of the doors, let's be the phone, go to the remember it's all about the correct the mobile number. it's all about the different the, [000:00:00;00] the, the welcome to the part, worst coolers have long pointed out that having the united states as a security backer, has to create a hold of moral hazard for its allies. cool. open become jo,

politically inflated and more resistant to compromise this piece proposal. but when it comes to the war in the ukraine, is washington even interested in peace? well, to discuss that, i'm now joined by david pine, a former us army, combust arms officer and military affairs commentator. mr. pine is great to talk to thank you very much for your time. thank you so much for me on your show. now i know that in addition to your military career and the analysis, you are also an avid historian and you read a lot of history books on that passion of yours began at the tender age of 11. if i'm not mistaken. and the conclusion that you derive from all of that is that the most wars of the united states has bought or has supported, made it less secure. do you think the war in ukraine is going to be the exception? no, no, not at all. in fact, it may be one of the greatest examples of making us less secure. i mean, us national security interest, obviously,

1st and foremost is to preserve the great power piece with russia in china. and the way to do that or is, is uh through uh, pursuing diplomatic because she had a compromise agreements much as much as rushes proposed am i, i might know um and, and not to pursue uh, you know, these uh escal ever escalating proxy words such as uh, the bite industry, shes privily pursuing against russia and ukraine, national security interest, just like here they are in the eyes of the beholders. and i've heard many a russian uh, i'm a list, suggested that for the americans, the one your brain is a very sweet deal. you who mentioned the proxy war and it's actually a fairly well developed military doctrine that sees a war on the foreign land as a, as an acceptable. and in fact, uh, you know, genius, a change or a genius alternative for the kinetic,

for the actual kinetic conflicts in which the united states would have to lose money on soldiers. so why would they even a band and this we deal when they can counter the nuclear adversary through funding war in the ukraine? i'm also sending a powerful my message to another adversary. i'm talking about china here to well, i think there's a lot of unforeseen debt on sides or, or i guess not, not so much i proceeded, but a little mention downsized us the involvement of the warranty trade in. one of the biggest wants, of course, is the unilateral disarmament conditional assortment of us military us military has been sending bass amounts of biotech weapon systems, precision guided munitions. you know, both rocket launch systems to ukraine and these are weapons that we would need in order to fight. and i need to find a fight, a war with like a great power such as china, for example, a little low with such a war. so,

but more importantly, i think the greatest threat that you as a bonus is accomplishing is that it's increasing the chances of a cyber e a b, or nuclear exchange with the russian federation. and that's, that's what we're, we don't want to fight because it's a war that could result in mass of destruction on both sides. now, this is actually a very interesting observation of yours, that the united states itself is left without a warrant in weaponry. and maybe that's due to the call kit calculation, that it would not have to face the battle with either russia in china. and in fact, i've heard the number of russian, the very respect that the russian military analysts suggest that one of the reasons why the united states allows itself to behave in such a way uh, in relation to both of these countries is the loss of fear and the loss of this basic life assuring, uh, feeling on this planet. because if you're, if you're actually allows us to, you know,

see the danger and try to prevent it. do you see any truth to that that the united states has become fearless? yes, absolutely. and that's one of the main problems i think with us for a policy national security policy is that we no longer have the fear of if you, the war to large extent. i mean, the, as i were left or what the previously as i were left here and here in america has now become a problem or left over like warning potential nucular war, world war with the russian federation. and it is, you know, things that kind of change sykes and serbia such as myself or not, i would say anti war, but we're very averse to these massive risks such as we're undertaking with uh, you know, potential world war with russia completely unnecessary. and there is no us strategic national security interest and you created all, i would say there was no interest us interest and ukraine. whereas it's

a very vital interest for the russian federation that ukraine be restored to a neutral buffer state. uh, separating it from uh, from nato countries. now, based upon you mentioned, uh, you describe yourself as a, as a conservative. and i wonder if there has indeed been a change of paradigm in the american strategic and security. thinking from seeing a war as a sort of means of geo politics. the continuation of vegetables is by other means. but something that you do at the last resort to we're seeing more as simply a way of doing business in this day and age. how's the war become more acceptable to the american security and military establishment? well, i think there's a huge disconnect to the next question. there's a huge disconnect between the american people and our leaders. so i mean, we have someone like saturday or someone might already leader mitch mcconnell who is in stated that the number one, the most important issue is supporting ukraine militarily. and that's a huge disconnect. no one, no one america in america really feels that we are very few

a percentage wise. um we have much more important concerns. domestic concerns. obviously the trip from china, which is the highlighted by the, the chinese air ship incursions, which we've recently shot down. so a lot of the british more important issues then when you create a new crate as a country, as a country, half a world away from united states of where is it, neighbor is a neighbor of russia. and so we need to lead to support and immediate peace deal with russia and ukraine ceasefire, or was disagreement a lot of the current lines of control and then, and that, that you need to include neutrality for, you create as well outside of data. now written before that during the entire cold war, america was led by foreign policy are released from truman to bush, who understood the inherent limits and constraints of the years power. but for the last couple of decades, with the only exception of trump,

it's been left by people who believe that the united states not only can but perhaps, should interfere very vividly, very of noxious. we sometimes in both rushes and china's and ferris. is there anything that most co and basing can do to disabuse these people off of that very yeah. offensive and very dangerous notion that well that's, that's a really good question. i don't really know the answer that because you know each each i think you're super power has a square of impulse. whether we americans like to can see that or not we, we always can see in our own square of applause that being the western hemisphere. but we rarely accorda the sphere of influence to russia and china. but it's, it's a simply a fact that rush to china also a joyce who has been close and us,

it's us meddling and military intervention. i will include orange shipments to countries within rushes and try to serve it. serves meant loans that are causing the story complex and increased risk of world war 3 of and in terms of how attorneys in russia, leaders can, can, can try to change or for policy. and i mean that's, that's the answer. i'm afraid i don't, don't have an answer to right can. i can at least try and try to help us understand the psychology of the us decision makers because i'm sure the military intelligence community knows that at least the russia has the kinds of weapons that can inflict a norm as damage to the united states. the few guys at this point of time have no defense against, despite obese per trail of a present putting as a, you know, as a psychopath, as this gets a frantic, as an irrational person, is a calculation that he will be, you know, say, is saying there and wiser than that, he will be, in fact more responsible and not to start the new kind of weren't even if he's

pushed to the limit the most as pricing thing that i, that i assume about present food and his behavior. and of course, if this worries that he's a profoundly rational actor, he's shown amazing restraint in the space of massive by western provocations. that doesn't mean i agree with the russians invasion of the crate. i absolutely don't, but we need to cease to go. um, i wrote an article recently in the national interest in which i stated with the american needs to have more strategic empathy for russia. if we were to put ourselves in russia shoes and in texas were to become independent right. allied with russia and china, we would invade bomb and in an ex all texas and call it a defensive war in bush the same way. you know, russia sees this as i understand it as a, a, a pre, a pre emptive or rather preventative, more to prevent ukraine from a boy from a to factor new member to a full member of nato. and i think that's a,

that's absolutely and brushes, you know, legitimate national interest to do and, and we have to recognize, rush is a legitimate security concern as if we're ever to the end is, uh, you know, this caught ongoing conflict with the russian federation. now you mentioned a present put in being at a rational decision maker, and i want to ask you about the present bite. and then i would never dare to ask such a question about them. you know, private says a citizen, but he's not a private citizen. he is a president of the united states entrusted with some of the most destructive powers in the world, and you have to be here him you know, making statements that he has some parish than the rockland. the whole world knows that he died from counselor and many other um, not just gas, but the statements that clearly demonstrate how compromise he's cognitive ability is how compromised he's member is how do you feel as an american, as a person who was who served the american army,

how do you feel about that person in such calling to stay making decisions about global warren peace to, you know, strictly alarming. we don't really know who lisa lisa, united states for america. it's uh, you know, sometimes we think it's fine, but as he said, he's still checked out out cognitively, it appears to be someone else. and so we need to let you know, we like to joe biden to be a president. and if he lacks the ability to serve, so i've been calling for his resignation or is a removal from office by impeachment or other means are going to prevent us. clearly we need, we need a more rational actory or the last, i mean i would argue that a bind is much more international accurate based on his decisions and his actions. and the course is the warranty crane and specifically not avoiding the warranty period. the 1st place when with all of the russian president was asking for, essentially was a written guarantee from the us and nato, that you probably would never join nato in the support from the mates to,

of course, which up, up until i think the february 22nd of last year, president clinton stated should be the basis for a peaceful coexistence between russian new crate. and that was a, that was an arrangement far more advantageous to ukraine. you know, the dom boss region would have been fully restored to create a control, be it with substantial self rule and it kind of economy. and now of course, is that the best case that you created face is it is a ceasefire and which are right. it recognizes roughnecks ation of a 5 different a prior you pretty, you know less well yes, mr. finance. a pretty bleak situation on the on the front lines right now, but let's pause for a 2nd. we'll be back to this conversation in just a few moments. switching

the the stuff for the summer shift for the picture day. so should the show this vehicle is it the air to remember what to model have do with these kinds of what it means. different experiments you've used doesn't figure to testify this so we get on medical and say ok even though is a new much. so i was unable to make a complaint

which comes up developing bio chemical weapons inside ukraine. guns. good to watch when you're away from cheaper to use the white glove service cost, but he's because of the same as your state. the welcome back to worlds of parks with david pine, a former us army combat arms officer, military affairs commentator. mr. pine before the break, we touched upon cause and biden's cognitive capacity and you know, my own country i was born in the winning years of the soviet union. it have,

has had its own experience with the senior leaders. and the one thing that uh, it show that at least to us is that when you have such um, elderly liter and usually what happens is a lot of, uh, you know, behind the scenes clams. and there is interest groups fighting with a child. there are 4 influence, do you see any signs of that within the washington. busy or within the, by the administrator. yeah. you know, there is a, a really interesting article that came out in newsweek recently. i think it's quite credible in which it stated revealed that the a, the director of the ca travel to ukraine, to, uh, uh, you know, convey a, uh, an offer of, uh, you know, to essentially swear offer for both russian ukraine in which of us would recognize the russians territorial, annex ations, that be great exchange for peace. and that, that is, you know,

that's exactly what needs to happen. but i think the missing piece is, i don't, i don't believe dividing this ration was willing to agree to print it. and probably, i think that they continue to pursue this. you know, this unfortunately dream of ukraine. they don't membership, which has been really this, almost the sole cause of this, you know, this entire conflict between russia and ukraine and in through the cold with the collected west in general. uh, you know, from my vantage point here at the years, policy on ukraine or visit via russia is a pretty similar to a present biden's um, well aware, and this, or this debility all for i. he's called me or just hours because one day they say one thing and the next day, and they say they either the you have written yourselves of the united states has also admitted to helping ukraine target them kill dozens of russian generals. they are supplying rocket launchers to enable them to destroy targets on the russian territory, including uh,

crimea. and on the top of bathroom just heard the same or her show a pulitzer prize winner report on the american intelligence services authorizing a couple of acts of industrial, tow terrorism by blowing up the north stream pipelines. i wonder if that is, um, you know, typical american conduct, or is it an overkill even by the, by the pre, to lose american stand there it's, i mean, do you see any changing, any shifting of the norms here a well, i think this is, we're almost an unprecedented territory because of the us, of course, our way of warfare is, is much like world war 2 english blake, russia during the great feature of war and a, you know, we're used to finding total wars bombing series of so many different structure. and of course, lately we've engaged or limited wars, but this is a really in a for, i mean this is it just afghanistan and we're, you know, we're,

we're trying to counter a, so the soviet occupation, beth gas, this is, this is a war of the heart of your it is a war you know, it, which, which rest of uses, existential as so these type of actions, all the actions that you just mentioned are really irrational in an absolute opposition to us national security interest. and they were creating a very dangerous and unstable world in, in europe. that could easily spiral out of control. i mean, a president goodness stated that there was absolutely nothing that he's not willing to do to any warranty crate. so i mean there was a way to do that by advice, is very dirt escape the commander in chief and any president or any person in his position would have to swear to the same. yes. and so he's willing to escalate all the way to, to the tactically, to the level of necessary to win. i don't think, i think he understands. that's likely not as barry. but um, you know, i just, i just don't see,

it says manage to be at the bottom. just raise your zack in this way when we have no national interest and ukraine. i mean, if a rush you were to next, all of you create tomorrow and it wouldn't affect us or nato national need or security in my opinion. but that was a plan. i don't want our viewers to make an impression that the rush, actual ones do are, you know, global. so if you oh, of ukraine because i mean, it's a huge territory and russian doesn't have the resources to support all of that. i think, at least as far as i'm concerns, the primary goal of the russian military operation is a security at a strategic security. and for anyone who's ever cited military history it's, it's not hard to understand what's hard to understand is why the united states would push so vehemently against pre be understandable um, requested by russia. i mean, any great power is use that would, that would ask for nothing less. and i've heard you suggesting that perhaps one of

the potential answers to that is that for widen, uh, the defining refreshing ukraine has become a sort of a religious dog. my. what do you mean by that? it? well, what i mean by that is that there is a painful factor of, you know, the c ukrainian war propaganda saying that, you know, treated demonize, russia, you know, on fox news i, i hear the russian army referred was an army of terrorist. i mean that's just, it's just not true. there's no, there is no um, fax it back up. the thus far rush i has is refrained from direct attacks against civilians you know, for. so he great is you creating army forces have hidden in schools and hospitals, which is an in contradiction to the chief convention and, and you know, proof causes them to be legitimate military targets. but of course,

the rest is not after the next and you crate it, it's uh, in fact, it, it will day to of the war rush at these terms to ukraine, which is the ones he quickly, you know, immediately accepted. a rough is offered to begin negotiating, and essentially that was the, all russian troops would leave the dog boss re, we've all over the ukraine. but of course prime, which is part of pressure and the don boss region and exchange for peace. and you probably, yeah. and uh, they actually came your tentative agreement, march 31st and assemble in which a russian rudest commitment to peace by withdrawing from 3 you pre and all boston in northern new craig. and the end of us was funded by escalating and towing those lists. the not to accept negotiations anymore. i would like to ask you about the, how you see the desired outcome of this course. say that the, by the end of ministration is waging, what is the ultimate goal here to punish russia and the so what does that mean?

does it mean, you know, teaching right rush or less than converting, rushing america's image, or perhaps raising russia of the map? and if that's the case, i mean, in practical terms, what do they actually want to achieve? you know, i mean there's been so many different statements made. ultimately i said, because the bottom line is the, by the ministration would like to to restore the the status go on say, which is which would be 2 of a russian troops to withdraw to their, uh, their free and uh, february 24th position one. they were offered in geneva during the last summit by putting them between put an invite and they didn't take it at all for yeah, i mean it's completely lost going to rational why we didn't do that essentially. uh, it was really a matter of pride. i think that by the, by ministration refused to close the open door policy for nato, that any nation in the world can, can join data on it. it's, it's really ridiculous. you know, we could have had

a policy that allowed for other european countries other, other than a former soviet union to join to. they closed the door for a former silvia republic that's outside of the baltics. and that was, i believe, entirely, a point of this war. and instead of what we see for the by the mystery shows, is a desire to, to essentially use the ukranian troops and civilians is, can't afford it. i mean, to tweak and russian militarily. after you had sent mr. pine a, i think this is actually a very important point because it's one thing when you have a pride, but uh, you know, sending uh weapons and weaponized, the ukraine as a, essentially a battering ram against russia is, you know, is it, is, it is this thing of a different order of magnitude, you know, rusher could the, you know, i think compromise around the appearances. but when it comes to, you know, turning a neighboring country into a military battle ground against us. that's quite a different matter. yeah. i so say, you know,

it's something that russia refused to tolerate, understandably, and it's something us would never tall or in fact, i would argue that us present would be even even more firm and decisive and depending usa 1st, then the goodness, better, you know, who's doing what's in rushes best interest? unfortunately, buying is not doing what is in america's best interest. you just mentioned put in and i wanted to ask you a question at the sort of continue and discussion on the religious nature of this that and beto because i, i've heard put to make repeated references to the bible to and i think for him it's also an ontological battle, and he's rational, comes down essentially, to asserting that the united states wants to replace god uh wants to put itself into place. i've got to be the only judge of good and evil, what's permitted, and what is not on this planet. while also, i'm not subjecting itself to this kind of scrutiny. so essentially put in his

argument that is that the washington tries to peddle supremacy under the guise of a mess and isn't do you agree with that? well, no, i wouldn't go that far, but i would say that the us for a policy is a liberal asian asia, many is as been a really failing disastrous policy. you know, that's, that's kind of the part for policy. we adopted in the wake of our cold war victory like so you and i say victory. there was no, i mean there was no uh, no tree design. there was no surrender ceremony was, it was a bit create a sense that we no longer had rushes an enemy, and that was a huge missed opportunity because we had the opportunity to incorporate rusher and the 2nd security architecture of europe. perhaps even as, as a member of nato, or through the o. s. perhaps more realistically through the o. s. c e, with a, a security agreement from atlanta to start to cooper, which would ensure the security and peace of europe for decades. perhaps centuries to call for now one last question i have time for um, i want

a quote uh the usa general omar bradley, somebody who advocated against expanding the korean war into china back in the 1950s. and he saw that the time that america was running on dom a mentor of a godly ancestry. and then when that's momentum runs down, god help america. i sometimes feel that the god really needs to help us all at this point of time. looking at where things are going and they will do still have any hope for, for sanity or for rational resolution to all of this. well, i think i do, i do have some hope i have particularly with the vitamins reported to offer a you know, to offer a 20 percent of you create a territory that essentially that which russia is already an x as part of the russian federation to the face all that, i mean that they would have to ask your premiums after that, after all, don't they as well?

i don't think so. i think that the problem is that with the buy in australia is they've essentially sub contractor us russian policy to you grade in soleski is not a special actor. he sees the comments about his desire to have us engaged at a pre emptive nuclear strike against russia. that's ever going to happen by those those in the time to present we ever have and so, you know, there's no risk of new to that we're on, on our end. but um yeah, that's uh, you know, we just need to get, get a return to saturday. you know, it's a commitment to peace and i think uh, i do think a ceasefire is the way to do that. what i see happening in the near future is uh, you know, rushes reportedly on the verge of a massive winter spring defensive involving press, an additional half 1000000 troops on your praise for a that's likely to occur in the next couple of weeks. and i think there's going to be a massive success on the, on the russian dillinger's part in, uh, you know, a concrete or a wide swath of, of the pre, in territory as was captured,

a large number of pre interest that will essentially bring western leaders to to our sense as well, and will be forced to admit that ukraine is just being defeated and has been defeated. as a result, we'll have to, you know, we'll have to come to negotiate and table russian. i think it should be a negotiator in between the us and russia and of us can, can represent the praise best interest without having you created the table. well, uh, mr. piney, i think you're very optimistic, but uh maybe that's the american spirit that i, i hope, but i definitely enjoyed your hopes for peace and for a rational way to the see spar. we have to end it there, but i'm very, very grateful for your time today. thank you very much and thank you for watching hope to see her again on the part of the the,

the, [000:00:00;00] the, [000:00:00;00]