the, the, [000:00:00;00] the, [000:00:00;00] the, the welcome 12, the part, but they can, the united states was the only great power able to strike anywhere in the world with impunity while also enjoying and unprecedented security advantage being bordered by 2000000 neighbors and showed that by 2 vast oceans this unique position

allows america to remitted benefits, but is it now living it 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 these things here? rhetorical question. well, i think the national interest that you have your face is actually pretty clear, and it's probably like of most other countries. so in terms of what 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 industry should be. you know, there was a time when an american dream was very appealing to the rest of the world. it had the 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 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 us. 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 vote 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 to 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 it's 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 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 at this point and just recently president biden. um, what's trying like if he's there were some reports of he was interested in the scribing 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 for that 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 heritage state. he basically said that it was up to him using his judgment of what kind of threat was out there to start 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 out to be at now. 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 it 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 bite and making income to remarks that his cognitive capacity is somewhat compromised. i mean, 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 is good. and it would, i think there is no question. china is no clear r as, as 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 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 lines, 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 on 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. there was a new 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 to. now i mentioned syria and i remember when the russian military operation in, in syria began. i happened to be at the u. s. embassy here,

reception. seeing the american ambassador of the time john south, fuming with anger and just believe the news. the russians with sun verified our jobs to syria at the invitation of the assad government. and i want to, if that was a new way and probably you had to the current ukrainian conflict, the russians allowing themselves to do what they thought was right at the moment. i'm going so explicitly against the american preferences well of my own personal preferences are for a country is 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. i want 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 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 counselor to serve as an 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, gets itself involved to make competitor plays? 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 claim is that it's there to destroy isis, but of course it isn't now explained how many years and they have at the store in ices yet. and i think it's legitimate the brochure 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 terrorism arguing to justify ones is doing. and i think 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 an 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 are 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, ignorant 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. it's not mister gerald and you describe them as ignorant of a truly ignorance or arrogant. because i mean, with all due respect, our countries have a history of rivalry at any most a t n. do we actually know each other as un, no adver service. so we are both new,

clear to our countries and, you know, those are serious things, but i think one difference is that during the cold war there was some parity, the sort of treatment of each other as equals. do you think the united states, the trees roster, china, or any other country as a, as a legitimate thread of 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, it was a and all over the doctor and several american universities. when the relationship was a functional, he said the one thing that changed is that the americans totally lost fear and the protective capacity that comes to be a tier. because if you are fearful of you, you think twice about the, you know, cost 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 divided. i think they, the, the military people are conscious of what is on the table. i think it's the others who are pushing for these wars tend to be like the tony blinking state department of victoria dooley and state department. these are the real warmongers of these are people who never served in the military and 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, i think we have to take him very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments agent the,

the, [000:00:00;00] the welcome back to all the parts is phillips around the executive director of the council for the national interest and a former intelligence officer with b. c. i a, now mr. gerald and before the break, really, it talks about how manipulative the official american discourse on 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 able full stop. and one doesn't need to understand either the russians uh, thinking about. 8 how the, why this war happened,

or even understand, 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, is a very sensitive subject using the american people actually understand why this is a fake for, for the russians in this war. well they, they don't understand it. and the reason why 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, paul, the, all of which is ridiculous. and this is what the american public is hearing. they, uh, uh, your report, and i think has spelled out very clearly why russia intervene 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 ukraine, then you know, it's a separate question of what that means. because i think 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 your brain. 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 they 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 to spend on the 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. it 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

a good 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 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, a russia, 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 and how do you understand the us policy visiting ukraine at this point? what is and 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 week and russia to refer to prevent russia, probably comic a challenge. and it sends a signal to china not to follow the same path. and there's a great deal of concern for a 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 and there's 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 russia, do you think these people have actually calculated in like the material terms? what it's going to take and wasn't going to cause 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 formidable 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 you too, as a, i would add to your list of, of, actually due to rush as a tremendous natural resources. and so 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 not confront other countries that are competitor competitors and to work with them. and this used to be the job with diplomacy, but the united states as per dot net 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 i'm years there 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 record 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 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 is the resources, they 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 his group around him are trying to play the card that united states is being 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 uh, a previous 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, i'm not having any it will wish just here. i'm just curious about how do you think the american society can transform itself to a sort of get rid of these vested interest that have misplaced national priorities for so long i've, i rather suspected 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, uh, the economy is going in a very bad direction. indeed, 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, with 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 what will happen in the greenville ultimately decide the future of the american system as it exists 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 by people with. ready genders, 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 we, how it 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 to late? well, let's put it this way. they shouldn't recognize the danger of 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 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 see how 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 wanna ask you about when it's finally over, whatever it is and whatever in whatever form, if it may be, if do you think the russians and americans can be not friends, but most people, again, do you think i 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 young corporate, the mutual and uh, you know, respectful basis. well,

i can read you on my own experience, ive been to russia twice. i been the st. petersburg and i'd been its uh to uh, moscow when the party had it's 10 down over 3. i was a paper and 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, mister drilled 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, [000:00:00;00]

the, [000:00:00;00] the in the, [000:00:00;00] the hello and welcome across stock. were all things are considered. i'm peter live else,