develop, hopefully i can develop this is, this is a child skate. this is that's a rep for now. whatever you're doing this weekend, i hope you're having a good one. my name is be to scott, i be back in 32 states, you into small k programs here on the

the time action redundancy, and welcome back to going underground broadcasting all around the world from dubai in the u, a ukraine's presidency lensky up to his demands. to join nature this week, as i'm in the tray alliance is 2023 summit, strategically located in russia's neighbor. and if you ain, yeah, this, despite you, as president joe biden insisting ukraine's membership should not be false tracked as it would mean, open oil to war with russia. the risk only the end of the world. as prospects when you fail will become reality with badging ceiling. the queue of which i one is moscow ready now to attack one x g for the us. counted terrace senses, weapons of mass destruction, department thinks its who might be as

w. m. d use becomes a rational option rules. mo, at lawson was a c i, a officer for over 20 years. and at one time was station chief in moscow. he's now a senior fellow at harvard university's bill for century, joins we know from washington dc. well, thank you so much for coming on. i should just start actually with cluster bombs, i suppose, because as an ex w. m d department chief of this kind of terrace center. i wonder what you make of this decision by the, by the ministration causing a fair degree of consternation in west and your tooth, and cluster bombs, tuesday lensky. just not long of the agenda executive. the white house before it said that if i went through the restaurant and use them, it would potentially be a will crime. well, certainly there has to be consistency in what we consider more crimes in, in, in war and, and to that extent i'll leave that to the experts on what's the right kind of weapons introduced when i will only say that that we find ourselves in this position after almost 2 years of war because there's been

a steady increase in lease ality and the escalation of the weapons used in the war right now. we're talking about cluster bombs. and we've talked defensive weapons and we're talking increasingly what ukraine will need to when the war earlier is the idea behind western thinking. and that would of course, save a lot of people from being killed. and as for the extent to the extent of this course, belong by not giving ukraine, the weapons that needs to win the war. the danger, of course, is it escalates beyond unacceptable boundary for the firm for the entire world. or if you've got an upside down, in fact, the sending of weapons has length and the war because what would it mean over instantly or within a few months? the only reason that you crank and keep fighting is because not only view as the european bows ending in billions of dollars a weapons, they have soldiers, they are going to jack techs era and the bends. again, leaks which i know you said was a, it's

a bad when you heard about the pentagon leaks. yes. as well. certainly trainers and experts to meet with for example, maintenance and things like that i assume were involved in the war. i think the idea of a direct conflict with the russians is something the united states and all natal partners want to avoid to ground combat with our soldiers against their soldiers. so i make that distinction. that's an important distinction. i also agree with you in principle, in the sense that the ukraine is utterly dependent on western weapons and it is in fact, the litmus test of the west degree of support is the landscape president of the landscape present improvement. everybody knows the degree to which the west is willing to continue to harm ukraine. that's going to determine not just the duration of the war, but ultimately who wins the war. so it's a test, really not of weapon supplies and how, when, and how we supply these weapons. but the level of the u. s. and natal commitment to ukraine's winning this war as in the court interest of the united states and then

a all lions, i mean, everyone loses in a war. obviously. you really think the, what's in question here is, who will win the, what do you actually think that russia will somehow to lose this war is certainly very possible. they lost the war in afghanistan. it took 10 years, but they can certainly lose this one. in fact, if you go back to trying to take out the, the who's, who's rooting for west side here. if you take the issue of what countries have gone in and dated other countries since world war 2 and, and, and sort of stayed to the saver a victory, including united states and there, and the last 20 years in iraq and afghanistan. so i say the odds are against the russians in the long term because ukrainians have no where to go as their country. they're fighting for their survival of the russians. worst problem, i think it's is indisputable is terrible. morale among the soldiers because they're not fighting for their core interest or fighting to occupy another sovereign nation . i mean, some might say that the, i've got

a sound conflict was very different fighting the us proxy, which i deem that would boyfriend to al qaeda in afghanistan. but in any case, if we take on what you're predicting and forecasting the day, it is possible that the russia could lose the war. use you said the, the greatest concern for you is that at some point in the next evolution will decide his army is no longer capable of taking back what they consider. rush up, lots of rush, i should say. they say that was started in 2014 with the crew. is that when nuclear weapons use become the issue, we've had kind of gone along this show talking about tactical nuclear weapons. and i know this is the field of your expertise. well, i think it's a great question. and so great car don of made is speech essentially predicting in a sense that russia would need to use nuclear weapons to win the war and may be fluid, which was uh, a novel rankel. first, i would say, sir, karen von, i was only saying what he believes the kremlin would support. that's been his history and then easy is useful that he's not a government official,

but at the same time is a very normal statement. and it's what i've been concerned about since the beginning of the war isn't that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable, but that they may be come necessary as you indicated in the event pollutant can't win the war through any other means i'm certain he's going to try everything possible before he resorts to using nuclear weapons. i don't think putting are the problem. believe it will be a good idea to use nuclear weapons. but if they're faced with a situation where they feel they must in order to win or they may lose if they do not, i think the u, the u. s. and then a lions really have 33 challenges to prepare for that. number one is to do everything possible for that to deter president pollutant from making that decision and cool, you know, i'm your grand as well as the i believe i personally believe that the idea that the u. s. and 80 must support defend ukraine is something we promised them when

they became a cyber nation. in fact, that i'd turn your argument on its head. i'd say when this whole situation is something is a, is a disaster for russia that it created for itself. when it started in 2005 to try to assassinate victor, you shouldn't call the president of ukraine and then blame the u. s. and the west for the stabilizer in victor, yanna cove, extra 2014. when it was in fact the corruption and a battery gene that you craniums themselves. i know early point one, but you said to solve a nation, we have the phone call a victorian newland deciding on who becomes the leader of ukraine in 2014. don't weigh so no, no, and i was a u. s. s o n t who is now in the, by the ministration. who decided, i just worry very much. all right? yes. and in fact, the idea that the u. s. has some puppet master and new trainer for that, frankly, anywhere in the world. people can watch the youtube video of newland decide who is gonna run you cream, and as far as over in the nation,

are you saying therefore that zalinski is in charge in ukraine? i know his band all opposition parties is the band elections next year. so i don't think it's much about democracy. i'll give me and he said last year, he knew ukraine would never be able to join nato. but publicly, the doors would appear open and declared by them, it would be in his railey style of security agreement, dri, nato, and key of i mean some, i'd say that to the west and european nations on that solver. and at the moment, given how many, uh, the demands of washington to support this war and pull billions of dollars and weapons into ukraine to be expensive, their own economies, germany, the entering recession. now. well again, my, my view is of having spent my entire life and us government is the us. government is not as powerful as, as people believe. we're not a public master. we don't dictate to ukraine and will be as presidents. i refused, for example, russian arguments that we've intervened in the, in the domestic affairs of russia by helping morris. he also get re elected in 1996

with us. how election advisors did in fact do, but it's a fundamentally different thing than the world deciding that a country, a sovereign after the collapse of the soviet union, is the case of ukraine. that then receive western security guarantees that the russians themselves never accepted. and it's, i think it's a fair, it's a fair re rebuttal of your argument to suggest that russia itself has never accepted the idea that ukraine should be anything holler than is fully integrated into russia. and that's why we are where we are today. not because of us interference, because had you had a cold, which actually been an effective leader, i would, i would, i would maintain then then he wouldn't have been over from the movie was still there. he was still there in the country when the they vetoed his presidency because it wasn't cool. officer, after all, i was in that it wasn't an american cool. was a ukrainian cool way. it's not like the us and said to the training is that it's supported, rise up and overthrow. it was ukrainians themselves who were,

who were rebelling against a highly corrupt government. that's the problem with, with a far terry and states is day and evidently are corrupted to the point people like in the eric spring, for example, we bel, against the government and that to i would use that is another example. what are the us has been ascribed to somehow masterminding the events of the arch spring? is one of the most absurd propositions i've heard in my entire career and intelligence? yeah, no. i think many people in the world would disagree that to the united states as a little powerful like that. but you said the people around the world may think that somehow us government hands. all right. i have to say people to what you like are going to interview, but also listen to this new and a phone call and she is in the, by the ministration. the final explicitly, you know, she's ordering things around. that's very rare. i'll get play on the other hand, if the government, it's of the united states and thought that powerful, what about the private contract? is it making a killing on the money here out of this war? because if a wiser, hans, if donald trump the favorite,

perhaps to become the next president, united states says he can end this war tomorrow. and there are those who clearly prolonging the war by the continuation of making masses of money for companies. they may end up working for when they leave office. do you think that is a dynamic for you? recognize you have experience of those people to see how you're going on to make money? well, i certainly fine unsavory the idea of profiting profit tearing off war. it did extended by considered a sub plot. i don't considered a main event. and more over if we wanted to talk about the, the say decline now, i believe a mercenary forces and, and that type of thing. let's look at the case of russia. good and found himself after about 89 year run of wagner extending its influence all around the world as a, in the same context you're describing, he just found that to be deeply, politically, the stabilizing for his own regime of a few weeks ago. and russia now was in the, he's in the process of trying to find,

figure out how to save its assets. that is sick. this now developed all over the world at the same time, you know, putting aside mercenary forces, doing the bulk of fighting and war. because there's a serious downside that us went through this in a little a little bit and interact in afghanistan and rejected the notion that we should rely into never extending degree on either paramilitary forces or commercial forces or arms dealers to try to do wars. and instead, conduct them onto the authority of the government. and i would just add to that one for boys and you'll get a promotion mounted his rebellion against boot and which is what it was he did. so because the russian ministry of defense had decided to put wagner under the russian ministry defense control, finally, which is where it should have been all along. so i agree with the principal but find your statement, but i would say, you know, i think i think wise countries are increasingly looking at that aspect of war and trying to minimize its effect, particularly on policy and how words are waged,

role, fluid, lots. and i'll stop you there more from this guy as one of the most ation chief and senior fellow at harvard university's bill for center. after this break, the, the watching was on my in control. if i give borrowed money at the store and this should have been a short order for now, i'm not going to stay less. so can i scan when i am? what i could catch at your desktop session noon? that's just shiny or just is fun. you bought a new born, you said oh, it's the the,

the near the the welcome back to going underground. i'm still here with the rules well, with long as soon as the i is full, my most causation chief and the with m. j. berry distinguish fellow with the nuclear threat initiative. so we were talking about privatized armies. i'm sure that lots of things as a form is the i, obviously you've gone telling me about the privatization in, in that way. but do you don't think you're minimizing the influence on the blinking staves department, given the blinking work to west exec weapons, get a contract to consult and everyone haines director national intelligence. what it west exec jake sullivan pennsic in contracting, microsoft, lloyd austin, re fuel. and jake sullivan, the uh, it was also uh and am i see that macro advisory thailand authority consulting mutual florey, who is also defending and both of the sense of

a new american security funded by rates you under with them government lucky. boeing, chevron, and x on are you saying this is all just by the, by the name i have contact really with them saying you don't think you can help us a bit more in this war and you cranes and make some help in the war effort against that evil page and well, i do think the force, these realities exist between the relationships between the corporate sector, the arms, providers and, and, and those things become in this, i would call a big part of fighting war. but in terms of maintaining guard rails that i will again point out a talk receives, don't have like rushes or china is in, in terms of how the commercial sectors work. i would say there are guard rails and there are distinct laws that apply in these cases. and, and they are administered when people break, the laws are political process protects us to the extent that the parties have different views. and there's oversight. i would point out that there's a lot more oversight in the us system by it. as we both know,

highly polarized parties asserting their influence over what public officials do. so i'd say we have a healthy amount, harder abuses. yes. are there people who cross the line or go over, break the guard right? yes. so, and to that extent will acknowledge your, your concern, but i mean, you've, you've talked about the kennedy assassination, you're saying the doing stage is no longer as powerful as it was when, according to your allegations, rogue c, i. a agents as, as an aged and elected president and the wife has, as i said, jonathan kennedy, i should say, all right, a junior my is running next year. right, right. well, i would say that there is a possibility, because if you look back at this and i've studied the period, and i've actually the reason i started to look deeply into the assassination was because the 2 things resulted from that were highly consequential to where we are today that i think most americans are not fully aware of the 1st is for the 1st time and the intelligence world came under full congressional oversight in 1979

with what we call the church committee. congressional hearings, which means that the c, i a, had to report to congress about all of the categories, the 2nd and funding and the 2nd major change. which at that time i would say we were fairly role organization or who were doing things like trying to assassinate for a leader. we stopped doing that. we realize it was bad policy to change governments . we haven't had redeem change 9 on this. my cell, you might think this is night, but i know this is a matter of my entire experience in government that the us policy is a, is not pushing regime change and etc. i want to do it, it would need a presidential recall finding. so the other result of the kennedy assassination is it made the c, i a activity and for that matter military activity, fully responsible under the authority of the way. i mean, i, you know, this, the, i always says this, i every 10 years and then goes and we used to be like this. now we're not. and i mean, i mean, that's good. that's going to take some believing,

isn't it all together? i mean, you just said to be there are these procedures and so on that would make it better than autocratic states. obviously china and russia, se then autocratic states and that they are more democratic, arguably they say at home in the united states. if um, if all of a stone who is being on this program, people can watch already because who got the congressional chain so that the papers could be released. and joe biden, just in the other month, refused to release the papers on the kennedy assassination. how much further down the line i was in bed, there was a good a as well i do. i have said publicly that i support the, the call for releasing all the documents related to the destination. whenever they say when or whatever they point to whether it's embarrassing the see i of the us government or the leadership or the president, that's fine. and my book and i would also maintain the fundamental difference even when we go wrong. and by the way, your suggestion as on time c, a does, does bad things. i mean, it'd be a full to argue against that. the,

the point i'm arguing against that you're trying to make is that there's a systemic in britain bracing of illegality or the say evil in, in embedded into the mission and purpose of say, see, i caught it. bob made a offices oil in on it. i mean, did they do the north street? we've had seymour hersh on this program. i mean to the, i did states accept my life. you just reject seymour hersh as allegations complete . it was the i did not blow up the north stream pipeline that supply the energy to west new or i can prove that see, i didn't because i don't know, but i can say that i haven't read anything including seymour hersh is which i've read is piece that provided any evidence, what might be said, he would end it. as the president said, he went in and said to us, conducted a court action effect of the it makes no sense to me that the russians did. it also makes no sense to me that the us that is so i'm still looking in and objective way and i'll take, take it where the facts leave me. of the problem today is people do buy into

anything. anybody says without substantiation and the more serious allegation is, the more incumbent is on that person to provide the evidence. and that's all i'm suggesting here is that if you, if, if charges are going to be made like that, then they should be substantiated not soon because the idea of the us as we do these things now, you know, well, how much do you wash that in fantasy was that he had a source and previously his sources of always being a true pacing. he's being vindicated. oh, that's not true either by the way, but i mean, he is no better than any other journalist, but i'd be more comfortable with that kind of allegation. first, if it made sense to me, which it doesn't, but then i'll set that aside. second, whether there was a plethora of evidence and then other journalist provided supporting evidence for that. but at some point, isn't it? in this age when john luther was under attack in the united states, dr. call soon, opposing the ukraine war was the most popular cable ag fired from red oaks,

the fox news we knew about trying to get julian assigned just extradited in the pentagon papers which will blow recently died down those books. and he was a hero, just like he was in that situation. i mean, what, so he should believe in new york times that it was could be a ukraine operation to destroy the blood stream, which is very important. the un security council debated it this week and maybe tens of thousands of people may have died because of the cold because of the instability of energy prices and the environmental impact. you believe it could be the ukraine as well. i believe it could have then again, i'm not going to choose ukraine because it was a bite and i was yeah, wasn't. well, there's no evidence at all that it was and it would have had to have been if it was a u. s. decision it would, it had to come from the president because he, i would not have conduct could not have conducted an operation without presidential a direct authority. that's the point i want to stress. he said that she will try us in the article. yes. yes. so i will also emphasize one last thing that i know most

of probably, of sir do you but, but there is we, i personally couldn't have done what i did for an entire career if i didn't believe that, that fundamentally were into the truth seeking business, not the true truth altering or the truth suppression business. have we altered truth or tried to or suppressed it? yes, and those were our bad moments. i said those are bad cases. those are the account and that's the account ability. we need before, not just the american people but the world, but i would suggest to you that the preponderance of things we do are done in the spirit of advancing the values and virtues of not only our own system but, but i would say globally, so the worst conspiracy series i see spun over the decades. i've seen conspiracy. theories are the flimsy ones that are premised only on the thought that c i must be an evil organization because what we do, we, we do is secrecy. and therefore, there must be abuses of power. we are actually more beholden to abuse of power than

any other organization that us government. because when we do things in secret, it can go terribly wrong when we're not under a proper authority. so i, again, i'm agreeing with you that there had been abuses and there are probably are abuses, but it's not the way the system is built and the things we do that, that advance what we're trying to do. i think that way, the things that are that are, that are the wrong. well, a few years back. if you told me this can be the c i a story, i would have thought that seemed pretty conspiratorial, arguably, but truly more important in the as regards what's happening to the ca right now, we'll have to wait till for bill buttons. the ma'am was to see what was really going on because he was in moscow as invested and certainly as tools are very different game these days. then he did then, so we'll wait for that ca more. but because what's dangerous is if it was ukraine not taking orders or disobey orders from washington, we then have a country under the landscape, or the oligarchs that run ukraine,

having billions of dollars, whether us public money with a weapons acting outside of any us or does does that create a geo political danger and perhaps great it johns, as of as double trump front runner and next is general election. the us what he said, it makes world war 3 more likely as well. i wouldn't raise as to what we're 3, but you're, you're a point, a good one the the us doesn't. i've stressed us another way, so i'm not going to contradict myself. now. the us doesn't control what you trained us there. there are presumably discussions and i'm sure very intimate and then and pointed discussions, what we like and don't like, but in the, in ukraine makes his own decisions. present is a wednesday, is his, is the furthest thing from a us pop at present. or i could think of a early in the world, didn't even take our advice, and that was probably a good thing for ukraine. and as regards what the printing intelligence does, for example, conducting a, presumably as ukraine conducting sabotaged attacks and russia fascinations,

etc. i'm sure the us isn't involved directly in those things that we have are very strict laws and 911 honed our skills and discerning where our own legal limits lie . we can be involved in intelligence activity by a 3rd country or a partner of ours that violates us law for the american public watching will be surprised that they are giving $80000000000.00 tens of billions of dollars. why live in for structures of disaster and $40000000.00 con to each tonight in the united states with that the snap food program. cuz they would expect some sort of ability to tell zalinski what to do as they explore weapons and confronting them at home. because as you work on that, as regards you kind of turns, obviously new york los angeles can be destroyed very quickly as well. certainly, we have an influence. i didn't say we don't have it, but i'm saying when it, you, us very specific question about bombing uh, north stream or conducting other operational things and intelligence that,

those of, that's what i was referring to. of course, the u. s. influence is ukrainian decisions and policy makers, but ultimately they are that it is their decision. what to do. so i don't, i don't think that's a good bad thing. i think that's a good thing. and i think the, the real stakes and this war get back to your original question, opening up our, our discussion, which is, why are we providing all these weapons to pray? and what is our purpose? the u. s. and the nato partners and they have summit, right? now, bears this out has made a strategic decision that ukraine's the outcome of this war is the central to the future of security in europe in the united states. and therefore, we must assist ukraine that is now making, making we are more secure. the export of all these weapons to absolutely, because putting one on a course to started with ukraine becoming independent of the stabilizing ukraine in order to bring it back into residency. they don't think that the russians doing things that most of the world by population as their envoy is in the us and said,

no, we're not going to give them russia. and you can see the rest of the world forming alliances and like bricks and so on. so i'm not sure how we more weapons to make things more secure. i'm just very quick because you're an expert on these things here. what, what about medical supplies? i mean, obviously medical supply, some would say, would be more useful than any weapons to this conflict at the moment. and peace talks, which you probably would agree with. what about medical supplies as regards tactical nuclear weapon use, should they be being distributed in europe? i think, i think there should be some now not necessarily in europe i, i don't think we should or height the thread. i think we should 1st trying to interpret and from using them, it is not in russians interest to use them. he's not irrational. so hopefully you'll conclude that 2nd we have to have what we would call a response prepared that would be credible enough to put in where the risk don't outweigh the gains he would feel he had by using them. and then 3rd is making

modest preparation is not for something that's a likely event of something that's not a 0 percent possibility. and then we must make a distinction between the use of a tactical nuclear weapon on the battlefield, for example, and strategic nuclear weapons. that wouldn't bluebird, illiterate the world, and lead to an uncontrollable nuclear arms race. there's a big gap between those 2 threats and risk. the one that's most prominent that we need to be focused on the most now in your brain is, is that the war would escalate in the same way. cluster bombs have escalated to the extent they have to point where it becomes attractive for the russians to use tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield or against the ukrainian strategic target. that's what right now we need to be concerned about most not worry about global nuclear. you know, and i'll ation, we're ultimately the last and thank you. as i've seen, thank you. you sent me up, but i still enjoyed our conversation and great decide that anyone else. that's it for the sure i will be back on monday. would be for the deputy undersecretary of u. s. navy doctors at corrupt save it until then. you can give it to us right on

that social media, if it's not sense it in your country and here's what channel going on the ground. see the hon, dot com to watching you and all different sorts of going undergrad. see you monday, [000:00:00;00] the head of ukraine's main orthodontist christine monasteries. placing post today's the 30 days is the metropolitan is unable to pay the daily $902000.00. val. washington makes and multi $1000000000.00 credit bugs to on colorado image said full suite is the sessions of nato. it's according to police, a prize winning journalist seymour hersh. i think i'm named government official also this our food emergency is declared in nigeria as the prices in the country skyrocket. we speak some local people above the crisis gets