is further the 6 family members, the daily events have left many homeless with signs of those field, trumpets increasingly being difficult to the search and rescue efforts and content . so that's how some of these news roundup is looking for. now i'll be back at the top with all of the latest developments, particularly surrounding the file and israel, palestinian escalation. the

welcome 12, the part. but they can see united states was the only increased power able to strike anywhere in the world with impunity while also enjoying and a trust and then to security advantage being bordered by 2 mellow neighbors and showed that by 2 vast oceans. this unique position allowed america to remitted benefits, but is it now living in down the hill by making it both ignorant and arrogant? both to discuss it, i'm now joined by philip gerald, the executive director of the council for the national interest and a former intelligence officer for the c. i a mr. drowsy is great to talk to you. thank you very much for being available. well, thank you for having me are now you've been a very vocal critic of the american war machine, not only on ethical but also practical drones because it's draining the country's resources and a skewering is a real authentic social needs. and you often ask the question of what is the us

national interest in pursuing all those wars? and i want to start by asking, what's your old answer to this seemingly rhetorical question? well, i think the national interest of the united states is actually pretty clear that it's probably like of most of the country. so in terms of, when it has good leaders, it tries to make the lives of the people who are citizens better improve their, their finances, enabled them to have more freedom. and uh, what is a bad leader? we have just the opposite. they look for wars as an excuse for not having to answer any of those questions about what the effort should be. you know, there was a time when an american dream was very appealing to the rest of the world. it had a lot of soft power, at least when i was younger. but right now i don't think it has any appeal or any, any americans actually believe and believe in that the end. if you look at the hard

data, economic data, social that it's clear that as you know, the, the, the resources on north, where the priorities are. and i want to ask you, why do you think the americans, people or the american people have been going along with that for too long? because i think even the russians would not put off with the, you know, that real concerns with being put on the back burner for so long. well, i think it's a simple answer actually that the american people are basically lied to regularly, both by the government and by the media. now the media is the important part of this equation because when the media is doing its job is trying different, they should be trying to find out what the government is doing. that's wrong. but we haven't had that in quite a while. and to, to, to answer the other part of the question, i'd say, very few people aspire to be an american anymore, or to come to the united states. this is a dramatic turn around in the last 30 or 40 years. now they've been

a series of conflicts, big and small, that drained american resources, and the also killed many people around the world and lead to the unprecedented number of refugees and internally displaced people. we actually have a, he managed his record that at this point and just recently president biden. um, what's trying like if these, there were some reports of he was interested in this craving himself more war powers, then i see with a for, to president when he served as a senator, how do you understand that? is there any other, you know, dream war? that's how it hasn't been spoiled until now. uh, china, apparently. uh, the thing is that uh that was that statement by it was probably one of the most dangerous statements i've seen to come out of the lips of an american uh,

head of state. he basically said that it was up to him using his judgment of what kind of threat was out there. there's started a war whenever he want it. and this is a contrary to the us constitution for one thing. and it's even contrary to the war powers act that was passed after vietnam. so this is a real scary statement. and he really wasn't picking the task by it, by the media or anyone else. now i think what makes this even scarier and i don't, i don't intend to be disrespectful of his age, but it's, i think, pretty evident to anyone who says president biden, making income to remarks that his cognitive capacity is somewhat compromised. that means like it, it's hard to argue that how do you understand the decision making process in washington at this point? who are those people who are making those vital decisions?

not just some of the issues of war and peace, but actually on the issues of the existence of humanity. because if they uh, you know, launch a war or a limited operation against china. that's good. the group has very quickly. yeah. it, it could, and it would, i think there's no question china is, nuclear are, as is the united states and a number of other countries. and the fact that once you start, you know, taking the genie out of the bottle. and the genie being nuclear weapons that it, is it most catastrophe level for the human race very quickly. and that's why this kind of stuff is very dangerous. talk. it should, it should not be allowed. and when people come out with these drives, they should be contested. immediately now, what bothers me is that a like, let's say iraq, iran or syria, where the united states can do things with impunity. it pretty much russia in china

on different sort of adversary's. i mean, as you mentioned, there, nuclear arms and the some experts believe that russia for one has a superior and nuclear capacity capabilities through the united states. at the moment. do you think people in washington, wherever those decision makers are actually understand that there's a different caliber of adverse surveys that they choose to pick up her bottle with at this point? it's so obvious to people like you and myself. cool. well, follow the news and follow the stories and follow what is going on in various parts of the world. but uh, that's precisely the case. this is no longer uh, not uh there was a need to contact a while ago, who said every once in a while, like every 10 years united states has to attack the small country to maintain his credibility. well, that was crazy that,

but now it's not crazy when you're talking about nuclear arch. now, i mentioned syria and i remember when the russian military operation is in syria began, i happen to be at the u. s. embassy or reception. seeing that the american ambassador of the time john south fuming with anger and does believe the news, the russians with some verify their jobs to syria at the invitation of the assad government. and i wanted to, if that wasn't a way a pile you to the current ukrainian conflict, the russians allowing themselves to do what they thought was rise at the moment. i'm going so explicitly against the american preferences well of my own personal preferences are for countries not to invade other countries for under any pretext, unless there is a palpable threat coming from that other country. now. so do united states has done

this numerous times and it only seems to be annoyed by this kind of practice, what the russians are doing. i'm not sure we can equate the russians and the americans here because he mentioned the palpable threat. and i think the russian leadership has been pretty explicit and that the main goal of inter intervening in serial was not to sort of slide the americans and contest the global leadership. but actually the counter terrorism threat them, you being a counter terror terrorism expert the for so many years, don't you think that was a legitimate argument that you know, in any country, almost any country that the united states gets a, gets itself involved in a competitor place we have a problem of terrorism, of drug trafficking, weapons traffic, et cetera. we'll see the problem is you could use the arguments 2 ways. and uh, the united states. is it the syria way? precisely the same argument that russia was using to enter into the country and

supported the government. now the united states calling is that it's there to destroy isis. but of course, it isn't the knowledge they have how many years, and they have at the store. and i says yet, and i think it's legitimate that russia, as an ally of the serial government, which is a legitimate government, it should be able to assist an ally of the united states on the other hand, uses the same argument, the terrors of marketing to justify ones is doing and i take a. ringback in both cases, you have to look very carefully get out legitimate. the argument really is, i know that a counter intelligence cooperation between most going to washington continued for some time, even after the bilateral relationship took a turn for the worse. as far as you know, is it still ongoing and do you think it's possible to revive it in any shape or

form in the offensive way that will benefit the the security of both countries and both people? well, i think the professionals who work for the intelligence agencies and also in the military on both sides, are quite willing to establish some kind of secure dialogue where the issue is that could explode and turn into a world war, can be dealt with in a diplomatic way, i think they're quite willing to do that. the problem is the politicians who are at the top of the systems. and particularly in the united states, where we have politicians that really are rob ignite, of the major issues that they're confronting in a kind of casual way. i get a job, i'm right now really wants to get re elected 24. and he wants to look like a strong war time president. that's not a good say. now mister gerald and you describe them as ignorant. are they truly

ignorant or arrogant? because i mean, with all due respect, our countries have a history of rivalry at the end, the most a t n. do we actually know each other as un? no other service. so we're both nuclear, aren't the countries and you know, those a serious things. but i think one difference is that during the cold war there was some parents of the sort of treatment of each other as equals. do you think the united states it treats russia, china or any other country as a, as a legitimate rather this point of time? well i think they, they would probably understand it if it goes too far and we have a nuclear war, you know, they could get hurt. but i think up to that point they are arian in the they're thinking that they what would happen because they are carefully managing the situation and they have a great deal of power that they have at their fingers. and so i think it's a, it's a, it's a difficult question, but i think there are,

during the cold war there were, there were a lot of sensible people who actually made sure that it never went to that point. i'm not so sure we have those people in the car right now. i've heard one very respect in the russian analyst home by the way, and was the, and the owner of the doctor and several american universities. when the relationship was a functional, he said the one thing the change is that the americans totally lost fear and the protective capacity that comes to be a tier. because if you are fearful you, you think twice about the, you know, cause benefit about the means and the goals. do you think that's true, that the american administration at least, has lost any fear or far what may come out as a result of its actions? interestingly enough, i think the answer to that is, is kind of define it. i think the, the, the military people are conscious of what is on the table. i think it's the others

who are pushing for these wars. can it be like to tony blinking state department of victoria doland state department? these are the real warmongers. these are people who never served in the military. and i have no idea of just went through talking about so it's a bit of a divided house. i think i say, well, uh mr jerome the we have to take him very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments station are the best thing to do. so that's it. the series pulling it

for you and you have them by see it the split this other it stop people even the way needs. yeah. you're saying you missed us and you to see cause that to you those them. but things go mental village, doesn't notice we are gambling with the future of all mankind and we're, we're risking it for not the the welcome back to the fortress phillips, around the executive director of the council for the national interest and a former intelligence officer with the c, i a, now, mr. jarell did before the break, really, it talks about how manipulative the official american discourse on the work would

be, including the conflicts in ukraine. and i think what i'm seeing and hearing right now from the american media is just the i think it's all based on the assumption that the russians are evil, full stop, and one doesn't need to understand either the russians uh, thinking about the why this war happened or even in this down there, the russian history reach is deeply insecure when it comes to war. because unlike you, we have for many wars with many neighbors and for us providing force, our security is it is a very sensitive subject using the american people actually understand why it is a fake for, for the russians in this war. well they, they don't understand it. and the reason that they don't understand it is that because the, the media has basically been totally on the side of

a button and the administration where they say that, well, they're frustrated, takes ukraine. now they're going to take the baltic states, the they're going to take all the, all of which is ridiculous. and this is what the american public is, gary, they, uh, uh, your report. and i think has spelled out very clearly why russia intervened as a lot of it makes perfect sense. and, but this is not what the american public is hearing. unfortunately, you know, you mentioned this very bizarre idea that if russia prevails in the ukraine, then you know, it's a separate question of what that means. because i think for what the russian doesn't have the resources to support the country with a hostile population. so i'm not quite sure that the rest of it is really eager to take over in ukraine. but this whole argument that if russia, when somewhere that is going to expand, is based on the idea of an irish actually has the resources to do all of those work

. whereas in fact, they're seeing the russian leadership has been very much focused on making sure that domestically people do not suffer, that social programs are functioning thing that lives in play is improving. the people are able to do business that the level of business and personal and political freedom is expanded. uh and you know, it got me thinking about whether the americans are so insensitive to russia to china and many other countries because they have a or they are failing at their own american dream. because without the conflict in ukraine, both the russians and the chinese are pursuing the national destinies in a very focused way, you know, being mindful of what the spend on war and want to spend on development. it seems that the americans from what we have been discussing have last of capacity to you know, they have a focus in both. yeah,

i think i think you're correct in saying that you owe it to what comes down or what comes across to me is, is very much the culture of a country. and a country will either go with a culture which defines it and, and kind of dictates what kind of actions it will take, or it gets away from that. i think the united states has gotten away from being a culture from being the country in that sense. we are technically for, i'm sure you know bankrupt because of all the spending of these wars and military costs, which we will never get back and people know this, but they, they don't know why it's so. and it's because we've lost our sense of purpose, our sense of culture. and that's what i believe. can i ask you specifically about the brand? because uh, i remember a few years ago during the obama administration, the us policy in ukraine was about creating another clause. i rushed to the

russians, could look at get jealous of and the sort of yeah, the read of the own government, at least that's how the administration officials articulated. ed, how do you understand the us policy visiting ukraine at this point? what is in ukraine for washington? right now, if you go by what they are saying of the white house and kind of gone, you would hear them saying that this is done to weaken russia to try to prevent russia probably coming to a challenge. and it sends a signal to china not to follow the same path. and there's a great deal of concern for in washington for, for countries that are competitors. and i don't think there's anything wrong with competition. i think the competition between russia and china offered different styles of government for different styles of country is a good thing. and um, uh,

but this is the kind of a paranoid taking the prevails in washington. it's really unfortunate mr. gerald did. there is also a huge difference between competition and confrontation because competition, you know, it encourages development and innovation, but confrontation costs a lot of money. when you say that the united states is after wicking russian, do you think these people have actually calculated in like the material terms? what it's going to take, and what's it going to cost the american text there? because russia, after all, is the largest country in geographic terms. and again, as we mentioned, it has a pretty strong military. it has the for middle nuclear weapons and you know, its population is also not about to yield to, you know, decision makers in washington. oh, i agree, i don't say why should yield to as a, i would add to your list of, of, actually, due to russia in a tremendous natural resources. it's a, it's definitely a, a, uh,

whatever the united states would want to do to diminish it or confront it. it's going to be a major power, whether you like it or not. and the same goes for china. that the trick is to, uh, not come from other countries that are competitor competitors and to work with them . and this used to be the job of diplomacy left the united states has per got that . now uh, going back to ukraine uh, the ukrainians. uh and i'm myself half of your premium and have relatives there, so i'm not a, i'm very sorry to them. but i think when you look at their political system and they like to talk about independence. but when it comes to self sufficiency, di, historic records is not very strong. in fact, the most problems between the russian ukraine politically erupt, it after rush to try to move to market prices for its oil and gas. and your premiums didn't like it because for years they had been receiving, you know,

reach russia's resources, a subsidized level. and as you have written at this point of time, the us treasury is the main source of the ukraine's national budget. but the, it's the resources that use treasure as resources. i also know it's unlimited. how long do you think the united states will be able to back roll your brain in such a way? i would, if i had to make a prediction, i would predict that the united states will try to keep this war going until or election next year. because again, buying and his group around him are trying to play the card that united states has been strong. it's sending a signal and it's a, it's so looking out for the security of the american people and the country in general and the course and so all nonsense. this is all politics. and i said, i'm afraid that's the, the closest to a realistic assessment of what this is about, how long it will go on. i think both russia in china have gone through the periods

of, let's say, national humiliation in china. there was a century of simulation in russia. we also have the a pre dia, humbling period after the collapse of the soviet union. and, you know, trying to pull ourselves as a society, as a culture, as a state from a very difficult position. and i think to some extent, to significant extent, we have succeeded. what do you think the american humbling would look like? i am not having any wishes here. i'm just curious about how do you think the american society can transform itself to a sort of get rid of these best interests that have misplaced national priorities for so long. i've, i rather suspect that the direction that all of this is going in will bring about something like an economic collapse, sort of like what happened to russia after the soviet union. and mr. yelton was in

charge of well, and the country was loaded by europeans and americans. it won't be exactly in that form. but the, the, the economy is going in a very bad direction. the, the, the death level is beyond any kind of recovery. and sooner or later, this is all going to come home. and when it does, there will be time for a i hope, peaceful revolution in the united states to change the way we think. and the way our politics work reminds me of the, or the phrase, the american officials like to repeat that. what happens in the ukraine will have a direct impact on the strength of the heroes democracy. and i wonder if they actually have a true so the sort of foreboding of permission uh, not so much about the state of us democracy because i think it's quite contested. but about the,

the use governing system that's what will happen in the ukraine. villa ultimately decide the future of the american system as of the exist today. yeah, i think one of the things that i find interesting is the fact that the probably the one thing that ukraine leads the world in political corruption. and if there is a country behind it that the one i look at, it's the way the united states. so for a political system has been corrupted by special interest. but by people with agendas, what do you need as a little money? i think one of one other thing that um is in common between i use the ukrainians, the political ukrainians, and the political americans as this believe the perception is reality based old mentor. i think that it was coined by one of the republican advisors of ronald reagan, if i'm not mistaken for a while at work. but uh, do you think reality will sooner or later catch up with it with people in

washington? i'm sure it's already catching up with the ordinary folks around the united states, but do you think they can realize the danger that for themselves a level for the country before it's delayed? well, let's put it this way. they shouldn't recognize the danger. oh, how it will happen, or when it will happen? kind of depends on, on the other factors and at this time of either the war and ukraine is going to be a success for the buying white house and that they will come out looking good for that or is going to be catastrophe. and there will be a lot of people thinking about we have to do something about the even the big come up looking good. i mean, uh he had, he can have a 2nd term. but though the question i think still remains, whether he will do anything for his country or for his people to address many of the issues that we have discussed today. one last question i want to ask you about

when it's finally over, whatever it is and whatever it, whatever form it, it may be. if do you think the russians and americans can be not friends, but most people, again, do you think they will ever be able to travel back in the united states and you will be, well, i think you're actually able to come to russia. russia has not limited to visa issuing to the american producing russia and america with ever and got a corporate the mutual and uh, you know, respectful basis. well, i can original on my own experience, i've been to russia twice. i been the st. petersburg and i'd been its uh to uh, moscow when the party had its trent down over 3. i was a paper and um, uh, i was, i was a former intelligence officer. they loved me and there was no problem. i knew many k g b officers when i worked overseas in europe in the middle east. and we got along just fine. i would say, you know,

there are people out there who want to fix this. and there are people out there who want to make sure that there is a good future for both russia and the united states. and for china. and we have to find the, we have to put them in positions of authority where they will make things change. well, on this hopeful note, we have to leave it as thank you very much, mr. drove it for sharing your expertise with us today. well, thank you for having me on. thank you for watching tulsa sir again on walter part of the the,

the of the desktop tool from the file and escalation in israel and gals, the edges towards a 1000 people. the conflict spreads with members of her mouth and militant groups reported the torching a check pointing in the west bank which showing on the gas a strip continuing today. and it's really a tuck has complete this, destroyed a most innocent heavy equipment moves towards the border with y'all's or raising the spectre of a groaned operation. coming as is real, security cabinets, and books and articles officially declaring the country to be in a state of war. and also had on the program, the lebanese army saves is really groups of these types of artillery to target a number of their supplements causing injuries. so after the.