the i'm action or time see and welcome back to going under ground rule cost people around the world from you by in the you a want to make of last week's nature. so many things. if you ain, you're a nation on the board with russia, which has a new limits partnership with china. well, perhaps today is 60 percent of us read the so called small boy nuclear weapons death north west. las vegas might be instructive with me now from washington, dc. to someone who is said, unless the us propose to win a new thing award risk losing one for a deputy undersecretary of the u. s. navy dr. seth crops, the president of yorktown institute joins me now. thank you so much. that's for coming on. i mean, they're just off and on the bill in the as last week. i did it with some people to this it lensky was acting acting up. i don't know whether anyone to the data it was going to lead me to create in the middle of a war and whether he was in fact, just to ask thing and whether even major membership is that important given that,

you know, present, leaving us who would come to the age of japan, if it was boomed. mary mayo, members, uh, provided russia where is an incentive to fight on by failing to agree on how and under what circumstances are most important when your grade would be admitted to nato. so that means that the signals trying to pull is that uh, western resolve is uh cranking and that, uh is objective, can be to outlast the resolve of the atlantic alliance. and when a new, great, i mean, you're an expert in all or an expert in information warfare cuz you, you know, directed editorial policy of the voice of america. that's certainly not how it's

being reported in may to nation media. the reporting, you know, likes to an ogre for as a stomach bug saying, look, i united it all, is the reporting on bite and on snack from london. how wonderful everything is. why do you think there's a mismatch between what you just said and, and that will uh that somebody who is don't as you port warranted out with the, with information i would choose to saying, which is everything's ok. what else is he going to say? we're in disarray and we chatted bri up on the forward course of personal. i don't know whether it will, of course, the state department to by surprise that that will be the effect on moscow as you see, if you began your 2017 books. he blamed this with a quote from now saying that all imperialist states a week because their appetite is large, how over extended do you think that to the united states is now that

a blinking state department. and david method zalinski is run out of ammunition. they a political and military fact in ukraine. it is that the united states is uh, does not have any troops on the ground. and that takes off the cable. um, the question of over extension. uh, and it loads it. the over extension question to the defense industrial base that is can the united states supply enough weapons to grade to defeat the rush, which i would not call out an example. that is not an example of low risk stranger . that's the question of the trends. industrial policies and one that can be readily address address since we're talking about shells artillery. we're

not talking about rebuilding battle fleets, which takes years to do um, or rebuild the air force, which takes your years but still time. so i don't see over exception here, because some of the remark that the privatization of manufacture of munition and so forth in the us is a, is a, a element here to be considered. i'm sure you'll say if they listen to you years ago, they would have had the military industrial complex that would have had no problems applying the landscape the a defense, industrial base as exist, good at the end of the cold war would have tried no problem. so that's correct. but the assumption stated that on stated at the beginning with the, the drawn curtain on the cold war was that, that would be the, there would be, you know, history and a,

and there would be no more great power conflict or emerging states that emerge to compete with the united states and turned up to new law. otherwise, consolidation among the major defense companies. and there was a continuing loss of secondary and tertiary defense contractors that do a lot of the work for the majors. the best problem. and of course, the way the blinking, save the development has responded is by saying will supply cluster bombs, which is a band by other nato countries. some element of losing the propaganda war there. because of course, in the nato countries in europe, the issue of cluster bombs has now become a major issue as the of should, the europeans be supporting a war with cluster bottoms ascent for the loan, the what it means for future generations of ukrainians. i know the excuse given was

one of the russian uses and then we're going to clear it up anyway. so what difference is more customs may oh yeah, it stays trans. offered to uh, to clear the pressure munitions of following the conflict. the gun rate is other words, the rate of unexploded munitions that can explode subsequently is far down from what it was during the vietnam war. uh and yes, the um, the use of cluster munitions is uh, is a indication of a few grains needs. and that the, the rate at which they're burning up the military hard. yes. yeah. i mean, i was talking about the, the information war rather than, obviously the children of, in ukraine that may be bombed in future years,

regardless of how much more efficient they may be. compared to allow cambodia and vietnam, but you already have exactly why. this is exactly why it is a situation we find ourselves in. because of trustee know lends a policy of the car and america ministration. just to make haste slowly as the one says. and so the more the, the fewer supplies that the ukrainians need to come to the russians more problem, maddox, their, their, their defense becomes. and this is all could have this all could have been avoided, the, the reliance on cluster munitions could have been avoided. and we supplied the ukraine with the, with the weapons that they needed and asked for a year ago and had been asking for

a change that using general melisha should go as you, as you wrote before. in the november last year, you said that the general mock village jim with the joint chiefs, his job should be replaced. your exact words way is a is strategic instinct. there is dim, is political ambition is a foliage and which i am told means radiant. i haven't changed my opinion since last year. now. even though many more billions dollars worth of weapons are being sent many billions of dollars uh has not accomplish what the state and policy objectives of the administration work. and so that's the that's what you end up with. uh when you, when you supply a friendly country where is less than what it needs to finish the job. i mean, we invite general mainly to defend him self,

but i could speculate and say that it's not him who is a the lead. here it is the blinking the state department, and the policy is being made uh outside of the pentagon. well, uh, in general, milly has made his opinions known in um, in all sorts of, for around, around washington, around the country and outside united states. i think it's pretty clear what his opinion is, what he wants, peace talks now. i think he sees the size uh um, as wasted effort. and you have no, no sympathy with the tool because in the polls ahead of next is us general election . of course, donald trump writing high with the opinions that a get people to talk stuff to the fighting stuff to supply weapons. this war could be over tomorrow, i think is what the, something like the trump said,

you know, national discussion of this uh, probably biting is not as yet to go on television or to explain what the stakes are. a new thing that leaves open ground for a traditional american isolationist. uh and uh, if trump is not a traditional american isolation that she's not anything as well. so was that for the uh before uh, before things like go ahead as themselves. i might say, you mean campaigning, but s p r, but after your uh, realize what was going on in europe and spend, you know, the better part of the secondary ministration during the country for war. will you be in camp? and as you said, they had, they didn't listen to you as they might have as regards preparing for another. we've been campaigning for reappraisal. u. s. military needs for 4 years. is it too

late now? now that china has declared to know limits partnership with russia. i don't think it's too late. i don't see any signs of that. uh, the, the uh, sensible policy would have tried a lessons of ukraine to try one. which is to say, instead of waiting until there's an attack, trying to deter one by doing the chinese work they need in order to defend themselves. now, not at that point, that one sees amphibious ships gathering in, uh, in southern, uh, chinese, uh, naval fords. so you're against the kissinger doctrine. i mean kissinger's prank protection, the recently where he admitted he didn't blame you. crane for the north stream. i don't know whether that means he believes side hush about the north stream attacks

that they were by the ministration terror attack. you don't see that because inches dick's him, that you do not fight rush and john and are the same time as true. i think it's wise to try to avoid fighting anybody of course, um and uh, even wiser or more imperative to avoid having to fight on 2 fronts at the same time . who can disagree with that? the doctor said, scrub, see, i'll stop you. that's more from the for the deputy undersecretary of u. s. navy, the current president of the yorktown institute after this break the

the welcome back to going underground. i'm still here with up to subscribe to the president of yorktown institute informed deputy undersecretary the u. s. navy, so he was saying that today it's not good to fight on 2 fronts of aging. and let's go through any we had the so getting kind of gone of a rush, your advisor on the program. recently, he was curious at moscow should teach washington about the parents by using tactical nuclear weapons. i know you were on the record in the meadow. we'll street

journal for saying that the u. s. u to show it can win a nuclear war. do you think he was reflecting your article or do you think? do you think there are people in the, by the ministration that alone in the put in ministration? who believes that some sort of limited nuclear war is feasible and is the only rational option? has millions of dollars, weapons a port in and ukraine, the red line from russia, the ukrainian join nature was being crossed in a way in vilnius? well, of him, i'm sure. did you notice the same thing? most of the rest of the world is noticed as well. which is that every time there is a either discussion, all or the delivery of our show room missiles, shells of the airplane tanks,

the infantry fighting vehicles, the boat and threatens uh, waves the new we are. well, he would deny that he always says no, that's off the table, but there are other people within russian society who st. yes, of what he said on several occasions that this raises dark. the darkest questions about the rear ization of the war. um but uh, we gotta go weapons that can deal with this. and the west has to be careful because we need to tread carefully so on so forth. but yeah, but uh, in fact, what we see is that there are 2 red lines here um, in this war, and they've been observed trinity well, since the beginning and that is but the ukrainians by and large do not attack into russia. oh, they did into bugs

a rod and the general for the rest you're considered to join yet supply the rest of the in crime here in the village bridge. i said by and large, most of the other. and the other one is that the russians don't to track the delivery of western military equipment into ukraine. and that's hill. those have held more or less the challenge, but since the beginning of the war. and so it hasn't gone nuclear. i think i'm not sure that's a good argument, is it that because it hasn't gone.