what they had to say the individuals in the photo or 2 jewish soldiers from the ass off battalion, the soldiers proudly identified with their jewish heritage and expressed that they are respected by their peers. but we've been talking with a whole like us marine corps intelligence officer, scott ritter. he said that washington tons of blind died or controversial issues when they made its own interest of the united states is in a propaganda war with russia in which its tried debate. russia as the aggressor, russia, as the nazi like, perpetrator of violence and anything that that deviates from the narrative of courses and welcome uh, look, it's not just the us state department, the united states congress has done this as well. we should point out that it started in 2015. the united states congress would put in the amendment to the national defense authorization act that banned the use of the us taxpayer money to

train. the age of battalion into congress said in this amendment, why? because the age of the time was a white supremacist, neo nazi organization. and up until 2021. this amendment was in place, suddenly it disappeared. and congress forgot that the age of the organization was a nazi organization. and they invited the ages of members into the united states congress. nancy pelosi sing their praises. they were allowed to auction off memorabilia in the congress to raise money for their cause. well i just to remind you we all keeping very close tabs on a major escalation in israel. palestinian attacks being described by son was the most severe in nearly half a century. and we are across the store in the region, you know, keeping it posted on or on the quotes on the

i'm actually in redundancy and welcome back to going underground pool, cussing all around the world from the u. a in a week where both the us and russian are conducted in nuclear war drills in britain does have safety drill, perhaps one for british politicians and they're bunkers, but it is russian president vladimir persian 1071 major nations began war exercises in northern scotland, presumably training against russia in china. let's go straight to the us capital in order to hide us marine cool. connell and former pentagon official, he's not senior advisor. vince national security program at the u. s. weapons company funded sense of a strategic and international studies. mckenzie. and thanks

a lot and we show buck. thank you so much for coming on the show. and let's go straight actually to your latest piece. because as the world where it needs to be united states reels to the news that you've deposed the speaker of the house of the people in the, in congress. you've written a piece which i suppose it breaks, nations, people do joke about, but not so much on the bbc and cnn. it's called most a, the ukraine is spend to be an ide states. a total shut down will be responsible. what do you mean most aid a to ukraine is spent in the us national. what entity blinking says likely, or people on the press department, podium or in the white house. they say this is for the people of you. great. as well as the 2 are not exclusive, i wrote a piece to give a sense of the many different elements of what is referred to as

a g o crane. because a dual credit is really a misnomer. this is really aid as a result of the war and ukraine. some of the aid goes ukraine. some of it helps ukraine. some of it helps the united states and other allies. for example, a chunk of the package of a g o crane pays for us forces to deployed to eastern europe. the license begin those deployments right after the war began. they were at about 20000 troops, hidalgo by chance. they're there to reassure the europeans and improve the trends against the russians, but paying for that as part of this aid to ukraine, but that money, most of the most of it stays in the united states. another example is weapons. when we send weapons with united states and weapons to ukraine, there's money to replace those weapons. that money goes mostly to us,

arms manufacturers. so the weapons themselves go to ukraine, helps with granted, and it's a fight against russia. but the replacement uh goes to us manufacturers. so when you consider agriculture, you actually, i mean people can read it online, but you mentioned agriculture as well. that's right. uh, there's a piece of the humanitarian, a that helps countries who are suffering as a result of the disruption in the global of food trade, particularly we coming out of ukraine and russia and the part of agriculture overseas programs in united states that helps those countries with food, you see the, your endangers and the, like julian hassan, she said, it's a laundromat, and actually all these was the money, it's recycled and actually comes back to the united states. that's why your article may because of the shock, because it's usually an argument made by the anti war left in the united states and

the mag of republicans, of even they, some of them get donations like a situation where the weapons companies, they want to keep this secret on things i've, i've seen a number of commentators and even a members of congress making this argument. you know, there's nothing secret about it is i know just because the money is sent to me. i say it doesn't mean it doesn't help ukraine, for example, with the provision of weapons which demanded cherry and assistance a, you know, the fact that it ends up in the united states, i think, should maybe make people little more comfortable with it. but in many is doesn't mean that helps you create any less. here's the interesting thing. is the korean jump? yeah, the white house spokes person, john liz was shouting out to him because biting it said the shut down of us government was over ukraine. and she refused to confirm that. that was true. of

course, lots of debates on so called mainstream media there about it, but your, your piece is very much trying to persuade people or to continue support for the landscape on the basis that the shut down would be responsible is that your understanding that the bone of contention here is ukraine and the funding for ukraine. i mean, it's hard to even quanta 5 the the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been given to ukraine or given to the united states. 3 great. yeah. um, your credit was one of the elements, the water element was about a government spending in general. the republican right wanted to reduce all spending defense, but also the spending and you know, the government as a whole, as a result of your the, you know, they were holding to the government class stage of ukraine is

a part of it. it's important to know to go that when the community resolution went to the floor of the house and passed. overwhelmingly, if a bill supporting the aging ukraine went to the floor of the house, it would also be supported over one. when the problem is that there is a small group of conservative republicans who are determined it to the government spending and cut a to grant. and because of the narrow margin in the house, they have a lot of latitude. we're talking just you know, less than 2 ends worth of people in the house. um, the short answer is yes, the vote was very marginal in florida against the speaker. i think there were 6 republicans who voted against the speaker with the are the democrats now, if you put a of a bill on the floor about your premium and our aid,

it would probably get 80 to a 100 votes against it. but that means that there would still be $330.00 ish votes for it. so it would pass overwhelmingly, except it is cnn poll, which is being running uh since february last year it shows a majority of americans in the united states oppose funding for the war by 55 percent. 55 percent of both. a majority claim to us has done enough. majority of us have obviously said that a to it endangers us security. it's reflected in polls in europe as well, where it's even bigger, 76 percent of both military financing, 74 percent of both financial support. i mean, there's a huge mismatches in there between the say that cnn poll and the congressman, the you're talking about who is old, as you say, will always guarantee more funding for the landscape. but there is

a split between congress and i think the current pulling up the support for the war has been quite strong up until recently. but i think that reflects maybe the broader view that congress has taken it. it's also not clear, you know how deep that opposition is when you see it in congress, but again, it's about 25 percent of the house. okay, well i'll get to the nuclear drills in a moment, but tell me about the significance of nato's joint warrior exercise. in this week of letting me a page and 71st, but they, they, they're going on in the northern scotland and obviously in the shadow as was of hundreds of thousands of ukrainians having been killed in the past 12 months or so . so i think it's important keep in mind that nato has drugs going on all the time that you know, it's not that this one is particularly focused on the current conflict was probably

planned initially years ago. but it is a, a symbol and an indication about nato's continuing readiness. continuing to focus on russia and, you know, may be somewhat on china. also, nato is a military alliance. and this is a reminder that the tre alliance is conduct exercises in order to enhance deterrence. and to be ready, if conflict should come. but why are they uh, losing, i mean, all these billions at all is where the weapons are being sent. and clearly, you know, no, no progress seems to be being made in this counter offensive, obviously, has some feed st brushes gain more ground, actually. and oh, it's just being sent to you. great and to be destroyed by the russians. so what if

they were always practicing war games, why they failing? and of course, i could say that in the context of the fact that the united states has been defeated in war after war. of course, after vietnam, where i understand you still have i did desert storm also i'd say the united states has quite a successful in that. i think the conventional wisdom on the united states is that were very, very good and conventional conflicts. lights doesn't storm. we're not very good at insurgencies, as we saw in the latter part of iraq and afghanistan, but this is conventionally new drain. is this uh no. ukraine is a different situation because it's the ukrainians who are fighting. you know that they need an exercise and that's for nato troops and they keep nato ready. the ukraine, of course, is not a member of nato. we are supplying them with weapons and training. but you know,

they have a long way to go and they have to be fair to them. they've greatly expanded their armed forces. they've taken a lot of casualties. but you know, the, they, you know, they need to have a continuous flow of weapons and training. if they're going to continue resistance, and that's true of every that's going to make a lot of money. i mean, terry, do they even have an munition to practice with long as the nato exercise today? because there's report, i mean, we've heard before, comments from people. we actually had trucks, many of them in from a spinny report on their show telling us about, um, not only the ineffectiveness of some weapons but also the loss of ammunition. we know here from the war source security for room, the admiral robe, our, uh, an agent ministry committee says the bottom of the barrel is now visible. basically, nature doesn't have any munition. how did we get to that situation? a, is it true? and uh, are they just practicing with the sports?

uh no me. i mean issues on the nato exercise, or i wouldn't say that nato is out of the munition that the little country still have some stuff. that's nice, so but this is the scene nato's most senior military official. i have no real bo and i'm sure you know of him. but i use a same thing in the united states. but when, when they say we're at the bottom of barrel, what, what they mean at least in united states, is that we're at the bottom of what we can give to the ukrainians. to give you an example of, of chavel initials we've given above 40 percent of our javelin inventory to ukraine, the pentagon. so we looked at the given anymore because we would need to add 4 other possible conflicts, for example, in korea. so when you hear people say we're out of javelin, we're not out of javelins, we're either java is that we can give to ukraine without accepting risk. that the pentagon believes is unacceptable. how would they help in korea javelin miss?

i was given that i know from the trump, from him was why you rushed if young and i have or these to meet with. kim jong, who in so quickly was when he heard the, as every president has do that, the north koreans can destroy los angeles. in 33 minutes, i'm showing javelin missiles are kinda useless. and so on the, on the north koreans have a very large military, very large of ground for us. and if there were a, an extended conflict on the peninsula job, which would be very helpful. but the creeds also have a lot of tags. now the very old tank, when they just hit the united states, see it is essential if the and the us. com protect themselves from the, you know, the united states has a missile defense system that is in fact designed to shoot down north korean missiles. you know, it's never been tested against a real missile,

but there are defense as their, their ability to strike the continental united states is still extremely limited. and if they did that, of course, united states has overwhelming fire power it could bring to bear, which i had gotten a lot of stop you. the more from the senior advisor of the international security program, with you as arms, company funded sense of a strategic and international studies after this break the the welcome back to going underground. i'm still here. i was retired colonel mckenzie and senior advisor. vince national security program at the center for strategic and international studies kinda we were just talking about actually north, north korea. you know, there's a lot of control as the over those, the defense systems that you have in the united states. they're infamous the

secrets. and by and they can only shoot down at most 3. isn't it? 3 words in the north koreans can shoot for, i don't know. why is it though that uh the united states is holding a imagine c drill. that's a nuclear drill. this week just now is off to russia, held the nationwide drill. that means in your country, every phone, every television set, every radio image feel um, uh uh, in this case uh that its a rehearsal as well. this sort of thing is not uncommon in the united states, they test the nuclear broadcast system. they have done that radically over many, many years. it sounds like the 1950s. okay. and i'll show you when's the last time for sure the, the broadcast system and i think they tested every year. it's tested,

you know, quite frequently the united states takes these precautions seriously. the importance of being able to communicate and disaster recovery and also points out that these capabilities are not limited to nuclear wars and nuclear incidents, you know, they can be used in natural disasters. also have a famous they didn't work. and now we of course, were given the facts, then the, the munition is running low bottom of the barrel, according to nato. what happens if um, what happens if the, the stop to ukraine? does that mean? there really will be a negotiating table a time, and people can actually start to negotiate. so i'm kind of piece rather than fueling the conflict a lot depends on how much a gets to ukraine. if united states cut off all a, do you create in all the elements of that aid? it would be hard for ukraine to continue,

is resistance. the europeans in global community contribute a lot. it's probably a not enough to keep the ukrainian armed forces in the field. they would be forced to negotiate some sort of in place ceasefire. and that would give, put me at least a partial victory controls about 18 percent of ukraine. and the settlement will allow him to keep that so. so it's good if they run out of weapons because they will be p. storks and they'll be seized. and people fuel vapor will, can be killed. i can put him in and put in will have a partial victor in, you know, if you're comfortable with keeping food and then tower with a partial victory, then i think that's a win. if you're on comfortable with that, then that's the lose. so you, you said put it in in power. i do this is what about keeping page and and bowers it will still need to do with the range game changing rusher. is this for? well if pulling wednesday or if there's a negotiated

a ceasefire on the current line pollutant will claim that that's a victory and that will ensure that he stays in power movies, particularly very, very popular anyways, me. but i mean, that's certainly not one of the names, but funny enough this week. also the state department released their integrated country strategy. i didn't believe it goes that it was leaked wrongly, but actually it was up there on the website. uh, what about the fact that the most of the state department paper is talking about the importance of us? i mean, just to take one line, they basically say the whole of ukraine is corrupt, so i don't know where all the money is ending up. it seems to be the implication and the management objective of the us state department, recruit, retain, drain and integrate of premier team to advance us policy goals. so, they issue a paper which basically says the ukraine must be, is completely corrupt. it needs to be reformed urgently

because the political control is wielded by only galks and there's a whole system of corruption, an empty democratic uh, some anti democracy there. so that's the, that's from the state department. is this really about, um, a democracy at all. i mean, i know you mentioned regime change in russia. is this really a war from start to finish about, about russia? nothing to do with ukraine? oh, truly about both of russia had not invaded ukraine, who would not be having these discussions in russia and they ukraine, uninvited. it was a deal of aggression on their part. uh and do say on provoked on us media, do you, do you agree with that? it was unprovoked, it was about, i mean, rush or argues that the existence of ukraine as an independent country is a provocation, though it never, you know,

that you're not sure. and then with the means good chords ratified of the un security council. and it's the violation of that the restaurant claims is that is the reason for it. you said in 2019 nato expansion weakens nato. quite a, quite a statement. what, what did you mean by that? and is nato today of its weakest in the history? argue that nato is that it's weakest, but i, i do worry that of expanding nato further east towards adding countries that are not fully stable, that would undermine nato's confusion. anyone listening to you when you wrote that piece? because clearly the people in the state department, the policy thing, thanks winning and for your thank day. did anyone listen to you when you said that? because i've never seen nato expansion like it in terms of new members recently. and the 1st thing in the hi. so it goes about the fact that some of our guys now

led by someone who clearly does not agree with the of i would do any blinking goals as well. i wish i could say that people have listen to me, but they clearly have not, you know, we're talking about bringing in, uh, uh, you know, a variety of countries, you know, we brought in a number of bulk and countries. you know, i, i don't think that straight. why do you think they listen to, you know, there's tremendous momentum to expand nato. you know, many countries regard nato as, as something you know, like the e u, i mean a good thing to belong to. and, you know, has some benefits and don't regard it as a security alliance. you know, you know, the down play that part, play up the political part. so unfortunately, i think that they're just a lot of political momentum towards expansion. you see that in the discussions about ukraine also, of course natural vladimir food and is being say, since 2014 and the my then

a q arguably other people were listening to what you were saying because all the leading presidential contenders for next year's election appeared to understand that there are dangers with this unalloyed expansion. well, what do you think of the fact that the leading opposition figure in your country donald trump? once immediate negotiations because r f k junior much more popular than bite and he's running cornell west. they all went the war to n, v a to ukraine, to stop and reevaluation of uh, the united states as role in nato. and i suppose more fellows about the american people who suffer so much it since the economic crisis between 08 i i think that there are also a number of candidates who strongly support the war. you can see nikki haley in the hand. you know the falls about nikki haley and i'll be here just then probably

number 2 after donald trump, donald trump's all over the place. you know, when he's out of power, he says that he a lender to lend the war in a day. you know, for donald trump, it's all about donald trump. now, i mean, given that you observe these issues and as i say, said there was the dangers with nato expansion. why do you think russia has not level key of, i mean the russian, the think tanks and analysts will say that the initial stages on february 22nd last year with me in the a response to the increased shelling of don't bass and east and ukraine. you clearly understand that the russians have the power to level will give in an hour. why do they not do this? and why do american animal this continue? just say we're going to pull more weapons and we can win this war and so on. when, as we know, the more the, the united states in western europe or in the more of the russians will just, uh,

use to destroy all that machinery equipment in personnel and, and, and sons and brothers and fathers of the ukraine. and knowing that they can always wait, and i mean, you don't seriously think about you're going to lose. oh gosh it. and certainly those have based as well. you can see that they are being badly traded on the battlefield. they're taking casualties. probably $2.00 to $1.00 compared to the ukranian, $2.00 to $1.00. where is this figure coming from? i mean, you said they're running out of ammunition unless they desperately in need of an munition. i mean, what i, i don't understand when you are a minute treatment and you're a pentagon official, you're comfortable, you know, the rest of it could just, if they decided to just go for it. were other than this slow. so it means of course, people like that get to started this house, speakership or destruction. and this week said the dollar eyes ation was the

fear he was concerned with when he put the motion in the house to one seat. the speaker does no one in the us security firmament. understand that the united states dollar is under attack and the united states has to do something to defend it. and the animal is arguments for ukraine. they destroying the use of the federal reserve and the dollar around the world. or come back to the dollar in a minute, but through the answer this question about being able to level cheve an hour. the only way they could do that is with nuclear weapons. and of course, that would be an escalation that would have to be new theory can be a, a safe and conventional weapon. as you know. now the, these, the russians have run out of conventional weapons. they've, they've tried to level chief, what you've seen is the maximum they can do. their aerial attacks have become further and further apart. they become weaker and weaker because they just don't

have that many areas. this intelligence information coming from that you're getting because everywhere in the global south, they're getting different types of information clearly engaging. they're getting really very different information and they certainly must have watch for his extra saving retents. and this week saying that ukraine is really about the water in china. where are you getting this information? they run out of conventional weapons. they're losing a 2 to one up there with some excellent works by c s i s, but also some other think tanks. for example, lucy in the u. k. has done some grid analysis on the cruise missiles and the cruise missile inventories that the, the russians have. and these are people who track the missiles, one, you know, individually and keep a account. so i think that their analysis is pretty dependable way. well, what about the motive? what about the motive of lucy? i like to in my 6 in england and your center 1st or did you get into national studies with your,

your finance by arms companies. it's in the interest of your institute and a ruthie. both institutes, but of course got us into so many wars in libby air and iraq and afghanistan and syria lost by the united states. argued weight is in the interest to prolong the confidence in more more weapons to be destroyed because it makes more money for those ins for the donors who then supply your salary. you need to look at the data that they provide the data for any other organizations that make an argument, this space. i think lucy has shown that their data is objective as has c s i s, and i would recommend that people look at that data and make their judgments about whether it's reliable, which i kind of thank you so much. happy to join you. and that's it. for the show will be back on monday with one of the candidates running against joe. by the next

is us elections and a battalion bodies. jacob holland burger, who like all the candidates, are f. k, junior in cornell. west would end on shipments to the landscape until then keep in touch, my role as social media is nonsense as in your country and had to a channel going underground tv on rumble. don't com to what you handled episodes of going undergrad. so you monday. the shopping pictures as opinion that in yellow to class israel is in a state of the idea of says terrorist breached as territory as rocket fired from gaza of rain down across multiple towns and poland. meantime, israel largest strikes targeting hosp militants in gaza. it does seem that a raging conflict appears to be in the works.