against russia is not going well. sus fox gives much anticipated counter sense. it appears to be going nowhere. and nato itself is deeply divided on the issue of ukraine. joining the alliance the by the ministration must be wondering if it was all worth it. the prospecting nato's. war i'm joined by my guess, jack ras, most in san francisco. he's an associate professionally beacon nomics at st. mary's college as well as off the rub, discourage of neo liberalism in norton. we have kyle and so long. he's the opinion editor at anti war dot com, as well as co host of conflicts of interest. and here in moscow, we have annual career go. he is a moscow based american political analyst. all right, gentlemen, comstock rose in effect, that means you can jump any time you want. and i always appreciate kyle, let me go to you 1st and norton, you know, and looking at this counter offensive in the political logic, if there's even logic behind it, is to put the ukrainians in

a position where they can negotiate better. i find this really to be a fools, aaron, because if there's going to be negotiations, the russians would have to be part of that. and i don't see any reason in the world why they would kyle, right? yeah, i in, in, i don't even know if that is the consensus in washington. there was an article in the washington post last month that described the debate in washington around, you know, that the end, the end of the war, whether that counter offensive is successful or not as ambiguous because, you know, there are people who say that if the car successful it is offensive, is successful, then that means, you know, we need to have another one. and so i think the solution is really more wor in saying that all we're going to have negotiations is just something that the american people need to hear because they need at least believe that one day there is going to be an end date to the spending and to the dying, but in washington's right, i really don't think there is at this point, especially so and so as we've seen that this counter offensive is certainly not

going to be a rousing success. and it was to be pretty much a failure at this point. well, jack, basically the same question to you because one of the biggest problems with this enterprise to divide ministration is engineered using nato, is that we don't know what the goal is, other than they want regime change and russian, which is quite vague and nonsensical. and it has actually nothing to do with ukraine. this is what's really the best thing has nothing to use where you crank it, it has everything and how it wants to impact russia. jack in san francisco. yeah. well, i don't think the us wants to so much to the so i think the us strategy is what i would call brzezinski to point out. ringback if you remember going back to the carter administration, he meant new versions, k, the n, a say advisor. or even according to his memoir approach, carter in the summer 79. so let's the stabilize have down to stay in the government

there. so they call in the, the soviet union. and that's exactly what they did. and for the next 78 years, there was just a drag on, on the larry economy, you know, somebody union economy and upset political stability. uh that was the strategy us went into it for the long term perspective to try to develop, take the russians. and so we're giving you that times the economy and it was a to some extent successful. i think the lead send us the see the same strategies. i think they're going to do the same thing this time, which means the u. s. as in it, for the law, they may play games with. so let's negotiate the, if this offensive is not affective and they've got about the 4 to 6 weeks to prove it is or isn't. uh, then the us will look for some sort of a pause in the conflict. and it will offer this security agreement that the

talk is going on now to, to ukraine. but that's just the pause in the longer term conflict the us wants to keep going. yeah, well andrew, i mean, well, on the back of what jack just said about the american machinations east of the afghanistan, number one, they ended up falling for the same trap. so i wasn't a success in that sense. and i agree with with jack in kyle here. but there's a missing piece. how is this help ukraine? i mean, a pause. what does that mean? and, and you have to have both sides to agree with it. here. i mean, this administration and nato land, and they're all talking to themselves in their own bubble. and it's, it's, it's beyond reality here, the russians are not going to quit until they have security guarantees. that's how they started it. that's why it started, you won't recognize security guarantees a russian demand. and then the conflict started and that is gonna end when they

have that. nobody in washington seemed to understand the andrew. i see. okay. okay . one of the things i think all we need to remember is that the whole reason why we're in this situation is because russia took the united states off guard by stopping the original american plan. to have cubic concord on boss present to put in narrowly preempted that through a special operation. but he actually not done so with united states has planning to do was have key over concord. don't boss re arm retrain, re equip and so on and so forth. up and so they decided to eventually make a move on crimea present opponents opening spoken about this scenario forecast. now the united states seems to have had many major miscalculations because they were planning for a proxy war between a ukraine and russia in crimea. sometime later this decade, they weren't planning for it last year and we can assess that because if the were planning for this, why would and nato secretary general jack installed temporarily declare and mid february of this year, there rush and need or are in

a so called race of logistics if this was already all plan and they plan to have this happen like last year, they wouldn't be racing to arm ukraine. they wouldn't be depleting their stockpiles . they wouldn't be hesitating to give you crane modern equipment and so on and so forth. so we can see that present improve to spoil their plans by pre empting the re conquests of don't boss. and in the long term preventing a larger conflict, they would have taken place in crimea. and the whole purpose of this to build on the whole authorization ski thesis, which i definitely agree with and fully endorse is the united states wanted to arm ukraine to the point and get, get it to the point where it could be used as needles. proxy for coercing rush into a series of never ending concessions, all of which would have been aimed at strategically knocking it out of the geo political game. a k also balkanized and get in terms of the worst case scenario, which i don't think is realistic, but nevertheless says how i do believe the west was planning it so that they can then more effectively contain china and take full control the world. so when we

look at it in this broader perspective, we can see that this for this time or offensive isn't even working because they weren't suppose they've even been waging or counter offensive. they were supposed to have waited a couple of years before making their move on crimea, but that was all offset when present and put in peremptory. the imminent re conquest of don't boss that natal wanted to back p as in doing so. this post has everything in the larger context of my personal opinion. well, kyle, i mean, you know we've, we've talked about the crime is already been mentioned here. but again, there is this, the west to onset, only one way and it's way rush, it considers. and part of it's the russian federation and the people that live there feel exactly the same way. so let's say for some magical reason, there is a pause or a ceasefire. i don't think the, the regime in cube is gonna take that very seriously. they're going to just use it as a time to bring more arms into it, to support the cab government in terms of obviously the russians will not tolerate

that. again, were these that with these western capitals, they're in unicorn land. go ahead, kyle. yeah, i think it's east fire at this point seems unlikely. it doesn't seem like any of the parties involved really want to go that route at some point. so he's probably will probably be necessary to facilitate todd's. there is at least a couple of people in the binding administration who do know that crimea is a red line for russia. and so i think the strategy in the, for the invite and didn't stablish me in washington, is that they think attacking crime. you could push rush it to negotiate and get back, i guess the dom bass, which you know, obviously won't happen in that. i think it for russia to see the crime in peninsula pad, they're going to feel the need to seize more ukrainian territory to be sure that that territory can not be attacked from ukraine. so as uh, the russian formats are lab. ralph has said, i think a few times now the longer range is that of weapons that the west gives the kia

right, the more or do craney and territory rush, it feels that needs to take. and so i do think that's the case. i think from the, on the why has this perspective to this is working out as is there's a great article in the american conservative by peter van buren for on monday. yeah . and what the van buren lays out is the binding doctrine and to really key points in that as one know, americans are dying. and to there essentially privatizing the rebuilding of ukraine and you're, i'm a libertarian. so i don't like calling government spending privatization, but you know, that is essentially what we're seeing here, where it's going to be black rock that does a lot of the investment mates. a lot of the money here. whereas in afghanistan was like the us trying to micro manage these projects, you know, they're just got to try to rebuild you claim rather than rebuilding the entire government. because, you know, for some reason they don't see a problem with with, but the politics of the website. um hell, let me go,

let me go to jack before we go to the break here. what ukraine are we talking about? ok. i mean, and we're not going back to start with the special military operation. so obviously not the don bass, obviously, not crimea, of the other regions that joined russia and ukraine get smaller and smaller. so i don't know what the post war ukraine is, and would it be, it would brush and tolerated being part of nato. all of the major issues are not being addressed. jack. yeah, well i would differ slightly uh, on this discussion of what when this thing uh, really was planted began the there's a lot of evidence that the us planning to do exactly what it's doing. it goes back to at least the 2016, the rand corporation, right? of the nation's, you know, posting its agreement and you gotta remember as soon as by and got him to office and he didn't waste a minute. and the planning began to be implemented. and the us pulled the

dramatically out of afghanistan, cleared the table in order to deal with this situation. this plan in ukraine and from the prolong of can stand in august of 21. the pretty much the u. s. was ratcheting up the is preparations and the pushing. those on skin care have to take, uh, you know, more aggressive positions. uh, so, uh, this thing is as long term planning. uh, the us and part does not go into these conflicts on this for the moment. and as far as the nato agreement, i think, if uh the offensive is not successful, the us has to start looking like its interested in resolving looking like, uh, you know what the leaves are opposed increasingly in the us and okay, not about i have to jump in here, we're going to go to a short break, and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on nato's war in ukraine state the

the a the same wrong. just don't you have to shape house to come and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves will the parts we choose to look so common? ground the the, the,

the welcome back to across cycle are all things are considered on peter level to remind you we're discussing nato's war and ukraine. the okay, let's go back to andrew here. in moscow, gentlemen, i'm not going to let this thing go about negotiations, okay? i'm not gonna let it go because i don't understand how it's gonna work, andrew, andrew, okay. let's say you can give you the crating and say, okay, when we want to cease fire, okay. why would the russians agree to it? because they're not going to, it would agree to a cease fire is a strategic defeat for russia. why would they do it?

and number 2, my friend, why should they believe anything that comes out of a western capital and what they have to say when we learned what the, the leaders of, of france and germany felt really thought of the minutes agreements. and all of that is why should the russians, they say, no, we're gonna, we're gonna do what we set out to do and accomplish it. and it will be a faith complete. i don't, i don't buy into this rush, it needs to the go. see, i don't see it, maybe i'm wrong, andrew. okay, so if i had to play devil's advocate in this scenario, i'd say that there are several compelling reasons why russia would at least seriously consider as use for the 1st being that this is obviously aware of logistics, which salt and broken also sat in the same speech our reference and mid february as a war of attrition. so this is going to be a very long and costly slog to achieve rushes maximo objectives. having said that, russia is indeed making piecemeal progress. we saw that the military strategic trends are moving in his favor since the liberation of sol adar in january. and of course, last month's liberation of our channel mosque. but nevertheless,

it's going to be a very far away to achieve the original goals that were set out at the onset of this i, andrew, and i understand you're andrew, andrew, so they are changing their goal. so why should they change course? i think that all sides were taken off guard by the way in which the situation involved. as i mentioned earlier in my previous response of the west and not expect present improvement to intervene. and they thought if he did, and he wasn't deterred by sanctions, rushes economy would collapse by sanctions. and if anything, he would focus on don't boss, not a we bought broad swath of ukraine. i think that from the russian side, russia is having some challenges in dealing with this influx of natal equipment and arms and training and especially the intelligence support. i think that neither side is the drums. i'm sorry, again, i'm sorry to interrupt you again, but if there is a pause or a ceasefire that nato equipment and technology will continue to flow into the country. so again, i don't see the, the clearly let it hang on. hang on,

let me throw this same question to kyle. you agree with andrew? go ahead call. i think there's going to probably be limited circumstances through the war, especially if it drains out for years where russia may be open to different cease fires. we saw from syria, you know, we're russia was uh, allied with a side where the syrian government developed the strategy where they would, you know, surrounding area and then establish a deal and slowly paid territory. that way. you know, the, it's a far different situation dealing with the ukrainian government than with, you know, the all kinds of guys in syria. but at the same time we've seen russia do, you know, utilize the strategy before. so we may see some of that. and there may be times throughout the war where, you know, russia logistically, needs a little bit of time to move their forces where they want to move them in. so maybe they agree to a cease fire, even that even though they know that ukraine will gain some logistic, a badges as well. but i do think that if russia achieves as goals at that point,

they would want to establish a ceasefire and then use those negotiations to try to get as much recognition from the world as possible for what they've conquered in ukraine. and hopefully, you know, come to come to some kind of end of the war where, you know, whatever is left of the, you know, ukraine, key of whatever they control is. uh, you know, agrees to some sort of neutrality as well. okay, but the for jack in san francisco, the way it's being played out on this program and all wonderful guess drive here one side has to accept this strategic defeat. that's how it's being played out right now. your thoughts go ahead. yeah, well i don't think the talking about a ceasefire is really the question. what i'm talking about is by the politically for support of the you know, is allies, if the offensive doesn't, doesn't succeed, is going to try to talk about a security agreement. and russia will sit down and talk,

but that doesn't mean is going to be a serious buyer. i mean, there's going to be a continued military conflict. i believe i just looked at what happened to be a non, but they talked about this for quite some time. was a conflict in terms of what i don't think the rush is going to agree to a cease fire. i mean, it's too close to the $24.00 election or rush is going to sit it out until it sees what's happening with the reaction into us. and by the nice thing is going to lose . so why should a degree do is say, is why a one year before the election, but it will sit down and talk. i'm a china and others a made a big effort to try to propose a peace agreement. but there be no peace by who doesn't want to these. and russia is my right accept a peace agreement. it's not going to stop when the key of loses it's offensive here, i believe. so they will sit down and negotiate and talk about the shape of the

table kind of discussions. but that doesn't mean there's going to be a ceasefire. ok, but andrew is, you know, we, we all know that there's the upcoming, that's, i'm it to nato. so i'm, it didn't build this and they're talking about different, you know, they don't, membership is not on the table right now. okay. there is a, you know, i have to wonder what students, dns, people think about that. we do this all for you and what are you doing for us and return? i mean, that's an interesting historical turn that, but that's one of the topic of today's program. but i mean, tam is going to have to buy into whatever security arrangement is being discussed when it's not in the room here. um okay, i don't see a lot of the of the ultra nationalist, neo nazi types and, and to have been going to want to go along with that. okay. i mean, a, they'll take the money, they'll take the equipment, but they're not going to take a truncated ukraine. that's, that's not in their dna, andrew. okay, what i think is going to merge out of the upcoming needles. summit is we're going to see more serious discussions about presenting a,

a bilateral security guarantees to ukraine. it's unclear whether it will be extended throughout the course of the conflict or afterwards. and the president for that is the us south korean neutral defense pack that was read shortly after the ar missed this. so there is a possibility for that in my crone has talked about it to go back to the car, all kinds of the but it, but andrew, andrew, andrew, i'm sorry, i mean using the north korean example, is it all the players agreed to that? okay. it is kept the piece for you know, for better or worse. again, my friend, why would brush you agree to that when it's winning incrementally, but it's winning. why? why doesn't need to settle it? well, settle until ukraine is neutral and the regime has been changed into that's the in game here. the west. well, all i can say to the west, you can hold my beer, andrew, a real briefly, i believe that both sides have made some strategic advances throughout this conflict on the russian side, russia is about to deploy a tactical nukes simpler bruce. cleaning rod is fortified. it has offensive and

defensive capabilities rusher has successfully field of hypersonic missiles and it has reportedly opened up a military bridge with iran, although both sides denied over the caspian. on top of that, we also have the fact that russia has proven to solve your formidable and the race of logistics. one country against the block of 31. that's quite impressive. russia has achieved assisting a gains on the ground and the territory ukraine claims as his own. and the sanctions, i totally failed from the needle side. they could spin any type of are slow down and fighting as a victory by saying that they expand and you know, they were able to consolidate. and, you know, there's the deployment of very heavy weaponry in central europe, which violates the nato russia founding act of 1997. so they can spend that as a success. and they can also talk about the rules based order for the liberals that are, you know, that things, that's something good. but i think that basically both sides can find a way to say that the got something out of the so far, but never the less. i do expect that both will continue moving for, well, i mean,

there are quite a bit and terms why i present, hey i, i want to go, go back because it's got a call here. i, again, you know, and any kind of compromise that andrew is mentioning, it's very logical is very smart guy. i know him well, but russia doesn't want to have to go through the do this again. and in 5 years or 10 years time. this is it's going to be done one way or another one side wins, one side loses kyle as well. i mean, i do think that's likely the course, but it's always important to remember that war is unpredictable. you know, crazy things get all always happen. you know, lead it, people in leadership positions, you know, go through, change the mind for various reasons. and so i do think it's kind of go the way that you're saying, and i do think this nato, somebody coming up here is a big deal because ukraine is not going to get the guarantee that once that once this war and it's going to get nato membership and so i think that tates, a big incentive for key have to negotiate off the table if they're not going to get

nato membership at the end of the war. then they're probably going to receive less support from nato once the war ends. and so, from their perspective, that might be a reason to keep this war going. yeah, just a tech, it's really interesting is that, you know, nato can claim, you know, the russians who i want. i wanted to make sure that, you know, ukraine never joined nato, but nature got larger because of finland and sweden, but then either a nato can pad itself on the back. we expanded at the expense of ukraine. i mean, what it, what a pirates victory. that is jack. yeah, well, you know, nato uh, nato. it can really move east into ukraine, so they gotta call it by a different name. and that's what the security agreement. ready is all about, but rush you, i don't believe we'll buy it. i mean, they've been burned by minutes. they're not going to be burned the 2nd time and rushes, the engine solution is a year of wide the security agreement. that's not what's going to come out of nato,

but that's a move by nato in that direction, whether they go all the way to that, at some point, will depend upon how much ukraine is defeated on the ground. and that's really what, what the key is here. uh, you know, all the opportunities will change here once it's very clear that that your credit is been defeated as far as you've trained going along with whatever us and nato it says uh it has no, no alternative, no choice. and yeah, the, the nazis uh, you know, in the government and on the ground are going to be very upset. and maybe the us changes leadership there and uses some general. and the sense zalinski is sort of the, a salesman around the world. get him out of the picture. i don't know. uh, but uh, very, very clearly ukraine has no choice here. us just calling the shots. uh and uh, it's gonna have to do whatever the us says, but the us doesn't have

a solution to it. i believe because he was doesn't want a solution, as i said in the beginning, it wants this thing to continue. and all this talk about the security agreement is not the kind of security agreement that russia want. exactly. but it's all part of the, the keeping the alliance together because there's some real big splits occurring now. all right, generally we've run out of time with so many different threads. we could go and discuss longer, but unfortunately don't have the time here. i want to thank my guest in san francisco, norton and here in moscow. and of course, i want to thank our viewers for watching us here at r t c. next time and remember prospect pools the the,

some nations may be able to turn away by the atrocities. another comes, the united states of america is different. wherever people longed to be free, they will find a friend in the united states, the,

to the automated route, 80 volts, anybody phasing since only city and you look at the incidence of the secretaries to color revolutions is one among several meanings to reach the goal of conquering foreign lands and bringing them onto the help of us the western economic interest. people been cited doing that he did to everybody, the democrats. yeah. let me check quarterly arctics. oh no, that's a little bit soft by way on there. you can see the final goal of these theme or of allusions to ensure that there are no independent players in the world anymore. the, the more expensive and i'm here to plan with you. whatever you do. do not watch my new show seriously. why watch something that's so different little

opinions that he won't get anywhere else. welcome to please or do have the state department c. i a weapons, bankers, multi $1000000000.00 corporations. choose your fax for you. go ahead. change and whatever you do. don't want marshall state main street because i'm probably going to make you, i'm comfortable. my show is called direction. but again, you probably don't wanna watch it because it might just change the way and say to take a fresh look around as a life kaleidoscopic isn't just a shifted reality distortion by power type vision with no real opinions. fixtures, design to simplify will confuse really once a better wills, and is it just as a chosen few fractured images presented to this, but can you see through their illusion going underground,

can the peach tree. but the us pretends that it is not afraid of an escalation of the conflict in ukraine. there are many people in america with clear minds who do not want to call the 3rd world war, in which there will be no winners from the ongoing counter offensive to the black stake rangel russian president vladimir, meet with war correspondence to discuss the credit complex. also ahead of the party examines our russian forces are.