solutions holding police, it was a nuisance. that is one way is the establishment of by the city and state within the colonized waters was, is really, was, was in for the 1st time since the establishment of the state of israel, isabel, as a space. we have to pick up the nice bo borders from 1947 today, isabel has never had and in the nation near to the gulf, nice borders, it's about time. that is what i see as a member of the these are so i am so sorry we have, i've seen that a lot of time. thank you so much for joining me. a pleasure talking to you. thanks once again. thank you, sir. well that route. so this is i will be back in about 30 minutes is not the dates of global news. so these are the

i'm action redundancy and welcome back to going underground, broadcasting all around the world from the u. a in a week where both of us and russian, i conducted nuclear war drills in britain safety drill, perhaps one for british politicians and their bunkers. what is the russian president vladimir persian 1071? major nations began war exercises, a northern scotland, presumably training against russia in china. let's go straight to the us capital in order to hide us, maureen cool, connell and former pentagon official. he's now senior advisor, the international security program at the us weapons company funded sense of a strategic and international studies. mackenzie and the exact and the show box. thank you so much for coming on the show. and lets go straight actually to your

latest piece, because uh, as the world or at least the united states really uh, to the news that you've deposed the speaker of the house, 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 cold, most a, the ukraine is spend to be invited states at total shut down will be responsible. what do you mean most aid to ukraine is spent in the us? uh national. what entity blinking says nicely or people on the press department, podium or in the white house. they say this is for the people of you. great. well, the 2 are not exclusive, but 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 nicest. begin those deployments right after the war began. as they were at about $20000.00 troops, it down to about 10 there, there to reassure the europeans and improve deterrence 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 you, great helps reprint it, 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. there's a piece of the humanitarian aid that helps countries who are as are suffering as a result of the disruption in the global of food trade, particularly we coming out of ukraine and russia and the front of agriculture overseas programs in united states. they help 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, maybe 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, uh,

history fusion for the weapons companies. they want to keep the secret. i don't think so i, 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 it helps you create any less who the interesting thing is the korean jump? yeah, the white house spokesperson, john liz was shouting out to him because biden, 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 single mainstream media there about it. but your,

your piece is very much trying to persuade people to continue support for zalinski on the basis that the shut down would be responsible. is it your understanding that the bone of contention here is ukraine and the funding for ukraine? i mean, it's hard to even quantify the the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been given to ukraine or given to the united states 3 great or? yep. um, your credit was one of the elements. the water element was about a government spending in general. the republic and 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, 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 a to ukraine went to the floor of the house, it would also be supported over one. when the, the problem is that there's 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 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 symbol in 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 conflicts are 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 pizza impressions gain more ground, actually. and oh, it's just being sent to ukraine to be destroyed by the russians. so what if they were always practicing war games? why are 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, you create 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 trading. 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 um we actually had trucks spinning of them in from his spinning report on the 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 forum, the admiral rob our, uh, an agent military 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 last night. 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 the united states is that we're at the bottom of what we can give to the ukrainians. to give you an example of, of general initials we've given above 40 percent of our javelin inventory to ukraine, the pedagogy 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 me, so i was a kind of useless. and so one day on the north koreans have a very large military, very large ground for us. and if there were a, an extended conflict on the peninsula of challenge 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 does exist central. uh, if the and the us. com protect themselves from the, i 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 they were in 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 that more from the senior advisor of the international security program with you as arms, company funded center for 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 defensive as strategic and international studies . kind of, we were just talking about actually north, north korea. you know, there's a lot of control over 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 new career. 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. 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 fact then the, the munition is running low bottom of the barrel, according to nato. what happens if um, what happens if the, the stuff to you great, 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 to create in all of 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 not enough to keep the ukrainian armed forces in the field.

they would be forced to negotiate some sort of in place to cease fire. and that would give, put me at least a partial victory controls about 18 percent of ukraine and the settlement would allow him to keep that so. so it's good if they run out of weapons because they will be peace dogs and they'll be a season and people, few people who can be killed. i'll give you a hand and then put in, we'll have a partial victor in, you know, if you're comfortable with keeping food and power with a partial victory, then i think that's a win. if you're uncomfortable with that, then that's a lose. so you, you said put it in in power i do that is what about keeping page in in power? is it or something to do with the machine change in rush or is this for? well, if pulling wins the war, if there's a negotiated a ceasefire on the current line, and we'll 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 i, that's certainly not one of the names, but funny enough this week, also the state department released their integrated country strategy. i think police, 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 visit 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 usa department, recruit, retain, drain and integrate a premier team to advance u. s. 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 a, it's an antique democracy there. so that's the, that's from the state department is, is 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 did ukraine uninvited. it was a deal of aggression on their part and you say on provoked on us media, did you agree with that? it was unprovoked. there was unprovoked, i mean, rush or argues that the existence of ukraine as an independent country is a provocation, though it never, you know that i'm you. not sure there was a means good cards 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 as its weakest in the history. targeted nato, is that it's, we just, but i, i do a worry that expanding nato further east towards adding countries that are not fully stable, of 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 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 listened to me, but they clearly have not, you know, we're talking about bringing in the, you know, a variety of countries. you know, we brought in a number of bulk and countries. um, you know, i, i don't think that strange. 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 there's just a lot of political momentum towards expansion. you see that in the discussions about ukraine also, of course that to allow them to boot in as being say, since 2014 and the my then a q, arguably other people. what listing do 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 as well. 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 to see you 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 a 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, well, 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 and less than you are poor in the more the russians will just 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 hard for them. certainly lose power 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 rather 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 doesn't 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 one china, where are you getting this information? they've run out of conventional weapons losing it to, to one of their 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. wait, wait. well, what about the motive? what about the motive of lucy? i like to have my 6 in england and your center for strategic and international 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, or you need to look at the data that they provide the data for any other organizations that make it 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, it will be back on monday with one of the candidates running against joe by the next is us elections and a battalion bodies, jacob horn burger, who like all the candidates are f k, junior, in gwinnett, westwood,

and on shipments to the landscape until then keep in touch, my role i social media is nonsense is in your country and had to a channel going underground tv on rumble. don't com to what you handled episodes i'm going undergrad. see you monday the public sentence, and i'm going to plan with you whatever you do. do not watch my new show. seriously . why watch something that's so different whitelisted opinions that he won't get anywhere else. welcome to please, or do the have the state department to see i a weapons bankers, multi 1000000000 dollar corporations. choose your facts for you. go ahead. change and whatever you do. don't want my show stay main street because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is called stretching time, but again, it's not, we don't want to watch it because it might just change the way and say

the 7 people are reportedly wounded in a real quick attack on some of the most residential buildings on damaged by mice conducted the rep in the back end as well as but i had to believe there is a god also at the crowd of sciences. on the 98 the residence of gaza has been killed and more than 1600 wounded during his riley. it has the arabs on saturday.