says china and indonesia, the across in south korea deadline slides in floods of left at least 20 people dead. the government has all the thousands more to evacuate from the homes. 3 days of torrential rains on the korean peninsula have inflicted a significant amount of damage and casualties. according to government reports 23 people have died 14 a missing on thousands more have already been evacuated. a casualty numbers are expected to rise as more heavy. rain is expected on slides, the hindering evacuation f as far as preventing trains from assisting with the extraction of civilians the how many times the company had on all the international. if i could, the top of the hours was the light, 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. and the military alliance is 2023 summit, strategically located in russia's neighbor. and if you ania this, despite us president joe biden insisting ukraine's membership should not be false tracked, as it would mean, open all out to war with russia. the risk only the end of the world as prospect. so when you think of will become reality with badging ceiling. the queue of a tie, one is moscow ready now to attack one x chief with us, counted terrace senses, weapons of mass destruction, department thinks its who mike p. s. w m d use becomes a rational option roles mo,

it's nice and 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 me now from washington, dc. well, thank you so much for coming on. i should just start actually with cluster bones, 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 to zalinski. just not long of the agenda is actually the white house before it said that if i went through the restaurant and use them, it would potentially be a war crime. well, certainly there has to be consistency in what we consider more crimes in, in, in war and, and that extend, 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 and the leaf 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 next, to the extent that the scores belong by not given 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 go to it upside down. in fact, the sending of weapons has lengthened the war because what would it mean over instantly or within a few months? but the only reason that you crank and keep fighting is because not only uh, the u. s. the european bows ending in billions of dollars a weapons. they have soldiers, they are going to jack tx era. and the pentagon leaks which i know you said was a, it's 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 uh 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 president put in. and everybody knows the degree to which the west is willing to continue to arm 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 questionnaire is who will win the war? do you actually think that russia will somehow to lose this war is certainly very possible. they lost the war and i cannot stand, it took 10 years, but they can certainly lose this war. in fact, if you go back to trying to take out the, the, who is the, who's rooting for what side here. if you take the issue of what countries have gone in and bated other countries since world war 2 and, and, and sort of stayed to the saver of victory, including united states the next 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 they have kind of 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 full guessing the day it is possible that the russia could lose the war. you, you said the, the greatest concern for you is that at some point in the next, the uprooting will decide his army is no longer capable of taking back what they consider. rush you about the 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. uh 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 a novel rankel 1st i would say sir car gone off is only saying what he, he believes the kremlin would support, that's been, is history and then easy is useful that he's not a government official,

but at the same time is a very notable 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 become necessary as you indicated in the event pollutant can't win the war through any other means. i'm certainly, he's going to try everything possible before he resorts to using nuclear weapons. i don't think putting are the problem. believe it would be a good idea to use nuclear weapons, but if they're face for the situation where they feel they must in order to win or they may lose if they do not, i think the you, the us and then the alliance 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, including you know, i'm your grand as well as the i believe. i personally believe that the idea that the u. s. and 8 on 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 that 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 coal, which in 2014, when it was in fact the corruption and of that regina to 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, brainstorming. yes. and in fact, the idea that the u. s. has some puppet master a new trainer for that, frankly, anywhere in the world. people who wants to youtube video of newland decide who's going to run ukraine 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 la c a. he knew ukraine would never be able to join nato. but publicly the doors would appear open and to quit bite. and it would be in his riley style of security agreement, re, nato, and key of, i mean some, i'd say that the, the western european nations on that solver. and at the moment, given how many, uh, and the demands of washington to support this war and pull millions 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, by helping you more, as you 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 den 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 well, he was still there. he was still there in the country when the they vetoed his presidency because it was a cool officer. after all, 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 afar. terry and states is they and they literally are corrupted to the point people like in the eric spring, for example, we, 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 ard 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 the united states is 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 all kind of gone an interview, but also listen to this new and a phone call and she is in the, by the ministration. if i listen basically, 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 hands, if donald trump the favorite, perhaps to become the next president united states. so thinking in 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, a dynamically 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, but i considered a sub plot. i don't considered a main event. and then more over, if we wanted to talk about the, the say, decline now, i believe with mercenary forces and, and that type of thing. let's look at the case of russia who and found himself after about a 9 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 a phase 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 it's a serious downside and 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 harms dealers to try to do wars. and instead, conduct them under the authority of the government. so i would just add to that one for bows and you'll get a promotion mounted his rebellion against putting 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 on 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 effect, particularly on policy. and how words are waged,

roll fluid lots and i'll stop you there. more from this guy as one of the most because ation chief and senior fellow at harvard university's bill for center after this break the, the welcome back to going underground. i'm still

here with the rules. well, with long as soon as the i is for my most coast, asian chief and william j period distinguish fellow with the nuclear threat initiative. so while we were talking about privatized armies, i'm sure that lots of things as a pharmacy. i, obviously you've gone telling me about the privatization in in that way. but do you don't think you have minimizing the influence on scrub? lincoln's state department given lincoln worked at west exec weapons, get a contract to consult and everyone haines director national intelligence worked at west exec jake sullivan pentagon contracting microsoft, lloyd austin, re feeling jake sullivan. uh uh, it was also uh, an m, i 6 cut out macro advisory thailand, authority, consulting michelle florrie, who is also dependent on both of the sense of new american security funded by rates you on the list of government lucky bindings everyone and x on are you saying this is all just by the by they never have contact really with them saying then think

you can help us a bit more in this war and ukraine to make some help in the war effort against that evil preaching. well, i do think the force, these realities exist between the relationships between the corporate sector, the arms, providers and those things become increased. 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 say you've talked about the kennedy assassination using the data 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, john f. 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 it 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 regime change 9 on this. my style, 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 machine 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 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 with 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 say they're not 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 what you're going to be is 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 busy i or the us government or the leadership or the president. that's fine in 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 and i 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 the united states except my life. you just reject seymour hersh as allegations completely to see. 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 could say that i haven't read anything including seymour hersh is which i've read is piece that provided any evidence, so might be said he would end it as the president said, he went in and said to us, conduct the corporate acts effective. it makes no sense to me that the russians that it also makes no sense to me that the us, that is so i'm still looking in an objective way and i'll take, take it where the facts leave me. and the problem today is people do buy into anything, anybody says without substantiation and the more serious allegation is, the word comment 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 fan, if it was that he had a source and previously his sources have always been a true pacing. he's being vindicated. oh, that's not true either by the way, but i mean, he's no better than any other journalist, but i'd be more comfortable with that kind of allegation 1st, 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 sooner posing the ukraine. war was the most popular k blanket fired from red oaks, the fox news we knew about trying to get julian assigned just extradited and depending on papers whistleblower recently died. daniel's book said he was a hero,

just like he was in that situation. i mean, what? so he should believe the 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 living on the environmental impact. you believe it could be the ukraine as well. i believe it could have been again, i'm not going to choose ukraine because it wasn't by me because the i 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. yeah. yeah. 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 say those are 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, 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, the 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 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 our way the things that are that are, that are the wrong. well, a few years back. if you told me this can be the see a story. i would have thought that seemed pretty conspiratorial at, arguably, but truly more important. and 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 his 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 you create not taking orders, would 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 geopolitical danger and perhaps great it. john's,

as of as the level of 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 this 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 end, ukraine makes his own decisions. present is a wednesday, is his, is the furthest thing from a us pop up president. i could think of anything 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 as asked and asians, 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 while they were infrastructure. the disaster and 40000000 the con to 8 tonight in the united states with that the snap food program because they would expect some sort of ability to tell zalinski what to do as they explore weapons that 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 even if i'm saying when it, you, us a very specific question about bombing uh, north stream or conducting other operational things and intelligence does 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 the best 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, 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 native 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 you create that and then 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 u. n 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 make

things more secure. i just very quick because you're an expert on these things here . what is, what about medical supplies? i mean, obviously medical supply, some would say, would be more useful than any weapons do this conflict at the moment and the storks, 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 hide the threat. i think we should 1st try to deter booting from using them. it is not in russian's 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 preparations, 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 believe it, or literate 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. what way cluster bombs have escalated it? to the extent they have to a 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 decided anyone else. that's it for the sure i will be back on monday would be for my deputy undersecretary of us maybe don't just have corrupt, save it until then. you can give it to us by the 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 that good sense of going undergrad. see you monday, [000:00:00;00]

the, the attempted terrorist attack on the russian civilian stuff. i'll most go talk to find peace walks of assassination. thoughts on all these editor in chief margarita simon young. i'm feeling this consent. he is called the trap. he has a few cranes may know phelps, christina, missouri is thrown behind thaws by kid for at least 30 days. that's why he was unable to pay $900000.00 in failed to see in the informing us the rise and the way 8. and this new bill is times with the oil rich bell country by signing an