, some of sy hersh is sources. they're not people who are really credible. so

therefore it, it, you have to bake questions that how credible is sy hersh. and then when you throw in the name like julian assange, you sort of give away your, your own motives in bringing this up at all. why would you have against your assange? julia sondra once upon a time was a very important journalist at some point, julian sans threw himself in with russian propaganda. and he took off from there. i think he's being treated terribly, i'm not, i'm not trying to fight you. believe julian sanchez, a rush, an agent to a russian asset of some kind. i think he was doing the really do on somewhere about 10 years ago, he switched investigating all sorts of stories that dealt with russia and only concentrating on those stories that would be satisfactory from a russian point of view. so he became a propagandist with absolutely denies that as, as you know and says that was it, and i would expect them to deny it. we, the leaks, i know people for we can lease,

we have a lot of trouble with joy massage. they're not exactly as supporters. well, i did. that's certainly news to us because we have the interview. a lot of people from wiki, like your again, so i heard your against julian assad, are you for tony lincoln's position on rejecting a ceasefire in ukraine as per the china piece plan for? well, there's a war in europe. i think i think the united states was wrong to be totally dismissive of the chinese plan. i'd rather call the chinese plan rather than the chinese piece plan, because the chinese are still supporting what the russians have done and occupying ukrainian territory, particularly crimea. the war is not going to interrupt them of it. so you want russia to vacate, try me. and let me, let me finish a point that i'm trying to make. i think china has a very different attitude about the global community than russia strategic stability and global security and stability are very important to china to put in

not so. so i think g, she thing is a very difficult position right now, and he's exercised some restraint and not supplying weapons to russia. this has been a very hard decision for him to make and he expects, i think, the united states to make some restraint in or as a reciprocal instrument of power, which he's not seeing yet. my problem with blanking is he's close the door to talks with russians and with chinese. and the united states follows up a policy of diplomatic non recognition that is just not workable, which allow china to come into the person go off and exercise or rapprochement between iran and saudi arabia, which has huge global consequences far more important consequences than actually the north stream pipeline, i think you, you exaggerate that when you talk about this great humanitarian disaster. well, i think the reason for that it was, it was the greatest man made lake and methane in world history and tens of

thousands of europeans died because of i sense stability over the winter, which is a mild winter. so putin isn't interested in global stability. you mentioned the saudi arabia iran deal. do you see that is emblematic of the united states as a place on the global stages? basically at the beginning of the end take it so i think it's a wake. wow. beginning of the end, this little straw, but i think it's a wait, it should be a wake up call to blank and it's department of state that the policy of non recognition and you have to sit on military power just is not working. and that china was able to steal a march on us because the saudis realized after years of negotiating privately with united states, hoping that the united states that way in, on the saudi, our relationship with iran. but realized that u. s. has no access to iran, whereas china does so china has on long term energy deals with iran, long term energy deals with saudi arabia. and it goes back to the old chinese

saying that they don't care whether mouses, black or, or they don't care whether a cat is black or white as loose as long as it catches mice. well, that's why she's in thing feels about ideology hasn't care about the ideologies of the states. the united states puts a lot of emphasis on that. so china stole a real march on us. it's a real global realignment. and i mean important where it weighs to anybody can bring them in any, any person in a, for vela in rio, arguably, or in lagos or in the entire global south. could see that coming clearly by the national security state of the united states. as china helped russia completely bypass them and in an easier is talking about not using visa and mastercard and the entire global south. now talking about the dollarization. well, i think the important thing that china is doing this part of the world really deals with the belgian road initiative and where the united states is missed. the boat is in walking away from trans pacific partnership and trying to block the asian

infrastructure investment bank. the china setting, so the idea that the united states thinks that can contain china because it contain the soviet union, the so, you know, it was a very weak state. the soviet union was like a 3rd world country that happened to have nuclear weapons. so maybe they contain them, maybe the soviets contain themselves, but you're not going to contain china. and this belief in containment is something that i've been very critical of over the past 2 years of the board and ministration . there's no doubt about that. you can contain a power, a strong and economically powerful as china. and we should give up the ghost because countries of ozzy on the 10 nations that form the i c on association. and countries generally don't want to be part of a sino american cold war. this is something that the united states that are realized because they're diplomacy will not be effective until they realize that containment can just be done with,

with relationship to child. when do you think the idea that nato expansion was a good thing for the united states? came to know why does because i know you've written, you've written about anything that i read that's for sure you've written in 199699 . you think you'll need a nato expansion for 25 year. that's why i was trying to get that in 1996, you point to a domestic political situation between bill clinton and bob dole. as a, as an idea that perhaps gotten into the war the way now in, in ukraine would perhaps start it all the way just explained that that's easy to explain. bondo was going to be the republican candidate to challenge bill clinton, who was trying to be re elected in 1996 bill. bob dole made it clear he was going to make the absence of nato expansion a campaign issue. and that he was going to be able to use this effectively against clinton, particularly in industrial states like michigan and wisconsin and ohio,

where there are large east european communities. clinton, who was a master politician and a master triangular of politics, said, well, take the issue off the table. so he wasn't thinking about international security. he wasn't thinking about foreign policy. he just wanted to deprive all of a campaign issue. so he expand nato. he brought in poland and hungary and the czech republic. in slovakia then george w bush made it worse by bringing in 3 former republics of the soviet union, a stony latvia and lithuania and potent made it clear that any attempt to bring you crane and ga into would be unacceptable. and bush wanted to move in this direction, but fortunately, angle, anglo merkel in some secret phone calls, talk to him back, talked him out of it, but the ukrainians kept talking about becoming members of nato. and this was unacceptable to russia. the national security interest in ukraine, this is quite unique,

very different from any other east european or central european state. so what pollutant is doing is waging a war of terrorism in ukraine, but you can say what he's doing is unprovoked because nato expansion was a provocation. the deployment of regional missiles and poland and romania was a provocation. the base we now have in poland is a provocation, sending on a lead airborne division to romania is a provocation. bringing term german troops into lithuania is a serious problem. cation, the way potent is exercised, it, though, is certainly self defeating, and he's going to make russia even more insignificant internationally than it is now. well, you say terrorism, obviously the russians would deny that melvin gibbon. i'll stop you there. more from the pharmacy i and listen now senior fellow at the center of international policy after this break. ah ah,

ah, we have this. so boom on tenderness from united states. we've exported it now to the world because the multinational corporations and we've been damaged to believe that baby needs being nurtured in care for love. and so you've got a bunch of traumatized people all over the world. the post traumatic stress disorder that don't know how to heal in with

a ah ah, welcome back to going on the garden. i'm still here with pharmacy i and listen, a professor of international relations john hopkins university professor melvin goodman. in ukraine. you say there were lots of provocations. why do you think

media in nato nations, whether it be the united states or in european paths routinely says, this was an unprovoked aggression why i can't? i don't, i don't use that word so i can't speak to that. the why do you think they say it's unprovoked? is it because the media is couldn't so as a controlled american was no, no, it's the way pohden has fought the war. the use of care for the fact this is an arrest warrant out from the international criminal court for putting men his commissioner for children's rights. i mean, it doesn't matter to him because he's never going to travel outside russia or secure a space in the 1st place. he's much too paranoid to do that. do you think he'd get refuge in the united states where it be safer with i see, see war because of course, the i c. c as a is future united states re i c. c is the subject of act in your congress, isn't it? if they, if they send a warrant out for us officials united states allowed to invade orland, why again, i don't know where you're getting your facts. the united states is not

a member of the i asked clinton clinton sign the treaty of rome, which for a d, i. c. c. but the pentagon put out a lot of resistance because they didn't want any of their military members put before an international court. that fact to go back to see more her sy hersh, that's where he did his best work is his work on the lie and be it now that was a work crime is work on how to grab in iraq. that was a work. right? you know, i'm just talking about the i see and how obviously the united states is not a member and launched a attack on the i c. c saying any i c c judge would be arrested themselves if they ever dad went out to tech a not attacking as you see. in fact, we're privately to the department of justice supporting the case against we are this is the hag act in the u. s. congress, which allows the united states government to invade holland. if the i c. c tries to arrest any u. s. official for war crimes, that's,

that's an incredible nonstarter does not work. a lot of discussion. united states is not going to invade. nope, it daily, but it shows a certain type of attitude, arguably you keep talking about russian terrorism and so forth. what do you think analysts at the cia and of the state to bob and how do they, how do they see this war progressing? because i mean, i mean, presumably they realize russia will win the war because of its overwhelming must already lost, lost the war. i don't know, h, my brushing, winning the war. russia cannot accept a defeat in the war, which is less than that these acts of terror. but if you talk about battle field performance, if you talk about the retreat from key retreat from archy, there she from here sign, they've lost on the battlefield. that's why they resorted to terrorism. what happens to what happens to a nucleus day? what happens to a nuclear state? you teach international relations a tokens?

what happens to a nucleus state when it says defeat? if one who went along with that, which of course is rejected by a most of humanity, the idea that russia is losing all it happens to be to stay with major as insinuated that nuclear state will not accept defeat and a conventional war. and that will lead to the use of nuclear wears eisley and has last is mine and wants to bring down the whole temple that he might use nuclear weapons. i don't think that his state of mind is that perilous, but the reason why i want the war to and the reason why i want to cease fire, the reason why i want an arm assist you even though you might not get a p. c, you want to see green or so blink is wrong to say keep the war going on. i don't know, blank and wants to war to go on. he said no to the fees for no, he didn't say no to the c. s. he said there must not be, as he said,

no to the chinese plan, which is not genuine in terms of its commitment to peace is a pro russian kind of plan. i would have accepted it on the basis of a starting point to find out what their fallback position is, is i think she is in a difficult state. he obviously does not want to supply arms or to russia and he's obviously under some pressure to do so. but it was very interesting that what came out of the she's in pain. vladimir potent joint statement was the view that this alliance saw this relationship between russia and china is not named and not aimed at any 3rd or wait a minute is paying for the war. time is buying the oil and the europeans are buying the oil to every bullet is that you can trace its ancestry to chinese money in terms of the energy. and the jewel use of weaponry is being supplied from china according to u. s. institutions. there is a, not the serious offensive weapons of the united states toward his russian need from

a china in terms of weaponry, washing eastern china. they, they need artillery shells that they need modern armor. they need drones that are more than intelligence collectors. there's a lot they need from china, china, in terms of scientific and technological success in the last few years can run circles around russia. russia is now a jewel. i think once you start, once your starting point is that russia is losing the war. going to sit down very well in rushes, near term future, being a junior partner to china, that's now making inroads and central asia. do you expect zalinski to be protected by the united states? usually u. s. proxies like noriega has ended badly. i think the united states has made it clear that they're going to support so lensky. i'll because i doubt anyone's mind about that. so wait, thank you. actually weighing then compare i went,

compares the landscape to an international criminal noriega who was involved in the drug market. so you actually think that the russians will eventually withdraw from crimea. and from don't say that i did. how is this going to resolve itself? i don't see it resolving itself very easily. i would, but i would like a cease fire because a lot of innocent people are being killed. i don't see this to me is like all quiet on the why you want to see why right now? i would favor a ceasefire right now, so you're against what tony blinking said. i wish tony blank and would act more like a diplomat unless like a decision maker who is relying on military power. what i find ironic is the leading military figure in the united states is the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. so you have the leading military that you're talking about negotiations. and you have a leading diplomat, the secretary of state who's not talking about negotiations and people are making a lot of money from the reaction to saudi arabia would be to consider assassinating

. mom had been say, i mean you were at the cia when che guevara was assassinated in bolivia, nations that are conducted by the cia, the ones in the past, in 5 or 6. anyone who thinks that is very naive or just doesn't understand how to die. eisenhower, the case of mama kennedy instructions from the white house that went to the cia, the cia isn't this rogue yellow. there are policy failures or disjointed, or the cia is become a paramilitary organization. that's true edition based on having facilities around the world, a military power. there's no doubt about that. and in most cases, vietnam was a failure. iraq was a failure. afghanistan, we can see that the united states react to the end of a petro dollar. the de dollarization of energy resources term. i think the dollar is still the international currency on taking these $300000000.00 actually applying them to rehabilitation of ukraine as some people are starting to call that

me. then russia just blew them up using their hypersonic move. if i show thanks, it helps itself by blowing up in and maternity hospital, they denied they didn't i. all of that is, you know, what, except the russian denial on this. you see. and once you say that, how can blink and says, no, see why i sort of and your, i've written about this, the churchill said, talk talk is better than john john, that's why or how it should be ended. well, the only way to stations and then see where it leads to. i think there's a possibility that the charity requirements, i think what's missing now is any discount requirements that would lead them to give up their occupation if you have crimea. i don't think the russians will, the faces, the population of don bass will take it. no, i don't know what you think russia and it's interesting to me that when crucial cherry facilities, i mean the naval base never left crimea, crimea, and this is true up until well, it's still true. i mean, just finally,

just finally so that we get, i just wanted to get the padded bombing, texas, and we've had a, an outlaw the english language in that spanish must be spoken in tech. said the rest of the united states, but you can see anywhere. i'll southern island if southern island stud wouldn't do anything that who is fighting east and you probably know that in your heart of hearts rueful, it's not even an international. thank you very much. hi, melva. good rubel. well, a good. thank you. that's it for the show. remember going on, the ground will be broadcasting dry. so we got censored in your country and had to watch on going underground tv on normal dot com to watch new properties and other countries. the united states of america is different. wherever people with

me about it evolved. anybody basie some sort of color revolutions, is one among several of the goal of conquering foreign lands and bringing them until they all make interest to popping sadie. i did that he did to everybody did them they so no, we just say low their soft power. i'm a catch all of these thing revolutions to ensure that there are no in oh, a and they want to do everything in their power to preserve a un salvas c author ritual security council to maintain that global head to.