doors 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 is less secure, 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 and china. and the way to do that for us is diplomatic, because she has a compromise agreements much as much as russia has 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 list suggests that for the americans, the, when your brain is

a very sweet deal, you mentioned the proxy war. and it's actually a fairly well developed military and doctrine that sees a war on the foreign land as a, as an acceptable. and in fact uh, you know, do you use 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 abandon this? we deal when they can counter the nuclear adversary through funding war in 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. the warranty trade in one of the biggest wants, of course, is the unilateral disarmament conditional assignment of us military us military has

been sending bass and bounce. this isn't guided munitions. you know, both rocket launch systems to ukraine and these are weapons that we would need in order to fight. and i mean, to find a fight, a war would take a great power such as china for it's more importantly, i think, uh, the greatest threat that the u. s. involvement is, is accomplishing is that it's increasing the chances of a cyber mt or nuclear exchange with the russian federation. and that's, that's where we don't want to fight because it's a war that could result in mass destruction on both sides. now this is actually a very interesting observation of yours, that the united states itself is left without uh, more than weaponry. and maybe that's due to the call kit calculation, that it would not have to face the bottle with either russia in china, russian. the very respect that the russian military analyst suggests 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 ensuring a filling on this planet, because if you're, if you're actually allows us to, you know, see the danger and try to preventive. 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 and national security policy is that we no longer have that feel. i mean, the, as i were left or what the previously as i were left here. and here in america has now become a pro, more or less overly courting of casual nucular war world war with the russian federation. and it is, you know, things that kind of change psyched to service such as myself or not. i would say anti war, but we're very adverse to these massive risks such as we're undertaking with uh, you know, potential completely unnecessary. and there was no us strategic national security

interest and you created all, i would say there was no interest us interested in ukraine. whereas it's a very vital interest for the russian federation that ukraine be restored to a neutral buffer state uh, separated it from uh, from nato countries. now, you mentioned that 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 a 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 majority leader, mitch mcconnell, who is in stated that the number one, the most important issue is

a supporting ukraine or general. and that's a huge disconnect. no one, no one america, a percentage wise. we have much more important concerns, domestic concerns, obviously the threat from china, which has been highlighted by the, the chinese air ship incursions. we've, we've recently shut down. so a lot of really very much more important issues then when you create a new create 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 and or, or was disagreement on the current lines of control and then connect the 2 ways 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 audits for

the last couple of days. and 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 affairs. is there anything that most co and basing can do to disabuse these people off of that very 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 accord the square of employees to russian china. but it's, it's a simply a fact that a rush in china also enjoys here has been closed and us,

it's us, madeline and military intervention. i will include orn, shipments to countries within rushes and transfer of it serves meant loans that are causing industry complex. any 3 risk world war 3 in terms of how trainees and russian leaders can, can, can try to change or for policy. and i mean that's, that's the answer, i'm afraid, and i 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 the norm is damage to the united states. the few guys at this point of time have no defense against, despite all these per trail of prison put in 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 staying 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 of the 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 a show an amazing restraint of occasions. that doesn't mean i agree with the russians and patients. you, craig, 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 rush use in texas were to become independent. right? allied with russia in china, we would invade bomb and in the next all of a texas and call it a defensive war in much the same way. you know, russia sees this as i understand it as a of 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 the 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 gaps, but the statements that clearly demonstrate how compromised 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 his face making decisions about global one piece to,

you know, strictly alarming of, we don't really know who lisa, lisa, united states for america. it's, 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 the job. i used to be a president, and then 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 that? clearly we need, we need a more rational after he or the last. i mean, i would argue that a bind is much more of an irrational, accurate, based on his decisions and his actions in the course of the warranty crane and specifically created the 1st place when with all of the russian press. it was asking for, essentially was a written guarantee from the us and nato, that you probably would never join data and then support from them. it's 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 out via with substantial self rule and, and economy. and now of course, the best case that you created faces that is a ceasefire and which are right, it recognizes roughnecks ation of a 5 different a prior you pretty 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 will be back to this conversation in just a few moments set you and the . so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy from

foundation. let it the an arms race that is on all sides is very dramatic. the only personally i'm going to resist, i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very create ticket of time. time to sit down and talk the the

welcome back. to one of the parts with david pine, a former and 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 have winning years of the soviet union. and how, how does that? uh, it shows, 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 clans fighting with a child or for implants, do you see any signs of that within washington or within the biden administration. 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 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 and ex ations that be great exchange for peace. and that, that is, you know, that's exactly is, i don't, i don't believe dividing this ration was willing to agree to you for a new trial, and i think that's they continue to pursue this. uh, you know, this unfortunately, dream of you praying a date on 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 a glass of west, in general. uh, you know, from my vantage point here in the years policy on ukraine or visit be a rush is a pretty similar to a present biden's. um well awareness or disability. all 5 he's calling to follow or is because one day they say one thing and the next day they say they either and you

have written yourselves that 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 tile stream pipelines. i wonder if that is um, you know, typical american conduct or is it an over killed even by the, by the printer lose american standards. i mean, do you see any changing, any shifting of the norm? well, i think this is so we're almost in unprecedented territory. because of the us, of course, our way of warfare is, is much like world war 2 and much like russia during the, the, the great feature of, or in the, you know, we're used to finding total wars bombing series of so many different structure.

and of course, lately we've engaged more limited wars, but this is a really, any more, i mean, this isn't just afghanistan. we're, you know, we're, we're trying to counter a, so the soviet occupation back gas. now this is, this is a war of the heart of your and it's a war you know, it, which, which rest of uses, existential. and so these type of actions, all the actions that you just mentioned are, are really irrational and 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, present goodness stated that there's absolutely nothing that he's not willing to do to any warranty. great, so it goes all way with me is all more, do i get to do that by advice? is very near to escape the commander in chief and any president or any person in his position and 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, if 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. it's just mad as to be at the by them just races asking this way when we have no national interest and ukraine. i mean, if rush you were to next, all of you create tomorrow and it wouldn't affect us or late in my opinion. but that was a plan. i don't want our viewers to make an impression that the most accurate ones do are, you know, global. so if you oh, of your cream 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 concerned, the, the primary goal of the rest military operation is a security 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, 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 the bottom of the dividing, refreshing your grant has become a sort of a religious dog mind. what do you mean by that? you? 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 hear the russian army referred was an army of terrorist. i mean, that's just it's, it's not true. there's no, there is no um, fax to back that up. thus far, russia has, is refrained from direct attacks against the civilians. you know, of course. so he prayed, he is you creating army forces, have hidden schools and hospitals,

which is an in contradiction to the chief convention. and, and you know, pauses them to be legitimate military targets. but of course, uh no rush is not after the next you crate it, it's uh, in fact, a rush at these terms to ukraine, which is the ones he quickly, you know, immediately accepted. essentially that was the, all, russian, you, all over the ukraine. but of course, prime you, which is bar across from the dom boss region, and exchange for peace and it's rally. and they actually came to a tentative agreement, march 31st, and assembled in which a russia, rudest commitment to po boston in northern new grade. 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 rush china? so what does it mean? does it mean, you know, teaching, right? russia are less than perhaps raising russia of the map? i mean, 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 vitamin this ration would like to, to restore the, the status quo auntie, which is, which would be 2 of a russian troops to withdraw to their uh, their free and uh, february 24th is the one they were offered in geneva during the last summit by putting that in 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 trying to take it 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, but i believe entirely a point of this word. and instead of what we see for the vitamin restrictions is a desire to, to essentially use the ukranian troops and civilians as can far i mean to tweak and russian militarily. after you had sent mister plan. uh, i think this is actually a very important point because uh, it's one thing, one of your house pride, but uh, you know, sending uh, weapons and weaponized, the ukraine as a, essentially a battery, you know, is, is, is this thing of a different order of magnitude you know, a rush or 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 tell. or in fact, i would argue that us present would be even even more firm and decisive and depending usa 1st then the goodness that and you know who's doing what's in rushes best to address um, unfortunately bind is not doing what is in america's best interest. you just mentioned put in and i wanted to ask you a question at sort of continue and discussion on the religious nature of this that and beto because i, i've heard a 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 of a liberal asian as gemini, 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. it was true design. there was no surrender ceremony, wasn't. it was a victory in the 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 security agreement from glad to start to have at cooper, which would ensure the security and peace of europe for decades, perhaps entries to come 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 the americans was running on the momentum of a godly ancestry. and then when that's momentum runs down, god help america 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 and 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 a next. as part of the russian federation to the united states, 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 contracted us rush of policy to ukraine in soleski is not

a special actor. he sees the comments about his desire to have us engaged at a pre emptive nucular strike against russia. that's ever going to happen by who's the most 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, uh, get, get a return to saturday. uh, you know, in 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 report only 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 or on the russian dillinger's part in uh, you know, the concrete, a y swafford of the pre in territory as was captured, a large number of the pre interest. then we'll assume to our senses won't and will be forced to admit that ukraine is just being defeated and have, we'll have to,

you know, we'll have to, i think it should be a negotiator to it 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 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 ended 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] the, [000:00:00;00]

the, [000:00:00;00] the stuff for the machine, for the fixture, such as you're done with the machine called the vehicle, is it the air to go to model have us describe that next time and see if it's specifically to testify this thing. so we can say ok even

though is then you must sort of deal with a company in some village developing bio chemical weather's inside. you know where some cheap book leaves the lights above it goes to reset the the russian troops advance on the battlefield,