well, then of course, they believe that by pumping in weapons and ammunition and political support and good works, so that today or you find would be able to win over russia. i think the assumption is that night and also it's very interesting now in a historical perspective, to look at nato as being in various ways in ukraine, basically is things i think 3 months after you kind of became an independent state . yeah. everybody in the west who knew anything about security, including the number of us investors to mosque out, including uh burners, who is now see a director, but was an investor and tons of scholars in the us. and europe have won the last 30 years. you can be, you may, you may do expansion of nato, which is against the problem is, is very clearly given to go by job. but you can't do you crying because that means war. and now you had a couple of days before the room. you saw me, you have by didn't say things saying basically the same word. i mean, this is

a huge blunder. they should never have done what they did in 2008, which was a response to letting me po tends very concerned this page in the munich security conference. so i mean, they just have totally intellectual slot and best theories. it's really interesting when you think about the censorship that's going on, and of course everyone knows like, for example, r t was taken off of youtube, but it is absolutely right. ever since the end of the cold war, there's been a huge debate about expanding nato. but according to one year ago and 5 months, you can't say that anymore. your app, you're getting to know a lot of trouble board. i was originally banned from twitter for quoting rock obama on ukraine. i got the band for that. okay. so the, it's really quite interesting is what you can there was, there's a whole literature out there and, but all of a sudden the last 16 months. oh there, you know it's, it's, it's, it's for both them to speak about is missy. this is the times we live in,

and i you, then it'll let me, let me go to mr. here, here in columbus. go ahead. i mean, yes. listen the censorship industrial complex that has been completely out of control on a number of issues. this is just one of them, and i think that it is very telling, i think any time that you're not allowed to ask questions, you should ask all of the questions. and i think that that's something that they have been able to avoid in this country. the propaganda machine is very powerful, very strong and very effective. i think a lot of people are, are willing and able to go along with whatever line that they're selling to us on the, on a host of issues. this one i think is a little bit different. i think that this one from the jump. i think a lot of people started to question it. they've managed to beat a lot of those people down through censorship. like with yourself and through other methods of, you know, kind of silencing people through algorithms and shadow banning and that kind of thing. but i do think a lot of people are questioning this narrative a lot more than they would have maybe in the past. i think post iraq, a lot of people are more skeptical when these are sort of a situations arise. and i think that that's what we're seeing now. and i hope that continues and we, and we continue to see people uh, push back on this uh, sort of

a narrative. yeah, mike, you know, the, let's think about this here. so let's say hypothetically, ukraine winds the war against russia, then why does it need nato ok, why does it need to join in the lot? i guess also, if you could crane most likely will lose this work. why would nato include a country bit lost, a war against russia? i mean, i don't, i don't understand the logic of any of this here. go ahead, mike. no, none of that makes sense as you, as you rightly said, but if, if they were to win, well, how do they win? cuz those goal pace keep changing. i think biting and his law was saying that nate, ukraine would have to retain crimea as a, as a sort of standard of, you know, restore the territorial integrity. and this has been sorting about a lot. so then if you kind doesn't succeed in restoring it's 1991 board is then it doesn't maintain his integrity. that for account will be a positive nate. so because part of the conditions as i understood them was that the country had to be in control of its borders. so you, obviously, you're right,

they never makes that just and let's just also remember how a present page in distress about this expansion of nato. the key concern of the russian federation, an x is an existential security risk, and the west, the median laughed at him. but in short order, then we had these calls for sweden and finland to join finland being another encroachment up to the north. and then we have this talk of ukraine and suddenly celebrated the look how united we are. look, how putin has shot himself in the foot. no, you've actually justified his exact consent and you've been so strengthened the argument that nato has broken his promise, as has been stressed it to go, which has a margaret fletcher being one of them from the u. k. who also showed good chance that not one inch east was young. i mean, what is the future of nato? i'd say the brick wall with the crane and you'd like, and i think we're all in agreement. you kind will never be a member of that alliance. russia will not allow it,

that's why we have the conflict there now young. and i think what they are doing now is to substitute the word minimum, which is very clear in the treaty with or not substitute. but i expand that into what they called pa. those and now i think 139 partners on all the part, you know, boss of the world and, you know, they are thinking now planning to set up in an h will office in japan all this and i think this is an extremely important point. what made to dollars today is not in the photos with its founding treaty. it's in that sense and the legal activity outside on that started with the bombing of yugoslavia $99.00. absolutely, absolutely. and, well, what it is is it is the hang on hang on, we're going to have to go to a hard break. and after that hard break, we'll continue our discussion on the nato summit. stay with our team, the,

you know, probably maybe she did you say the week monday or his sister was upstairs or some, you know, book or used to work. what's the weight? and i've emailed you about your cell set up with the general. but some of the things up the schools on most of these, the little some both i believe if you need because usually the media,

the game is low and your tells me what, which would be to see it but not for the screen 0 plus the welcome back across stock were all things are considered on peter level. to remind you we're discussing the nato summit. the ok, right before we went to the break, i was talking with you on your, on your, on a roll. so keep rolling, go ahead. you know,

i just said that this is from the bombing of yugoslavia 99. it has done the thing and then the lines have done things that are not in any way letter of course ferry, in with the, in it's treaty, which is a very defensive un charlton based training. the only difference from the un java is but a's on to code 5 about, you know, you show the defense of each other inside the group. i could find that as, as a piece for this actor tomorrow. the fact is that each breaking 247, its own provisions, and i would suggest that there shouldn't be established an independent international commission that looks change or more years than others who would look into how far can they to deviate from. is a founding treaty. and what can be done about it, and if you're asking about the future, it wants to go global by means of part of this because it's running out of members in europe. and that's why we have to stop it. it simply has to be stopped by

a popular movement in the west. another country is that, wow, well, we'll say, we'll see how it goes. i, i don't, i think nato is days, are numbered. it's going to a separate strategic pat. it's dropping this feed in ukraine. it's the graveyard of nato, at least i hope so. missy, i don't want, i don't want to get to legalistic or anything like that. but you know, there's always this talking about the article 5 of the, of the nature tree. it's actually called the washington treaty. but, you know, everyone should read the article one of the treaty, nato con nato, as an organization, under its own roles cannot get involved in military complex using force. its members must use diplomacy and negotiations. nobody reads the 1st article and i'm going to agree with you all they are in complete violation of their own. and treaty go ahead, misty. indeed, yes, and i think that it's a i had to smile there as you were saying that out loud because it's a curious to me that they don't ever actually follow that to it. i hope that you're

correct and that this is going to be the graveyard for nato. i think that nato has it's long overdue for it to have been abolished. and we're, as we're seeing the situation in ukraine play out, it seems as if you may be correct. i think that you, they are going to suffer a very strategic defeat here. and it is going to be very difficult for them to spend that in a positive direction for nato. and i think that that is something that they are trying to contend with. now i think that there's probably a little bit of panic behind the scenes. they're trying to figure out how they can best wiggle around in the situation and make it uh, you know, that and, and kind of save face. and the best way that they can. i'm not sure how they do that at this point. they are now so far involved. there's no way for them to back out without looking silly. and i think that that's something that they're continue cont, contending with now behind the scenes trying to figure out how they can make that play without you know, making fools of themselves with the box that play out. actually missy, i do have the, the, the wiggle room for them. i shouldn't even say it, cuz i know they'll steal it. you know what they're gonna say. let's see. i'm gonna

tell you what the gonna say anyways, didn't make it to parents. we won the football though. that's exactly, that's the, you know, room temperature i q of these people. that's exactly what they're going to do. but mike, you know, you know, again, they were talking about with when the allies agree on the conditions when conditions are met. here we also have the g 7. yes, they're still around now making trouble. they are talking about security guarantees as well. again, i thought that what, what did they have to do with the military, with security? i thought they weren't economic organization. okay. i mean, again, this is another fiction here to sell to people in the west, you know how to waste more money on, on a loss costs. go ahead, mike. yeah, yeah, absolutely right. the g 7, as i understood it with these economic members and powers that came together and discussed such things. so it baffled me when even zelinski himself said, or i, if we don't get nato membership, at least we'll get some reassurance is from the g 7. but we know that everything's

been a big fight and nothing, but really in regards to that school, the security guarantees it doesn't matter how you want to describe it. will these countries committing to the proxy role? and again, i'll refer back to ben wallace saying that we don't want to import war into the lions, and you have the same people of engaging in this proxy. will they just the ones that directly at them, so that happy to attack rusher and facilitate the death of russian soldiers, but they don't want to risk their own, their own soldiers and people. this g 7 nonsense is probably again where they're just gonna line up, take photographs and pass each other on the back and lots about how they've all invested in the right arms manufacturers. and that's, that's the economic side as far as i can tell. well it absolutely. yeah. also, well, yeah, let's talk about the issue of cluster bombs. i mean, again, rules based order and all of this nonsense they like to talk about here. that is a very dangerous escalation and russian, russian doesn't start that,

go up the escalation ladder. it usually follows that. it's gonna follow this one for sure. yeah. and so it's part of modern militarism that do you see problems fairly with wanted to lean your tumor box like a habit of that means whatever you're trying to do, you're tapestry. it's pulling down your hammering on and then finally the won't be self will come down. the idea that this whole problem can only be solved by weapons . i think actually we have a statement from mr. stockton, back in the direction that piece comes with weapons or something. instead of, you know, the ceasefire negotiations, you n o s e media to mediation, etc, is, is just an indicative indication that these organizations outdated, may, we don't meet militarism in this world and they certainly don't do it because they have 12 times more military expenditures and roger, what we need is corporation,

what we need is not to waste money, but solve the problem to humanity as and do we, you know, reach out and accept that we're going to live in a multicultural world with different cultures, different political ideas, different interpretations of human rights, etc. i mean for the u. s. and it's friends and allies will not do that. they will lose or they've become a peri afraid that will become, you know, in the long run, some kind of developing countries in the future. well know what are 50100 years from now? well, you're not going to long time when we see his desperation and the cost of bonds as an example of it. when you need to interview the cost of bombs and you're in, you're fine. you're really, you're really losing it. yeah. well miss the, i'm glad the onset that because this is an act of desperation and desperate people do desperate things and i wouldn't put it past them. do do other things as well. i mean, it's all about maintaining had gemini, is what we have here is ukraine, is this the example? okay. do you think of policy makers in washington in brussels?

give a hoot about ukraine. they don't at all. they want to give them as much weapon reading that their young young men to be killed in the bad failed and the result will be the same. miss. yes, yes, a 100 percent. i'm so glad that the word respiration was used because that is exactly what this is. i think that the united states and the west has like a wounded animal, backed into a corner and you're absolutely right. or government doesn't even care about the people of this country and i'm supposed to believe that they care about ukrainians . it is absurd on its face. and so we're happy to use them as cannon fodder. many people in a high level, high positions of power. i've said that we will fight until the last ukranian. uh well, i mean that is a, that's a, it's a very brave and bold thing for you to say from back home. but i think that the people of ukraine are going to start to find that quite despicable. i find it despicable, the idea that we are using this country and it's people, as you know, a weapon against russia is really despicable. and so i think that again, i think that they're starting to lose the narrative here. i think that they're starting to lose control. and i think that this is for sure and active desperation

. well, mr. you couldn't see it, but when you said the governments here don't care about their own people. the other guests on the program nodded their heads in. okay, and i, i, i'm agreeing with you as well. oh mike, it's really interesting how this propaganda war there is being fought. it's interesting how we have used as a wednesday. i think they were a little surprised with those mean tweet. ok. because you know, you say i've done everything you told me to do ever in sitting in bed, you know, they make it down the alter, sorry, you're not the type of girl for us.