the geography and the red lines. and the question of, um, uh, i refer to a book the monroe doctrine. this is a doctor in course it was it referred to as a doctor and initially, but it's based on a statement by then present. president monroe in 1823 that really at that time had to do with colonialism, but ultimately has been interpreted in different ways. having to do with the idea that a, a foreign power, that places a potential opponent to places military forces anywhere near us borders anywhere in the western hemisphere even knows it is crossing a red line. one can only imagine what would happen if, for instance, russia had formed an alliance with canada or mexico ma'am to bye exhibit the attempt or even to arrive, which is right. yes, cuba, right, of course. and even that's further away than right on the border. and we, we could see during the cuban missile crisis, how aggressively the us responded, or i didn't say we're aggressively, it could be defensively. but how, what sort of intense fear is of attack that aroused on the part of the united

states recognize it as its legitimate security interest. and i think everybody else, including the solve is actually understood. and that's why they, they would say a set on yeah. yeah, yeah, i think that's very true. so you know that there's a chapter in my book or i called putting the show or the other foot by which i mean to say, how would the us respond if russia or china had done something sort of equivalent, forming an alliance with um, with canada and mexico and we saw what happened even with respect to cooper, cuba off the coast. how about if was right on the border, as you crane or georgia or other places are right on rushes border. so i think it's very important to try to the 3 of you are calling this new moral equal. that's what he's trying to say. but being not if there's clearly doesn't see as, as a, as equals e i, i think there's some truth to that. many people in, in washington i think another way to look at it also is there is a writer in blog or robert wright who use the term cognitive empathy. and is that

what he means a sort of your ability to mentally or psychologically transpose yourself and see other issues the other person. and i would say, you know, i think there are people who you could say they have a very, uh, they have a view of russia as is physically evil a, hey, they hate, there certainly are people like that. but i think there are probably others who i would simply say they lack cognitive empathy, by which i mean an inability to transpose themselves into the position of the other sites and see how they would feel well, even to reverse the picture and see how they would feel, feel, decided the st. the, especially if the american own security and doctrine doesn't allow for that. i mean, if you actually look at the american strategic documents, there is no space for empathy of any kind that there is a simple statement, does have gemini, that needs to be protected, but which mr. eval of. let's continue this fascinating conversation after a short break. that's where we have to take right now. the

hang on, i guess i'll just be though, because i've spoken to this but don't give you leave to go into a few spots on catch up to see what was the some of the most serious close. i use this key members here, really, it was easy limited through it when williams saying, if they have come, you love, it even goes faster than that. it's the next the message,

each of cuz i need for someone debris, i need ship escalating. some of the brothers guess one is correct is to goes kamisky when we're dealing with a sudden it's a junior stack, but the pretty good to do so instead of with the blooming to too much to get them so. so here through the the

welcome back to his appointment, benjamin envelope, officer of how the west brought word to your brain. and mister ablow, we began talking in the before the break about how um the lessons of the world will 1 may be relevant in considering base swelling crisis. but i think there are also many 1st that we haven't seen. and one of them would be, as far as i would claim, is the uh for as the explosion ad, the north stream pipeline, the act of industrial terrorism. something like this never happened before, even during the cold war. and also the, the nuclear threat to, i'm sure, you know, follow the, i know that you, you, you have a keen interest in nuclear. first thing is the lobby congress on your plate issues . and we all know that there is a huge and nuclear station, right?

in the middle of this war zone data is at least according to the russian narrative has been constantly shelled by ukraine. so let's consider this. first of all, i want to ask for your reactions on the, on the explosions of the north stream pipeline. because regardless of who um is to blame, i think it really uh shifts the frame because it introduces a new norm that though aside can one side can attack the industrial infrastructure on 2nd of all, it also shows that in the area made the naval control. no infrastructure is safe and could be all in fact vulnerable to industrial terrorism. well, i have many things to say about this. i'll try to give you a very brief uh and you'll keep me on track if i go scrolling down things or yeah, just you throw a throw rock and make a 1st. obviously this is extremely dangerous movement. i'm not quite sure i'll call

escalation, but let's call it a movement of conflict into another sphere. whether this was carried out by russia, by the united states, by other nato powers. i don't think anyone knows for sure yet, although i have an opinion of what i think is most likely. so as a starting point, i want to say that i think this is very dangerous and it could lead to a type of sort of escalation of attacks on, on infrastructure outside of the current battlefield. and this, there's no end to this where this could go. and number 2, i want to make a comment about the reasons why i say more attention needs to be paid for the possibility in the west of the united states has actually behind us. and then finally, i want to comment on something about the western media, which i've been extremely disappointed in. okay, let's, let's make it one by one. why do you think the united states may have some associations without a part from? uh, secretary of state anthony blinking and presenting that as as

a great opportunity. yeah, well, i think that these are most persuasive to me are statements made by both president biden and by the under secretary of state for a political affairs victoria newland. both of them. uh, in this period before the war started. but when russia was already massing on the border, both of those stated explicitly that they, that the us i, i have the actual quotations. all she read them because i don't want to rely on what's the paper. i went back to the video which anyone can find online, just search mr. biting uh, north stream to uh, we will end this pipeline um, mr. by the state explicitly. this was made on february 7th at a press conference with um, uh the, the from chance all our shelves on, on the podium with him. if russia evades that means tanks or troops crossing the

border of ukraine again, then there, then there will no longer be a north stream too. we will bring it to an end. and then a member of the press said, ah, how will you do that exactly. since the project and control of a project is within german control, and mr. buys and responded in a very knowing tone, i promise you will be able to do it in a separate presentation. victoria and new in the under secretary of state stated, if rush it and vase ukraine, one way or another north stream to will not move forward. i the, i think that those statements alone. they do not prove that the us did it. and i, a and, and ultimate sense, i'm withholding and each judgement with certainty. but in medicine there's something called prior probability. you look at the full constellation of data

that's available before you to undertake a definitive diagnostic test. and you say, how likely is it that one party one disease or another disease or one party or another? and i would say that these statements were explicit statements about what would happen if russia is a good and then rush invaded. and then this did happen. i would say this place is a high, a high prior probability that the united states was behind. this does not prove it, and i remain open to new evidence. but i think there should be much more concern than there is that this is what happened. but i think i need to make an important clarification for our viewers that mr. barton made that statement about north stream to pipeline the new pipeline that russia constructed. where's the explosions to place a been north stream? one pipeline which, but still is pretty much the same because that pipeline was intended and was, was intended to bring natural gas to germany as well as to many other countries.

now the americans liked to talk about the solidity of that alliances, particularly the alliance is with your a brand. it's pretty clear to anyone who's, who knows anything about how industry all to raise that german economy until a large extent done. and many other european economies were billed on the access to affordable russian energy sources. that's the very foundation or one of the foundations of european prosperity. if we take on that hypothesis that the united states was behind it one way or another, or that if even function in that it approves of it which you know, anthony blinking status explicitly. that is a great opportunity. what do you think would be, what do you think that would say about the american attitude towards it? if you are p and allied, do you think they will be able to function to maintain that industrial capacity without having that are gene? it yeah, well 1st, so let me just comment briefly on your point about north stream one versus north

stream 2 and i think that's an excellent point. one that i don't be focusing on. i do want to make what i think maybe one small correction, unless there's some new news today. my understanding was that at least as of yesterday, they were a total of 3 explosions affecting both pipelines. however, each pipeline has to is a double pipeline. so my understanding is that both of the, both of the pipelines of the duplex pipeline in north stream one were damaged. and one of the 2 in north stream 2 or damage in my suspicion is that the other one that whoever was planning this actually intended to hit all 4, but things get complicated at uh, 250 feet below the ocean surface. and so i think that is a valid point that you're raising and then perhaps it should make one a little bit less certain or a little bit less confident that it was the us. and maybe it takes a little bit of pressure weight off the statements in vitamin newland. uh, what does it say about the relationships about it if the us did in fact carry this

out and i want to get to the press also, maybe you can focus my question after that. but what does this say about the relationship? if this happens? certainly the united states has long been opposed to the north stream to pipeline. certainly, some people have pointed out that this if, if the north stream to pipeline or the north stream one also stopped operating. that this would create tremendous markets, new markets for liquefied natural gas coming from the united states. certainly the, because there could be influences along those lines. i am not quite so mercenary. and as cynical in my interpretation there, i think again that some of this may have come from what were, among some people, at least, you know, well intentioned, that they correctly or wrong correctly or incorrectly had a deep fear of russia and didn't want not want a closer alliance between russia and germany, and they saw the supply of natural gas as a, uh, an important element of that at. and one of the motivations that one could posit

would be, you could almost call it a desperate attempt to keep a russia and germany from developing a closer connection. that perhaps germany would be peeled off, so to speak from the western atlantic alliance and move somewhere closer to russia . in the winter, the german population began to become extremely uh, uncomfortable with cold weather, etc. so uh uh, so i, yeah, i think i'll leave it at that for the moment. now. uh, before we go to the prize, if you have time for of, i want to use your expertise as a, as a nuclear expert because of the, the situation surrounding this approach. and you could have planned, as well as other nuclear capacities that ukraine has. it is pretty troubling and there were some times, at least in russia, i believe that the ukrainian leadership is using nuclear threat and the threat of, uh, new car accidents as a bargaining chip. not only with russia, but even more. so with the west. do you think these explosions are the gas

pipelines may change the stance of the ukrainian authorities or maybe the understanding of what's permitted and what is not me? and when you ask what's from it or what's not, are you, do you have a specific type of attack in mind? well, it's pretty clear that an attack on the gas pipeline is pretty dangerous, not only in terms of uh, ecological impact, but also, you know, thank god nobody has suffered. but if there is a continued showing on the nuclear station, and the damage could be a far more significant than to get both of these possibilities to represent a case of, of a, of an industrial terrorism. yeah, well of course you crane is claiming that russia is shelling the yeah. while the russian forces are being stationed there. right. right. i, i, again, i would say i withhold 100 percent judgment, but i find it rather implausible. the idea that russia would take over the plant

and then shell its own forces and attempt to destroy the power plants except this, this was a nuclear reactor there. i don't really see what motives are. and also i think that it's true that within the ukrainians forces, there is probably quite a range of players involved. although groups such as the, as a battalion or the far right, the quote unquote neo fascist or what whatever names you want to use. certainly far right. highly nationalistic elements, although they've been more fully incorporated into the ukranian forces and they used to be, they used to operate, to some extent, send me autonomously. i think there's probably still a much wider range of and much less top down control than there might be. and then i suspect there is within the russian forces. so i think it's possible that there are either elements within you for any forces. it could also be something really from central ukrainian government. but uh, so i don't know the details there. i also know a 100 percent, it's been years since i focused on some of these issues,

whether an attack there could actually initiate a meltdown of the reactor or whether it's simply disposing radioactive material either way it would be a disaster. yeah. can i ask you something you are as quickly and we are running out of time very, very fast. but i don't know if you, if you heard this news, but just a few hours ago, the ukranian president loved him as well as he called a maitre to strike russia preventively to neutralize the so called nuclear threat coming from russia by nuclear threat. i suppose he meant the russians nuclear capability. that's a, that's a statement that was interpreted in moscow as the, as an invitation to strike russians, nuclear capacity of russia's nuclear facilities. what do you think of the chances of the west responding positively to something like that? and i certainly hope not. i would like to believe that same voices will pertain in the west. look, this is the last key is the middle of the war. he's dealing with what i can only

imagine his extraordinary psychological stress and extraordinary precious within his own government. but the fact that he is in that position and that he perceives themselves as the aggrieved party, it may lead him to make statements that are not at all prudent. for any one, they are not prudent for you cranes that are not prudent for the united states, and that you're not prudent for russia. so is certainly my hopes of us will not take any imprudent actions based on begging, pleading protestations or admissions coming out of ukraine. ultimately, united states exerts control of ukraine. we sometimes lose trace of that fact. ukraine makes the statement we meet, must have high mars. we must have long range highmore, as we must do extra. why the united states must acknowledge the simple fact that ukraine ultimately do whatever the united states wants it to do. that's the simple fact for better or for worse, that's the way it is. we are not controlled by mr. zaleski. this is the last key.

ultimately it's controlled by us. so there is no way in the world that the us should be acting on every statement. the mrs lights the mx and they certainly should not be acting on statements that could lead to rapid escalation and nuclear war route. let's leave it at that. thank you very much for your time and congratulations on the book. thank you and thank you for watching cope to syria again on was a part of the, [000:00:00;00] the,

[000:00:00;00] the, the toner, it will see skit they see they will see skin out of the go with the that usually those last i was i move you on is zacko go on that good option and you know he's a put up on your not the shortfall state taxation. you folks have tried. i'm not sure, but i, she's the instructional give about john long would love to go. just talk a little you should see those sheets of the go. there's a little c, a years ago sales custom coast like friends here was the months me, i'm a photo skin. she was a but all you know and about the show on circuit most to go to court order. sure. thing. it's been collab most i usually it comes to shock given that you to go to your open when you get to mind porsha was to play catch us at the school time. yeah . and the console. you put the device,

you're saves the. take a fresh look around his life. kaleidoscopic isn't just a shifted reality distortion, by how of tired vision with no real opinions pictures designed to simplify will confuse who really wants a better wills. and is it just as a chosen for you? fractured images, presented as fast can you see through their illusion going underground? can the the, the u. s. department of veteran's affairs is one of the most poorly managed departments in the us government rivaling elements of the justice department like the bureau of prisons and the f. b. i in documented wrong doing different

presidents have appointed secretaries with different backgrounds to try to write the ship, including general's business executives, attorneys, and even activists. but nothing is worked. there's something deeply wrong about the culture within veterans affairs. we only know about it, thanks to whistle blowers, i'm john kerry onto and welcome to the whistle blowers the . 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 in 2018 for police officers from the us department of veterans affairs went public with allegations of waste, fraud, abuse, and illegality in the sprawling department that is supposed to take care of americas veterans. v a police officers are responsible for protecting the property, staff, veterans, and visitors. they cover v a property all across the united states, conducting patrols, responding to calls,

including calls about suicide will patients and investigating crimes. those 4 officers found evidence indicating that their supervisors covered up false reports, covered up for corrupt officers. one fairly promoted people in the forest with whom they were having affairs, and performed numerous acts of favoritism. they had side businesses in violation of ethical codes and they engaged in discrimination. gross mismanagement, an overtime pay fraud when they reported their findings to senior officials, rather than those officials acting on the information they targeted these 4 officers. almost immediately, there were problems with their pay. they received poor performance evaluations and they were transferred to desk duty, while long term investigations against them played out. as we say, 2 frequently on this show, what happened was exactly the opposite of what was supposed to happen. we're joined today by one of those v. a police officers, tim petoskey. tim, thank you so much for being with us. we're glad to have you an honor to be here.

tim, tell our viewers a little about yourself. how did you get involved in law enforcement? especially in federal law enforcement and how did you end up at the department of veterans affairs? sure. so i've, i'm, i've been a comp for a very long time. i often joke that and i'm not fit for anything else. i retired from the union support organization and then i started looking for something to do is sort of that space between retirement, where you're still young enough to get out and do the job, but you've passed your 1st milestone. you were just retired from the 1st department and so i accidentally discovered that the department of veterans affairs actually had police officers. i was surprised to find that out initially. and so 2009. when i retired from the states side, i took a job with the va for that reason. originally i did my thought was this was going

to be a retirement good. i. i couldn't envision that law enforcement at a hospital would be that detailed. and so i figured it would be a good place for me to kind of, to my shields and tell all my retirements settled out and i was still in the army reserves. so i figured, you know, this was a good place to, to come. and so i've been working since the eighty's, i worked the street crimes in florida in those years. and i've been military intelligence officer for quite a few years and in p in the army and in the air force for a few years as well. so that's pretty much all i've done with my life. wow, boy scouts. yeah, it is right. you had been at the va for a long time. you're a professional, you know the rules. and then you started seeing things that were just wrong. tell us about that. and about what you did when you saw these things well, originally, like i said, i'd drive in 2009 by 2010. uh, i kind of looked around and i was like,

wait a minute. especially in what we called level when he facilities like out here in seattle or detroit or boston. it is not just being a hospital. com. there's a lot of stuff it goes on in those facilities. and the agency here in seattle is woefully understaffed. your officers wearing a hand me down 2nd chance best spit were out of the radio system. didn't work. all kinds of stuff. and i almost just walked off the job. i almost just put myself in a bag and walked out the door and it a friend of mine and rob ad it was assaulted so bad that you'll never be accomplishing. and he laid a pool of his own blood streaming over those radio systems that couldn't work. and um, and we couldn't find it. and uh, so i looked a friend of mine and joe murphy, the fellow officer. and the days after rob's assault,

we just got a job in the eye. and so what are we going to do? and joe said to me and my, my brother's keeper, to me and those words just took me like a lightning bolt. and that's because joe was a young guy, she was starting his tour. i'm at the end of mine, right? like mine is the ability for the view to harm me is marginalized by the fact that i, my career is science who lives in many respects. joe was stepping up in an environment with the vehicle couldn't, will, in his ability to be a comp forever. and so it was a, it was an integrity check, you know, and so i had to step forward and joe, and i did we, especially those initial years. so it was just joe and i against the world. and he moved on to the federal protective services and went on with his career. and i stayed at the v a u side of the story of the new story where the for, i was want tell that, but i, i've done public several times before that. and after that story, it was,

at least there was a hit list that was you reach by the be a my name's on it and they call me the ring leader or the police national and wow, and i bear that like a badge of honor. um that's right, i don't know how to do that is but i'm by more than willing to own it. and so it's been a pretty long road and this is my 1st interview. yeah. well i, i'm thrilled by that. i'm thrilled by it. this is important. you made protected whistleblower complaints. there are laws to deal with this kind of thing. where are you working? were you working together with the other officers on these issues or were you reporting independently of one another and then sort of came together later. yes. to box. so i worked my own issues, there were officers who were absolutely, i'm afraid it's for their careers to come forward. so they would send me the

information. i would divide it and collect it and then i would file the complaints for them. some folks, uh jeremy balls and out of the washington d. c. b a. we kind of encountered each other because they had list we were going through that list. i'm like, wait a minute. i heard this guy and he and i started talking and they were actually doing all the same things in dc that i was doing independently of me and unknown to me until the headless came out. and then we started coordinating, of course, from that point forward. so, so yes to both. so tell us what happened once you blew the whistle you've said, or at least i've seen a counsel in the press saying that you were given poor performance evaluations. you were put on desk duty while you were investigated. for example, tell us about that and what else uh, happened to you? sure. well the effects of that was in december, they fired down. oh my god, full. yeah, support. how are you going with this part?

so that was, it was to prolonged the 1st was that i was working a case in which a veteran had stated that he had contracted with someone to kill his wife. i was working that case with a municipal agency, the federal police department, and i shared information to the, the under the exceptions to the law. and they fired me because they say that those exceptions to the law don't exist. that's their entire case. the 2nd problem was they didn't like an email communication and a facebook post that i made as a union steward on official time under the direction of the union. good career. and so the, the 2 aspects to the, to my term, to december's termination are a cheaper toners. and that's, that's something that, that kind of, you have to highlight about to be a, you hear