what do you think would be the ultimate goal of all? what do, what day would be trying to achieve a cheaper if they had their 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 refer to a 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 monro 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 and cuba. is it that the

attempt 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 wanna 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, united states, recognize it as its legitimate security interest. and i think everybody else, including the salvi is actually understood and that's why they, they would say a settlement. 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, q of 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, the opponent this new moral equal and that's what he's trying to save and be not if there's clearly doesn't c as, as, as equals e i, i think there's some truth to that. not many people in, in washington. i think another way to look at it also is there is the writer and blogger, of 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 a view of russia as in physically evil related, 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 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 of hedge. how many that needs to be protected, but which mr. apple of, let's continue this fascinating conversation after a short break it up where we have to take right now. the so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy, even foundation, let it be an arms race is on all sides. very dramatic. the only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very clear to get a time time to sit down and talk. i

the, the, [000:00:00;00] the welcome back to the point with benjamin envelope, a officer of how the west brought work 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, you know, 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 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 shift 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 to naval control,

no infrastructure is safe and could be all 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 could go see the thing. yeah, just you throw a throw rock in me. so 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. uh, uh, i don't think anyone knows for sure yet, although i have an opinion of what i think is most likely. so is 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 uh 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. so the

possibility in the west of the united states is actually behind us. and then finally, i want to comment on something about the western media, which i've been extremely disappointed in. okay, what's that? let's make it one by one. why do you think the united states may have some associations without a part from a secretary of state anthony blinking or 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, massing on the border of both of the state is explicitly that they, that the us i, i have the actual quotations. all she 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 we will end this pipeline, mr. by the state explicitly. this was made on february 7th at a press conference with um, uh, the, the transfer all of shots uh 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, how will you do that exactly. since the project and control of a project is within german control, and mr. bies and responded in a very knowing tone, i promise you will be able to do it in a separate presentation. victoria and new and the under secretary of state stated, if rush it invades ukraine one way or another nord 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 can 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's russia constructed, whereas the explosions to place a been north stream one pipeline reach. but still is pretty much the same because that pipeline was intended and was a, 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 the alliances, particularly the alliances with your a brand. it's pretty clear to anyone who's, who knows anything about how industry all to raise that german economy to a large extent done. and many other european economies were built on the access to affordable russian energy sources. that's been very foundation or one of the foundations of european prosperity. if we take on that hypothesis that the united states was behind, it's one way or another, or that if even functioning it that it approves of it which you know, anthony blinking sat it exclusively. 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 being allied, do you think they will be able to function to maintain the industrial capacity without having energy to 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 may be 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 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 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 the, the station 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 then the threat of a new car 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 or stores, 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 that a 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 for the nuclear reactor there, i don't really see what motives are. um 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 the, 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've heard this news, but just a few hours ago, the ukranian president, londoners events he called a maitre to strike russia preventively to neutralize the so called nuclear threat coming from russia by nuclear. us read, i suppose humans of russia's nuclear capability. that's a, that's a statement that was interpreted in moscow as the,

as an invitation to strike russia's nuclear capacity of russia's nuclear facilities . what do you think are 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 the us will not take any imprudent actions based on begging, pleading protestations or admissions coming out of ukraine. ultimately, united states exhorts control of ukraine. we sometimes loose 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, the of the, the executive. 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 you 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 my show state main street because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is called stretching time, but again, you probably don't wanna watch it because it might just change the way you the hello and welcome to cross stock were all things are considered on peter live l. like in, had a to refuse, is that there is a life threatening problem. nato continues to promise you brain memberships. nato's addiction means you're a basis, chronic instability,

you've been endless. more the to discuss these issues and more, i'm joined by the usual guess. marvin jay, in america, she's in a word, the ping journalist and commentator. and of course we have in budapest, george 70 wiley. he is a pod cast, read the goggle, which can be found on youtube and locals. are gentlemen comstock girls in effect, that means you can jump in anytime you want. i always appreciate it. all right, start off with george and in budapest i think it's walk. you know, i'm not a physician. i'm not a medical doctor, but addiction a 10 times. great psychotic behavior, and i thing which is on display right now. um nato's expansion is only made your of more insecure and more prone to calm. but we've seen that over the last 15 months or so. but they have these, they don't have the ability to force correct. they don't have the ability to have any kind of self reflection. they don't have the ability to think a plan b, maybe an alternative, maybe a,

an adjustment here. they are being capable of. do it, how do you account for that? you live in a true country? what is there a, how to account for the to sorry for the question, the other gets the right. it's because of it is indeed a. so i thought the organization, the day of the day uh, installed and bug, the secretary general comes out and says, well, ukraine will be a member of nato. no one has any say in the matter except you're praying. a nato and russia does not have a veto on the question. well, obviously, russia does have a veto of in the hands the, the war. and when installed in books is that ukraine will be a member of laser, irrespective will grow russia. things. then essentially, nato is guaranteeing permanent walks because russia is not going to change its mind . i mean it's, it's, it's sacrifice too much. it's been an issue,

a very sole issue for a very long time. and it came about this war came about of the many, many, many warnings from moscow that this is intolerable to moscow. this is a red line and it showed them bug continues with it. and it's very, it is bizarre. oh, yeah, i'm, i'm gonna say that sold a bug on a policy is mazda is in washington one, opponent a warranty or a, but this is, this is what they want. this is what the plan that they have for the european continent that it's going to be prominently embroiled. and it was unfortunate letting the western publics haven't paid enough attention to it as a 5th and radius of so far anyway. and so they're letting this go and without realizing that basically then that guaranteed generations of war on the account and having enjoyed 75 years of peace. a. well,

essentially the same question to you because, i mean, i think partially, glen dangerously. it is nature that is turn this into the next essential conflict. okay. one side must win, one side must lose. prior to the conflict, there were options that were always options there. but even as a complet goes on grinds away, it'd be great. i don't even see how this benefits ukraine, obviously a dozen tier, but the one data was done and they said it split its entire reputation and an image organization on the line for something that even stilton bird said about a week ago. a rush, it must be defeated because of china. i mean, where's ukraine in that sentence? there, the wind starting up the same as a psychotic market. what was the most of them said in the same week we shouldn't forget to spoke about the frailty? well, the german economy and it had to be corrected by a number of officials. while she was talking, what he wanted to mention, the russian they called to be out of the circle attempted to so you know,

still the biggest spokesperson is folks, i'm a represented by the biden's class about all the big thing cuz we should never forget to. but you know, i mean, nature of it, in many ways, it doesn't have a bond, but it doesn't have um, some sort of contingent mechanism. but there was, seems to be one that's evolving. i mean, just a few days ago there was a meeting of low latest you need is a number of reps, countries and copenhagen on a web piece was put forward as a plan b, which could be implemented, they say in july so, so those can support this atlantic, so there's a great, there's a lot of conviction. you know, you've got a dichotomy of logic of 2 codes and trying to mission to one another. i'm just a mess left. unfortunately, i think there's a lot of confusion below this district mission. but it also told me in this program a lot about panic, i think we're seeing i was seeing the climax now this with the summit, i think, which is going to be a turning point. you know,

you've got so much pressure now to test something to happen. and still somebody says, nature michel, them shipped to ukraine, that can only happen of to ukraine will, is one. and how do you keep a straight face when you were cold or something like that? you know, so he sort by himself into a cooler, he's not going away. bite as austin to stay on now for uh for another year. and um, you know, it's, it's, it's really a mess where it looks like um, something decisive will happen. i think promises will be made, but just so we may have to ukraine, but they won't get the membership, they won't. and i've been saying now for the last 3 weeks of my columns, salacious k is gonna create some sort. does he put them in and one of these nuclear power plants from business uppers, is you have a pronounced that correctly new cape long. it'll either do it my guess is you'll have to do it a few days before the summit. oh wait. i'm see if anything sold, it came out of the summit and then do it afterwards to stop more panic. and i think

that will be a tragedy if that happens, because you can see how western media you can see how old is west valley. so, so ready, a so prepared to pile on the safe news and go with this. we saw exactly the same thing earlier. so i mean, i did when i was a younger journalist from the 1990s in yugoslavia with the bombing of i'm sorry ego, which is of me to be blamed on the subs, tons of subs and do it turns out that the muslims themselves. but that was a sense, um and uh and, and the, and the others around him needs to go ahead with an h. i bowman campaign which is and then it was a legal that can go to you and packing for it, you know, so i think it's just gonna repeat itself but, but made so it was always going to be sideline. nature is always going to be a pool player that comes of very cool in this. yeah. which of the georgia main logic would dictate the no, i'm agree with martin j. i big. i've been talking about a false flag,

a dirty balls flag you and i've talked about it in the gabble in our pod cast or for months now. but only the losing side would do that and it's kind of, it's hard and we have to, i'm so i suppose it very difficult for western audiences that kind of comprehend because there's been a plethora of particles in the code or offensive isn't going so well. ok, and if you really want to know it's actually going very badly if you make the effort to look at the alternative news. but this has this little bit, but this has all of nato's making. okay. i mean, if it works in a compromise, you know, we're neither side with wind essentially is neutrality. why isn't that even remotely thought about me? yes, and that's it. that's exactly right. why isn't that remotely sold about? even though, because we know the nature of palm is membership nathan membership to your brain in 2000, they how did the ukrainians respond?

they responded by voting into a power of victory and the coal, which will promptly changed the ukranian constitution to stipulate that ukraine will be a neutral power of. and that was infuriated bates. so in a post we know that they begin plotting during the throw. you have to go away from that moment time, but i just shows that you gradient themselves whenever and suzy aspect about the nato membership in georgia. that is, the lens being ran as a piece candidate as a is the 90 around is a p scan to the adult. you get another to a piece and the dumbass, but also reconciliation between russia and ukraine. and then you know that in the diploma certainly never intended that seriously, but that's how you ran. but the, as nato has made this, an existing shall match a full day. so which makes it very difficult for nato to climb down if neither had declared well, this is our goal and they say, well, we can commit ourselves to zalinski is 10 point based plan,

was that the landscape doesn't have a 10 point based plan. is the landscape is demanding that russia capitulate. so nato and all nathan members, they are essentially committed to the goal of actually capitulation. how is that gonna happen? if you, how is ukraine, go to force russia to capitulate? you know, the greatest nuclear power loops, and that's the, that's the absurd position in the game. it means it's a guarantee for, and i'm, and i think mazda is right, some kind of a full swag effect, i think, is a, it's certainly a distinct possibility. as is rolling, i mean, poland is up to all kinds of missed you if you know the building up forces against the bell. a rose is a building. they've been investing an awful lot in militarization. it's a jacking up. it's a little ex, military expenditures like there's no tomorrow got on it as well. the polls apply, they. so that's another possibility of us. so there's going to be some kind of a,