vice address t warren, the american public of the combination of military iraq, bureaucratic power and financial interest of the arms industry. and in fact, he even seemed like he was going to go so far as to bring in the question of financial conflicts of interest within congress. but was told mister president, you can't go so far. so i think that there are conflicts, financial conflicts of interest and power, conflicts of interest that have played some role in motivating the western stances towards what's happening in your book. you make the point that for 200 years of uh, the us as defense policy. it was uh, based, if not on the respect done at least paying some attention to the opponents, red lines or secure to sensibilities. and that's when it came to russia, the united states and nato disregarded this, this principle, a question number one, do you think they made that decision deliberately? was it a conscious choice? and why would they do that? given that, again, the russia is a,

is not some 3rd world country. it has nuclear weapons, it has a strong army, it has multiple resources. what do you think would be the ultimate goal of all? what do, what day would be trying to achieve a cheerfully if they had the dreams fulfilled? yeah, uh, let me just back up one step before i try to respond to that and hopefully i won't lose lose the thread of your, your actual question. as i do this, i just want to make a little clear, the notion of the geography and the red lines. and the question of, um, uh, i referred to in the book the monroe doctrine. this is a doctor in course it wasn't referred to as a doctor and initially, but it's based on a statement by then present. president monroe in 1823 that really as 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 opponents of places military forces anywhere near us borders anywhere in the western hemisphere even knows it is crossing

a red line. one could only imagine what would happen if, for instance, russia had formed an alliance with canada or mexico foreign q. why is it that to attempt to or even to the right, 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 don't what say, progressively, it could be defensively. but how, what sort of intense fear is of attack that aroused on the part of the united states, united states, recognize it as its legitimate security interest. and i think everybody else, including the story 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 i called putting the show of 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 uh, the truth. you are pulling this new moral equal and that's what he's trying to say, but be not if there's clearly doesn't see as, as, 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 by that, what he means is 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 an, a view of russia as is physically evil in 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, quote,

even to reverse that picture and see how they would feel the other side in 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 the

welcome back to worlds appointment, benjamin envelope of officer of how the west brought word to your brain. and mr. ablow, we began talking in the before the break about how um the lessons of the world will 1 may be relevant in considering this 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 at 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 unit follow the, i know that you, you, you have a keen interest in nuclear 1st and use 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 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 . i'm 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 it

a 1st. obviously this is extremely dangerous uh, 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 it. uh, 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 to number 2, i want to make a comment about the reasons why i think 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, so it looks like it's 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 the things that 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 in this period before the war started. but when russia was ready, mass thing on the board or both of the state is explicitly that they, that the us i, i have the actual quotations archie, read them because i don't want to rely with 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 or chance all our shelves on the,

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, uh, how will you do that exactly. since the project and control of a project is within german control and mr. bite and responded in a very knowing tone, i promise you will be able to do it in a separate presentation. victoria new in the under secretary of state stated, if russia invades 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, and ultimate sense, i'm withholding any judgment 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 reach, but still is pretty much the same because that pipeline was intended and it was,

it was intended to bring natural gas to germany as well as to many other countries . now the americans like to talk about the solidity of that alliances, particularly the alliance is with your a ben, it's pretty clear to anyone who's, who knows anything about how industry all to raise that german economy until logics dunden and many other european economies would build 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 functioning in that it approve of it, which you know, anthony blinking sat it 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 were being allied, do you think they will be able to function to maintain the industrial capacity without having energy?

that 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'd not 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 2 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. and 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, and 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 inviting to 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 is certainly the there could be influence as 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 could 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,

that, and one of the motivations that one could posit, would be, uh, you could almost call it a desperate attempt to keep uh, 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. if in the winter, the german population began to become a friendly uh, uncomfortable with cold weather, etc. so uh uh, so i, yeah, i think a lot i'll leave it at that for the moment. now. uh, before we go through the process, if you have time for of, i want to use your expertise as a, as a nuclear expert because of the, the station surrounding these upper ocean nuclear plant, 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 threats and the threat of,

uh, nuclear accidents, as a bargaining chip. not only with russia, but even more. so with the west. do you think these explosions of the gas pipelines may change the stance of the ukrainian authorities or maybe the understanding of what's permitted and what is not? this is 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, but also i think that it's true that within the ukrainian 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 do 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 you printing and government. mm hm. 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 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 stress coming from russia by nuclear stress. i suppose humans of russia's nuclear capability. uh, that's a, that's a statement that was interpreted in moscow as the, as an invitation to stripe russia's 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 voice as will pertain

in the west. look, this is the last key, isn't 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 perceive 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 improvement actions based on begging, pleading protestations, or admissions coming out of ukraine. ultimately, united states exhorts control of ukraine. we sometimes lose trace of that fact. ukraine makes a statement. we 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 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 will ask the mx and they certainly should not be acting on statements so it 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 this area again on was a part of the of the,

the, [000:00:00;00] the, all the, the 400 people are arrested overnights us from continues to the, in the wake of a faithful police shooting of a 17 year old friend of jerry and on tuesday, in the news this week, not the correspondence addresses me. think of the un security council highlighting how the feeling of civilians and the don't boston frequently goes from notice in the west. i now give the floor to mister k 1000 weapons being supplied by nato under allies to ukraine. i'd be willing to be targeted against civilian populations on a daily basis. all miraculously invisible to the western media. on kenya and human

rights party launches an investigation and a legit must atrocities by security guards at the local us. on the final perform, we have some of the victims the guards thoroughly beaten the left me and cautious and dragged me deep inside the pineapple. later in the evening, the curtain me outside the plantation and left me to die at the roadside. by that time i was serious. the you're watching the weekly hey, on the international. my name is peter scott. and these are some of the stories. the shapes, the news this weekend joining us were stopped without top story. this all cast is continuing to rain and cities across the front following tuesdays killing by police of the month of old jerry and descent.

the french politician and phone the presidential candidates eric demo, believes that the on the resting in funds over the past week is tons of mounts of civil war. a web, derek, we can clearly see that we're in the early stages of a civil war. what is the civil war? it's a confrontation between one part of the population against public authorities or the state is exactly what we have here today. this is an ethnic rise because every

way we see losing way people rushed to luxury products. so today the consumption stores the most competitive in a place where i get deployed on most across power. so resting 162 people overnight, smoke grenades were loans to disperse, the crowds and so to the phone to 9 to 6 people were arrested. all across the country and the service that you have must say the situation was tense during the night as well. police arrested more than 50 individuals who were leasing stores across as winds on. so don't with say a gas use against the crowns or overly on soaps will lead to unbundled lives. so if you want police stations with targeted on saturday nights, at least one of them was bummed with an improvised explosive device. if it's just administered, threatened to prosecute anyone who insights, riots, and so for me this is unbearable and it's enough. so we have everything that's our disposal and the court. so meeting their obligations for the no response does not have the amount that strong and systematic and also to pursue and identify people

on snapshots and to tell parents to get hold of their kids. it's not up to the state to raise their children. the minutes to also want any parents whose children take pots and their riots could face up to 2 years in prison or $30000.00 euro find several days of investigates off after a traffic stop on tuesday, resulted in police basically shooting a $70.00 defense of jerry and was driving a stolen vehicle of the lease and nonsense attempted to pull over the call with police license plates dry driven by the team. but when he done attempted to speed off offices opened fire at close range between you and the trust. the funeral was held on such a day in the same provisions above where he was shot dead with cows gathering, to show some intelligent special authority. the incident was re nights, its concerns about the racial profiling and police brutality in the country.

political on list use of mary told us that while the riots are necessarily violent, besides the divide that has been created because of what he calls discrimination of the hundreds of federal law to as well. i'm talking about public and civil unrest that constantly happens in france. every year, of course i'm not in any way supporting the rights that are taking place in france . i think a lot of it had been very violent. and so something every person should come down by one should never take place in such a situation. but i think this is an indication of the brand frustration of the masses of the people they're going to be frustrated with the french government. and the reason they, you know, be across the spectrum. where do you begin? discrimination raises the street, coney and government policies that directly target people with religious background . if you practice and you'll be able to handle religions, you know you are no longer to be practicing those really just kind of because this is the government is in acting a secular,

a secular policy which directly targets the religious ideologies of anybody who follows a religious background, this is the growing frustration that let's see in france are full testing. and unfortunately, why you think about it because of their knowledge, they're simply not agree with the policy is that they're coming to the field that the governments, it is well, for more developments on the unraveling situation and friends do head over to all websites, all the com kind of go states you tear on all the international form. busy of ongoing coverage in the news this week and not the correspondence addressed a meeting of the un security council which was focused on the current threats to international peace and security. say both and draw attention to how the spelling of civilians and the don't pass. it goes why they don't report it in the west. i now give the floor to mister tase vows. well,

thank you for asking me to appear ladies gentlemen sherman. and despite well over a year of frenzy, then what is now with the east as loosely regulated supply of incalculable numbers . a web, a few grain sources within the country still maintained that it needs an escalating volume of heavy, unlike weapons. and ammunition can don't, did. so, abrasions weapons being supplied by nato, other allies, to ukraine being we will for the targeted against civilian populations on a daily basis. the dumbass guns failed her of all miraculous, the invisibles, the western media on the hills of addressing the security council shaped bows, drawing me in the studio to talk through the details. but it's a huge stage. you know, i mean as a journalist and somebody who's trying to challenge the narrative switch, western media, you know, a paddling, you know, regularly daily it's, it's a huge honor to, to, to get that opportunity. the idea of the meeting was talking about the weapons, the proliferation of weapons and nuclear and how dangerous that has become. and

this was the key point that i focused on at regarding the flooding of euclid and utility in society. and the impact is having on the country. also the sort of cynical dumping of weapons and g, trained by smaller nato countries on, on the promise of being given newer systems for the united states. so the research we did on investigations into that, that a lot of this stuff doesn't work, that is actually puts the use as a risk. so we've, we sort of went through a process of examining that, trying to present the evidence that you know, this war was built up since 2014, with nato training 10000 people a year. it didn't just immediately, you know, spring to life. do you claim the minister's vice military machine that have been built, the acceleration of shelling across the line of contact just prior to the russian ministry and intervention as well? and another thing that came up, i suppose, was the you and i'm boss the russian. you in on boss that are, is the view,

the worst thing to rate is of the key every shame and trying to present the case in such a way that they began on and ukraine only with the beginning of the military operation to repel russian aggression. this scheme has to enter into something like a private military campaign of ukraine and a year and a off, or what kind of damage has rusher inflicted on the united states o. e u. countries. the re explain the motives of us citizens with less than weapons . all the sabotage on the north stream $1.00 and $2.00 gas pipelines or terrorist attacks on permanent public figures. how did the remark by the russian representative to you and, and named starts your address? how does it go down? what's the response? did gushing well, you're very quickly get a sense for the sort of practice on nature in the chamber, and that's a friendly countries the rush, it would take me to, i think, max blumenthal, he's a giant, the journalism really, you know, on the dissenting side against this narrative that russia is solely responsible for the conflict in ukraine. so you can see that in the chain with the british, the americans and the nato countries, they seem to have

a prescribed response to everything we say they didn't engage in any actual detail and the, the factual evidence that max and i am the boss or indeed at res, so it tends to be almost a look the other way said there is no intention really to engage with the platform and the ability to project this dissenting view to present the findings. facts like, uh, you know, the fading counter offensive, new claim which i raise the fact that these a very unfortunate young ukrainian men are being sent into emissions that nato forces would not be sent into into prepared, defense has added onto mine fields in, in some cases quite old equipments. i mentioned one of the, i'm a personal carriers that we're seeing a lot of in ukraine and the, and 113, developed in 1964. so action and fee of $9.00. the edits being rolled out across prepared defenses in the set of, of done that's getting done by us again. so he's prepared. defense isn't. it just