frontage and doesn't succeed, don't you're saying that the americans will have to come up with something new and perhaps controlling china more directly. yeah, well, i mean, there's a lot of voices in washington these days, you know, talking about a political solution to ukraine so that you can, you know, get more resources into the, in the pacific. and rather than talking about china from china's perspective, as sort of saying, then i think that the, we are the, the, the chinese side is dedicated to a, you know, trying to get a peaceful solution. ok, as well as a, you know, not maintaining good relationship with the west as well, which do you look in union was united states. but unfortunately, you know, that states has of this mentality, ofa, you know, it's of, you know, who states trying as a big challenge wants to have a competition. strategic competition was trying, but he's, it's really about the competition. i mean, the americans liked to mention this uh, 3 see um, right. well as the competition confrontation of cooperation,

cooperation. uh which one which senior thing is the most visible for the time being . um, i think of the tablet of competition as well. i mean the competition, north confrontation, co quotes, competition, confrontation, i think, controls that confrontation, that is competition and proxy conference, which i think this sometimes it's even, you know, very political boundaries between confrontation and competition from china side of we were trying to public views. this was confrontation, but i think it will be my view. consultation already is about one issue about i want, you know that this is one area that clearly of aging conference washing done. this is the concerns tennis court interest as there's no way we come back off. so you know, that's more of a confrontation reset. the professor go, we have to look at the core motivation of adversaries. i mean by that, this is something that the china is, or strategist did the throughout the centuries, the think the americans troy care of primarily about taiwan and it's freedom,

whatever. it's a governance or the core issue here is china and it's rise. a legitimate trials and are forced to me is how one, you know, it is a small items unless thousands miles away, american people don't even genuine fine on a map, right? so, you know, if this is really one of the issues that they can use by washington to, to contain, try not to think they think it's a jewel pertain or to undermine. i think a distinction between containment and undermining is so this is a semantic history. my view, i mean those things that i have come from competition, i'm from foundation that yeah, i think the things that you sort of organizations in wash and dry me the point of intelligence community, let's see i, they did all the things to one of my other countries um, but you know, i think it's the, the in nebraska and those things, the america's interest to essentially, to keep china down. ok,

it can not tar away. they china how down. so, you know, there's some rules of, i'll say less than 2 thirds of us size. so i, um, you know, it does not challenge america supremacy on the scene. for example, in overseas operations, things like that. you know, this is essentially a remaining and big factory without any voice, without any ambition or aspiration of its own or giving out any dignity in worth living in it has done that. it is a limited power, limited influence. i think that's one of the really a country right from that that i don't think washer that didn't even dream of achieving. there's no way they can do that. now is who i understand them. but the, you are, you know, you're, you're worked in the united states for a pretty long time, and i'm interested in the ultimate strategy, or what do you think is the preferred goal that they are trying to pursue? what kind of china again i ask you before, and i read or is what kind of china would sue them? is it a china that has no voice?

a china that has no, i'm vision in a china that essentially serves as a, an industrial park for the united states. yeah, i think um, well 1st of all, you know, quite a few years ago at a time when china was successful, the then the big hill, there was the expectation that china with the, according to a contractually that washington desires all that. so to me it didn't happen, right? i mean, i think that represents the sort of a arrow guns and, and the hubristic opinion on this side that is only one good model of develop them . and that's the only good model of development trying to doesn't go into that direction. so that disappointed. now back to the old question about, you know, the distinction between limited or no voice. and i think, you know, from that perspective, probably those do it. i don't think they expect china has no voice. i mean, come, i is, this is impossible. i think the, what a desire he is that china has a contain, establishes some kind of a knowledge of a nato allies in, in the pacific region, specifically targeting china from to see china has limited inc. funds to see china

has limited say on international state. i think this is probably more realistic they, they are looking for. okay, we have to take a very short break right now, but we'll get back in just a few moments state you in the

course, much of the world calling for an end to possibilities. and ukraine, nato appears to have other ideas. is ukraine turning into washington's next forever wards? it certainly it appears so that it has nothing to do with you. crate. defeating russia is the goal the welcome back to worlds, of course with john gall professor and vice president for research and strategic studies at the university of international business and economics and china for an expert person going before the break we were talking about the american preferred vision, all 5 of china rich, china doesn't really one for itself. i'm the you mentioned before that at any

a times by china to build independent relationship with other countries is viewed as something negative. for example, your neutrality stands on the ukraine, and conflict is interpreted as a siding with russia. and i've heard one very interesting, russian experts suggests that the best way to describe a russian china is relationship would be not when, when, but actually not losing all fluids because it's contra, pursue that its own policy, its own economic goals. but they have a key interest in not seeing the either fail, especially as the washington tries to undermine both of them. do you agree with the fact that i totally agree? i think this is a very interesting now and do you think other countries man dom that as well because it's no secret that the russian china have many controversial issues. we have plenty of water disputes between us a 30 years ago. most of them. uh, so i know for now. yeah, it's clearly on many issues we have not overlapping position and yet i think both

sides fines value in the relationship besides do think such model could be applied med broadband. alta only between the 2 countries, but perhaps it more broadly international. surely i think look at the long look at china's neighbors in this deal you've been talking about can play everywhere. and then transportation was india with south korea with japan. you know, we will have, you know, issues that you cause conflict, gainesville, is, but, you know, there are also other things in cooperative nature, the way more outweigh the, the, the little things that way. you know, you have all kinds of issues. and you're living a very comfortable weights. and my next question, because one of the country that claims in charlie to big player on an international stage is india in india's neutrality is clearly very different from china's and neutrality. what's the biggest the distinguish are there, i think april, you know, i don't live them drastically different,

but i think and probably the, the, the logic a big difference is that in there, so relationship with the united states. i, you know, i think that's one area and i think if you look at watch that those actual china and india both adopted more of the same. you try to position both have bought tons of oil from much so. right. and you can, which country is and the more political pressure, it's actually china, not so much in the right. so that says something about washington is not very consistent position with respect to this issue. so i think i'm going to be asked to meet the big difference between india and china. and that's probably the biggest, the 1st, i mean this a 2nd was a 2nd. the agenda, usually 2, regarding china from wash in the suspect. if there's another agenda behind this, i don't think that agenda exist was back to indiana culture, or it might be the exact opposite actually. well, the americans in our pre opening, according indians, into the various anti chinese initiatives and the american defense secretary

lloyd doors to in the wild visiting india recently promised a whole range of the most advanced military technologist and sort of inviting india to be the this what what did they did he say? he complimented in this leading role as a security provider in, in the, in the pacific guns in are knowledgable people can smell of antique china sentiment there. do you think being visible by india is a very important piece in america's china. policy campbell, i think he is responsible for the english pacific because amateurs had come. okay. yeah, in the uh, the national security council, i think he was previously said that is a very important component of america's trying to policy. so, you know, this clearly says that the united states intends to establish the same kind of allies. so like somewhere like the needle and drug india 8. 1 thing that's regrettably, my view,

that every time washington goes on to try to the court and l i a stablish allies. what can be off on the table? nothing other than weapons of tanks. jeff ida. so these things, um, this is not the way you know, people from china, which on these 2 things when we talked about mutual economic business interests, i do some business trade investment. these are the things that, that are conducive to humans development. i mean, this is quote, construction. what does the weapons and then jeff on us to destruction, right. so i think that's a key difference. i wanna, i wanna emphasize, you mentioned career campbell, and just the other day, he expressed his cold that the upcoming visit by indian prime minister mo mo, did to washington, would quote, unquote consecrate the relationship with india as the most important for the united states in the world, i suppose it had the british and the head of the europeans. again,

do you think the indians will be tempted by something like that because they, they also will all be different and defensive in india in china and on the was something india has been a key member of the no, no, no, a lines movement before and i think they're also pretty sure then making sure that the neutrality in their own interest are respected? no i, i think um, as to the result, my intention to say that india is to hasn't by that yet. i think it's, you know, thinks always throughout the weather, i knew that it would ever get onto the boat of washington. i give you one specific example on, you know, 1850 that they think this is where we have this casting wise, the united states, australia in japan and in india. and i think that one of the meetings recently is didn't go when he discuss policies against china. and ukraine regarding ukraine, so i think, you know, there might be a difference between india and other plan members and also on united states also

has of, i would say sort of a preferential, differentially treatment was back to his allies. they had the 1st way to the like, for example, you okay. in this case, australia talking about this august. your right did only include india. it only includes a penny. and it's that even, you know, did this on the back of the french thing just now? um, we are all mindful of the difficulties between that or differences between india and china. for example, in the is to know the region where you have thousands of soldiers that are sort of jack suppose, one across and other and for a long time, a call things like this would be seen as a result lable. but after a, china is recent, the foreign policy successes, for example, of, of the sound is in the rainy as many russian i was asking if that was possible between. so here a being there on why is that's not possible to solve of those long standing

difficulties and differences between china and india. wouldn't. that'd be a great benefit built on right to the region but to the whole world. yeah, i think um, you know, the border clash was, um, you know, the soldiers sort of chef on each of the items and then all 5 sites. so if i shop, say there were this, why the? yeah, that's the fuel right. and the casualties. i mean, like, quite a few comments like, right. so what would it be? you know, exercise force quite a english drain way. i think. and this is actually quite a few years ago. it's been quite some time is, is uh, you know, this piece between the 2 sides along the border. so i think, you know, both sides realize that it's important not to escalate things to set aside the differences. and you know, coy a 6 piece for optimal. we're talking about no man land actually in that, in that region so that this is something that we can talk about or you go say for the wrong is it doesn't have to be standing, the weight of the 2 countries

a relationship. so over the last, over the past here, i think the chinese foreign policy status has changed quite visibly. i mean, like i've been covering a foreign policy or for quite some time and it's visible in the, in the statements of uh for an impulse as spokesman. it's far more outspoken farmer, proactive, and i wonder if the calculus all one piece has also changed. i mean, isn't it now more expensive for the f one for the chinese to have india as an adversary? then it was, let's say, 2 years ago. and i think one thing on which includes clearly recognizes that china is facing a very difficult international environment because washington has intensified his efforts to essentially establish the lines. as i said, in a sense, that even established in the lives somewhat analogous to the nato in the, in the pacific region. so that's a big challenge. and i think to tell us poverty of, um, we just some of his, uh,

uh, following policy status to in terms of tactics and policies and, and the mattress. um i think of the space uh that having one more plan from china is perspective is very important. so i think respect to india. uh, you know, the more important things, as i said, we can set aside all differences and you know, work together especially to prevent india. the important piece of, i guess a ton of policy. um, you know, it's a horrible um, scenario thinking from pages perspective to see any of these photos under the uh, washington's lines. they some of the defense lines. this trying to establish in dismay over my conversations with india and experts uh new delhi is in no rush to be an american proxy, especially given oh uh, what they saw in, in the ukraine in price is. and this is something that i want to finish on. um,

it's a huge, huge problem for russia. obviously not only drill political, but also a moral problem, a human problem because we have uh many ukrainians living here. we have most of us have relatives living there. china has proposed its own piss initiative and i think china has a sort of different strategy of approaching countries down the united states. do you think there will ever come a point when the ukrainians may be a sort of a responsive to what china has to offer either on the front of a rec instruction or on some other front? do you think there's a possibility, any possibility? and that was to asking realistically for uh, the ukraine is to, to accept somebody else's help other than the west. um, i think of 1st of all uh key, but so what do respond in the presence of any sky has said that it welcomes this plan. and the is adamant in this plan that he likes, i think in

a if you look at this plan, it's more of a set of principles. you my view. it's a, it's a set of guiding principles and a which a negotiation process can mean for these thoughts. and in a way, i think this a very typical chinese of the way of negotiation that's 1st set of cider. and so a sofa goes some standards, some, some principles as a foundation upon which we can, you know, talk. so i think this was the 1st step in terms of a concrete negotiation. i would imagine that b g is willing to take a more active role. but ultimately, i think it's very much of, to washington to endorse the ukrainian aside from starting the process that i've done since being very abrupt and then they're not. and the straightforward on absolutely, you know, she cannot keep fighting for one day. if washing that doesn't wants to support it or at least to support a continue fight like it can continue fighting, but they can always, you know, say that to me,

don't want to fight anymore with or without the weapons. do you think there is enough leverage for training keith to try to persuade them to disagree with the statement? i think you know you're not think washington? well, it's tremendous influence on keith. um. so whether keep fighting or stop fighting on washing, that's a big thing. oh, i truly believe that the washing has a big se uh at this point. um, i think a washer to still wants to, to fight. but there are still mean the american policies is always just new selections going on. and we're starting to see and in this, in the launch voice from watching, especially on the g o. p side, talking about a piece solution, right? so talking about findings of access strategy, we have to live in there. thank you very much for your time. and thank you for watching hope to share again and was the part the,

[000:00:00;00] the, [000:00:00;00]

the acceptance. and i'm going to plan with you whatever you do. do not watch my new show. seriously. why watch something that's so different. whitelisted opinions that he won't get anywhere else to do it please, or do the have the state department to see i a weapons bankers, multi 1000000000 dollar 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 uncomfortable. my show is called direction. but again, you probably don't wanna watch it because it might just change the way and say the,

[000:00:00;00] the hello and welcome to cross ok. we're all things are considered. i'm peter level with much of the world calling for an end to possibilities and ukraine. nato appears to have other ideas. is ukraine turning into washington's next forever war? it certainly appears so that it has nothing to do with ukraine defeating russia. is the goal, the cross talk in the next forever war. i'm joined by my guess, dmitri last caught us in toronto. he's a lawyer and a freelance journalist in hamilton, and we have kevin mckay. he is a social science professor at mohawk college, as well as the author of radical transformation oligarchy collapse. and the crisis of civilization, and in new york, we have jim cabinet. he is a political analyst or a gentleman cross cycles, and the fact that means he can jump anytime you want. and i always appreciated. dmitri, let me go to you 1st in toronto. well, it's all been uh,

but settled that new ukraine is not going to be offered membership, a least at the upcoming summit and build this. but there's a lot of other ideas going on and it fits perfectly with it forever. war scenario. i mean, if the, if you created were to become part of nato, then it would be a global world war. but if not, then divide in ministration. is it not achieving much success there can avoid total defeat and of course the ukrainians will pay in blood. and western by tax payers will pay for the rest for the other more effort here. it's a pretty devious plan, but that's look, that's what it looks like is in play, dimitri, as well, whatever the intentions of the body and administration may be in a couple of the new concepts around him. there's a different reality confronting of the united states government mailed and confronted the united states government. let's say any rack or if can to stand the 2 most recent and use of us forever wars. and that is that the combatants on the

american side who are principally ukrainians, are being traded killed at a rate that is far in excess of the rate at which american forces and other nato forces were sustaining casualties in iraq and afghanistan. and so the reality confronting the by the ministration is that even if it plans for yet another forever war ukraine, i'm is likely to run out of soldiers a lot faster than the americans would have run other soldiers in the theaters of combat. and the same is also true of the militant military material. it is being destroyed at a rate that is far in excess of the rate of which the webinar you need a webinar us rep in web and he was being consumed in those conflicts. and so i think that the american public's appetite for tolerance for the duration of this war is going to be far more limited to that. it was in the case of the, the, the a rack. and if you understand a horse, and furthermore, you have 2 candidates, one on the left, or if k junior,

the other on the right trump. we're both talking openly about the insanity of this war and the need to bring it to an end. so the political playing field is also quite different. there wasn't anywhere near this level of opposition from political opponents of, you know, the incoming administration in the case of the afghanistan and iraqi wars. so again, whatever the intentions of the us government may currently be, they are confronting a very different reality. yeah, but kevin, it doesn't, you know, common sense and being reasonable they are usually part of a political, calculates out, unfortunately in our day and age here. um no, i agree with everything with dimitry had to say your but you know, because they don't, they don't have a strategy for victory. they're going to try to still or boss defeat. okay. and dimitris. absolutely right. the cannon fodder a are. are you quite young ukranian men and russian men as well? um, but they would with they can not accept and that they made a strategic error. and that's why and i get, i think it's very clever. don't letting you create into nato and they will have

special security arrangements that call it the is really option or whatever we like that they don't have any answers. that's why they're pursuing this. kevin. yeah, i think the, you know, to demetrius point that it is a very different scenario today. then the previous more is that have been mentioned, the sort of forever more is going back to, you know, vietnam afghanistan racks. but i do think that the common problem is that so much of american politics is actually determined by, you know, non elected actors. right? so you do have this massive, you know, it's been called the military industrial complex has been called the deed states by various commentators. you have this machine that basically is based on war. it's driven by the economics of war. and that is something that, um, any of the candidates have to meet your mention or going to have to confront. i'm not so confident that i'm about a trump will actually have the strength to stand up to that machine, you know, and our as a junior might. but, but that's, so that's a serious challenge. and i think that there's other important players too. when we

look at the possibilities for peace or whether this war will extend, i think the international community has a large role to play. trying has been stepping up recently of globally in terms of initiating rep rosemont between, you know, the conflicting parties that we never thought we'd be sitting down at the table talks with the saudi arabian around you have, uh, you know, african nations getting actively involved in t stock, so you have the brakes playing a larger role. so i think that one of the, the ex, factors in this conflict you know, beyond what's, what's happening on the battlefield, which i agree with. demetrius is horrendous for ukraine is you know, what's the appetite of the international community for a more that's going to go on. you know, i, the determinant way i don't think the outside is an error and i think actually pressure is already mount. so i, i think that, you know, with the african delegation that visited, obviously they're not, they are just, you know, a piece is a good idea in itself it's, it's so early affecting,

develop the developing world, particularly with, as i re next board crisis, which russia is going to walk away from because the premiums didn't honor it. him let me go to you in new york part of this, you know, um um unicorns a security arrangement that they're thinking about. they want to de politicize it. they want to put it like over a 10 year period. that means voters can't get involved in it. and you know, and it's allocation money in it, but it's exactly what kevin was just saying. there it is. good to be non elected actors are going to pursue this here, that it isn't a political question for citizenry. and that is again, a pretty despicable way to approach is conflict because it's in the way that it's being described. there is no end to this conflict. they're looking for ways to keep it going. jim is certainly an oregon in the united states and everywhere else because then cannot in, not only in the united states as a political support, a very weak at this. we're getting weaker, but in europe, certainly in germany,

i mean the political support is very weak and, and the economic costs of this is greater than it wasn't any other work. the, the europeans are paying the price for this. and they know it. and they said it's very, is not one does not want to go into it forever. what they cannot afford it militarily, they don't have a man or the whole for the material they've already given. not only is you trade ukraine being a treated in terms of material, but that that's all nato equipment. that's all going gone. and they don't have anymore to get been running around the south african israel to get weapons. but i think the preferred strategy is going to be once it's clear that the ukranian army is defeated, what they want is the know, ongoing, more like an afghanistan or, or, or, or a rock for 10 years. or one of what they want to do is they're going to go for a ceasefire. all of a sudden blinking or all these as near college or denouncing as he's far they're helping themselves now by doing it. because when they turn around there for the russians, defeat the ukraine armies,

and now we want to cease fire. now whether we agree, ok, we're going to see to your demands that you've been making for sci fi are. but what they're going to lunch is something on the low level, forever war of a korea and arch this, like a korea or is israel palestine piece process that goes on forever and it's never resolved. and you just cheap, but they'll try to get a peacekeeping forces in the west and ukraine just to keep, make sure that the peace process goes well, you know, and they'll be giving themselves the, the check the can down the road on all the final issues. and keep o a low level conflict going well, they never recognize when jim, jim, you're absolutely right. i can see all of the scenarios. see the korean one? no, because the u. s. north korea south created china agreed to that. okay. the russians are never going to agree with anything that is suggested by at a tony blinking or victoria whooping the never going. they were openly lied to for