the victory comes soon and i believe it will, the, it seems that history is doomed to repeat itself. as today. we find ourselves in scrunched in the middle of several global complex. there's a conflict between ukraine and russia moss and is re. 1 a security crisis triggered by north korea conflict in central america and more. this unrest all over the world puts more than half of the countries in a crisis of health economy and social safety, which is the biggest threat to human civilization, to i'm christy i and you're watching the cost of everything. where today we will analyze how much it cost countries to maintain, sustain, and grow their military capability. the military

spending is a significant part of many countries, budgets, and differs from nation to nation. not surprisingly, the u. s. has the largest military budget spending $877000000000.00. the next largest military spender is china, but only at $292000000000.00, followed by russia at $86000000000.00. india and saudi arabia around now the top 5 with budgets of $81.00 and $75000000000.00, respectively. now the top 5 countries alone account for almost 60 percent of the global military spending, with the us spending more than the next 11 countries combined. as each country has unique security challenges and geo political objectives, that then shape is military spending priorities. with the conflict in ukraine world military spending grew for the 8 consecutive year in 2022 to an all time high of $2.00 trillion dollars, which is the sharpest rise in spending. in recent years,

in the us defense spending accounts for 12 percent of all federal spending and nearly half of discretionary spending. from that it pays the salaries, the training and health care of uniformed and civilian personnel maintain arms, equipment and facilities, fund operations and develop. and to buy new items for r and d. additionally, a significant portion of the budget goes towards procuring new weapon systems, including air, cast ships and other vehicles. the weapon systems are a big factor that eats into the budget. now for an average weapon system over its entire service life, the purchase price is only a 3rd of the cost operating and maintaining and purchasing new munitions for it accounts for nearly $2.00 thirds. the budget also funds the army, the navy,

marine air force and space force. now in 2018, the u. s. military budget counts for approximately 36 percent of global arm spending. the us also maintains the largest number of military bases and foreign soils in the world. in terms of military power, the global fire power index offers insight into the military capabilities of nations worldwide. now this is based on an assessment of over 60 factors, including manpower, technological capabilities, nuclear capabilities, strategic locations, financing, logistics, military assets, etc. now, according to this index, the u. s. both the world's most powerful military followed by russia, china, india, the u. k. south korea, pakistan, japan, and france. on the opposite end the spectrum, the least powerful nations include futon spent in moldova, somalia,

and liberia. this is due to limited resources, geopolitical factors or a commitment to maintaining smaller defense forces. now with the big inequality gap and military powers and smaller nations, nato countries have set forth an agreement to raise the alliance is target for military spending to at least 2 percent of national g d p. however, only 11 out of the 31 members actually managed to reach that target. the western officials have underscore that many allies will have to spend more than 2 percent to meet the requirements of nato's new military plans and continue to provide aid. now today we're joined by keith, nick, henry, founder of food, not bombs, now case, can you provide an overview of global military expenditures and the total amount spent on the funds by various countries in recent years?

yeah, i think that the largest countries, um, by far our 1st uh, the united states would spent 8876000000000 dollars last year on its military. and that's the over number that they spent because we do not know really about c, i a and other culver military operations. then the next largest is actually china with $292000000000.00 that it spent in 2022. and then russia, oddly enough, only spent $881000000000.00 on its military nato. on the other hand, spend $1232000000000.00 on the military. so it's kind of shocking that there would be a war against russia in ukraine by nato in the us. and the level of spending that those 2 groups spent,

which is also both the nato countries on the u. s. or the other countries basically suffering the most in homelessness and economic, the private, the so it's a, it's pretty incredible that they've spent that much money yet. they're at a standstill in the front, in the ukraine war. now, what are a key factors contributing to the substantial financial investments made by countries in the military forces? well, i think the principal thing, sadly, is the domestic issues, which so it's about in the united states and i'm certain this is another countries as well. it is that, for instance, we of us make sure that components of almost every piece of military hardware are made in every single congressional district in the country. so it's, it's a combination of military contractors using their leverage to, uh, to get the u. s. federal tax payers to pay this huge amount of money. but also it's about control because you have uh, for instance,

a lot of information that i glean about what's going on with military and expenses on websites that are controlled by military contractors like you, you know, i am and this nbc and so on. so they are tied into a whole propaganda situation. it's also they have leverage over these congress people. they're not going to back out out of worst. but i think even globally, only is it about prophets for these uh, you know, for military contractors and control domestically. but also it's used mostly wars, for instance, with the us have been wars of choice. and this was a choice to build popular support for either the present. and at the time, for instance, after 911 george bush before 911 was the rid of killed even by other conservatives and republicans for being a do 1st. and then he became like,

really super popular because of he was in the middle of a war, we can see that that's a lot of the reason for button waging a war against russia. and this work to get much bigger. f p starts to look like he's losing a can't possibly win the presidential election. and then we will have to have us troops actually go had they had with the, with the russian military mentally, for domestic purposes. so it's a rep, craig, pat, patriotism, and so on. and then for the smaller countries, sadly it's really their military spending is many cases either to buy weapons from the united states as a way saudi arabia and others have to stay in the good graces of the united states or your country that is being threatened with war by the united states. so for instance, syria or, you know, russia or any of the many countries united states has invaded sense. uh, basically the war of 1812, um is, uh, is,

uh they people have to arm themselves to defend themselves against the united states. and we can see that the u. s. military started and we have the marine corps song is about um, you know, the halls of montezuma, where the us invaded mexico or where you really did not win in that war, or the uh, stores or tripoli where the you, half the us navy was destroyed in in their 1st uh, ford conflict. um and so this is, this is the sad thing that the world is bait essentially, particularly since world war 2 been arming itself to defend itself against the united states. and why does some countries allocate a significant portion of their budgets to defense? are there specific concerns or geo political factors that drive this decision? well, i think again in, in each of the cases, either you are trying to defend yourself from the united states, or you are trying to court the united states,

often more financially than anything else. so that, you know, i think that the 5 wise countries which would be still. yeah. and i believe new zealand. definitely a great britain. the us and canada. they are um, you know, they, they essentially spy on one another for each other. but they also sell each other weapons and invested in weapon systems for that same reason. and um, and its uh, essentially to control their societies. it's, it's the military but just have made it impossible to have democracies in these countries unfortunately. and that's because there they, there are money goes to that. they control events. they have uh, the top priority. so if you look at the war uh, in, in the ukraine, like now there's not been one vote why the american people for the war. we didn't

have a say in the over throw the credit and government in 2014, when the war started on may 3rd of that year in odessa we had no, you know, most americans have no idea that, that we spent billions of dollars to over throw the ukrainian government, uninstall our own public resume there in a long term plan to have a very long ongoing more in that country, which would then profit mostly us a military contractors, but also would profit european contractors and british contractors. so it's a, it's sad that this is where, you know, the, the reason we're wasting this huge amount of money. but maybe even more tragically, the millions of people have been killed in this desk for basically domestic political interest. mainly the interest of propping up a huge financial bonanza for these military contractors. thank you so much case,

but please stick around the founder of food, not bombs, keys. mchenry will stay with us right here after the break. and when we come back, we will discuss what country has the head piece, military budget in the world. so don't go away the, the, the the west, it as close as allies refuse to give case a chance. and ukraine and palestine. the word piece is not part of their lexicon.

in the meantime, israel has been given the green light to do whatever it chooses, including ignoring international law, as well as highlighting the take a fresh look around his life. kaleidoscopic isn't just a shifted reality distortion by power to division with no real opinions. fixtures designed to simplify all confused who really wants a better world. and is it just because it shows you fractured images, presented as fast? can you see through their illusions, going underground can clothing us top to list of the biggest military budget, the country that spends the most on military and defense as

a percentage of his g d. p is surprisingly, oman, at 8.8 percent followed by saudi arabia at 9.5 percent of gerry at 6 percent coate at 5.6 percent in israel. of 5.3 percent. the u. s. actually doesn't even crack the top 10 as a percentage of g d p. and now in some countries of age cohorts are required to complete military service. among them are and goalie and south sudan in africa as well as finland, austria, and switzerland in europe. and asia, there's vietnam louse north and south korea as well as taiwan that still require universal military service. now around 85 countries worldwide that has some form of obligatory military training. even though this practice is controversial for many reasons, including opposition on religious grounds. however, it is enforced by countries to build a large and powerful military ready to be deployed in times of war,

or when the need to protect the sovereignty of the state arises. mandatory military service come from the national unity. so citizens are able to develop and appreciation for the sacrifices others have made for their country. and also promotes equality among citizens. as mandatory enlistment means that no one will be exempted from facing wars including celebrities, business men, or others. life in the military can also provide useful skills and instill discipline and cooperation, responsibility, and teamwork. but on the other hand, mandatory military service violates free will, interferes educational pursuits and compromises the quality of the military. as not everyone is fit for it physically or psychologically. many dr. soldiers often life and necessary experience and preparedness, providing low combat skill quality. one notable force in particular is this really

defense force, which is a national military of israel. the idea is unique among the military. so the world due to its regulated constrictions of women since the formation. it is one of the most prominent institutions and is rarely society due to its influence on the countries economy and political scheme. they can be called upon to serve periodically until the age of 40. after her mom's last attack, israel has called up 236-0000 reserve us within 48 hours to launch and offensive many as well as abroad, or even had a home to join the reserve units or to give aid. this is one of its largest mobilizations in history of roughly 4 percent of his rios, 9800000 population to take up arms against the palestinian militant group. it is also one of the fastest mobilizations in history, which is impossible for most nations in terms of cold start capabilities. the idea

remains unmatched by the rest of the world. now for this and more, let's bring in again keith nick, henry, founder of food not box to now case. is there a growing debate or discussion about reallocating funds from military budgets to address other pressing issues such as health care, education, or environmental concerns? there has been like, be below the surface for years that this debate um, but this war in ukraine has flipped everything on his head. and so what i, what seemed it's very interesting because the republicans now are kind of leading the of the struggle for the, in this debate. something i would have never imagined. and the, uh, you know, i suck for some reason my, uh, the hunger health line. instead of being really addressing the issue of hunger of homelessness, has been dis, shared with uh, health insurance companies across the country. so i'm getting about

a dozen to to 1000 calls a day from senior seeking food, home delivery of food, something sadly, food, not bombs, doesn't have the resources to do. but i am shocked at how often the people that call in will complain. they have no food in their pantry at all. um, they might tell me about some cat food that they're gonna eat or so the last 3 cans of tuna and they're angry as can be that we send billions of dollars to the war and ukraine. so there's is bodily in the united states of average people were starting to see the connection between food and not bombs. and to me that's really exciting. i think, you know, i, we started for the bombs in 1980 when reagan looked like he might become present and then he became president. and then he did what was we believed he would do, which was the vert um, the public spending. and those days we used to have public housing and things like

that which by hand. and instead he diverted it into star wars and into amex, missile system and, and all those kinds of things. and by the end, the, his 2nd term we had 750000 homeless americans in united states, according to the us government. and um, you know, we had it, they didn't even count the homeless when he came to office. so we are now are we, we proposed in 1980 that we need to build a movement where our focus was on things like food. he. 4 causing an education and not on the military. and now i think we may be getting to that tipping point we're, we're a food not bombs in the you know, maybe our messages. finally, coming through that we really need to be looking at feeding our people and not just draining our resources into the military. what are some examples of countries that have successfully shifted resources away from military spending to fund other

national priorities and what were their outcomes? so it's actually the only country that i know that specifically did that west coast to rico and, and they've had, you know, they're very stable and peaceful place and you know it's them. but to have that little tiny country be the country that successfully did that is, is kind of disappointing. now, i think most a lot of the smaller countries um, you know, have very little resources overall anyway. and um, and so their defense budget is uh, you know, it's probably just for a local graft itself, but i, but i don't think that there is any country that 6 that i was aware of anyway. maybe there is a country, it will be great to find out if there's some other country like coast to rica that actually had a large military budget and then reduced it and then provided for other people. i,

i, you know, this is a world basically where you, where money talks and where the mill is, where military spending and for this is basically the hands of, of every country. and it's really a shame. how does a country's level of military spending compared to its global counterparts? what insights can we gain from these comparisons? well, the in the countries a do spend the least amount of money on the military tend to have bunch better health outcomes, much better a higher levels of education and, and are much more uh, there's much less violence in there and there countries and so on. and, you know, and i would not say any of these countries were very r, perfect. um, but uh, but definitely the, the, you know, when you're there, these countries do a lot better because they're focused. they may even countries that do have

relatively large military spending. but that's a smaller percentage of their total budgets have done really well. for example, i would say the, you know, norway, sweden and finland and denmark. i don't have met did not until they became involved in this war in ukraine. have that massive of military budgets. but they did have a, you know, universal healthcare education and so on. i, you know, it's been kind of tragic to see the collapse of canada because that was a very stable country and had a relatively small military budget. but it too has gone the route of, of, of militarism and you and uses like i, in visiting, even in the 90s in canada, the homeless population was really relatively small. that is been just ballooning.

and in recent years, and it's a very wealthy country with massive amounts of resources and, and yet it has these really desperate outcomes where they're, there population where they're now even advocating people use their uh, made with uh, medical assistance and dying as a way to alleviate poverty, and if that trend takes off, we're, you know, the world isn't in real trouble. thank you so much case for your time and insight. the experts say that prioritizing defense spend they over infrastructure investments might undermine economic growth in the long run. now coven 19 prove that the american priority on national security has been focused on the wrong threat. as us defense, expenditures rose in 2020 to $770000000000.00. a 3rd of small us businesses closed either temporarily or for forever. high levels of military

expenditures are often identified as a major source of waste of resources that could otherwise be directed towards human needs. the global campaign on military spend may, has called for a global reduction of 10 percent and military spending with resources directed to development purposes. however, with the escalating global conflict these days, that seems highly unlikely. and then the biggest loser ends up being the tax paid citizens as infrastructure, health care and other services are depleted. i'm christy. i thanks for watching and we'll see you right back here next time on the cost of everything the the way i didn't yet. i love you,

done boss my names to furious maximus train. i'm an american citizen and then yes, which is why i'm here to show you back home to the west. the truth. and as you can see, my governments supplied weapons of struck for civilian area. this isn't a military target, this is a, a grocery store does come with us. i can't imagine how these people have looked like this for 9 years. and there are children here. i'm telling you that have died because of my government, the united states governments, funding of this list. more of the baby start here and a civilian civilians right here. you can see an impact of the seas are so this makes me angry. i'm sorry. oh, i mean, i know, but still you know, you feel responsible as in america, the,

as all forces were hiding and civilian structures, the machine gun nest that we saw outside from the courtyard, the nazi tattoos on his body. our journey is that it's good versus evil. i pray that and i pray that victory comes soon and i believe it will. the, [000:00:00;00]

the, [000:00:00;00] the, [000:00:00;00] the hello and welcome to cross ok. we're all things are considered. i'm peter level us it as close as allies refuse to give peace a chance, and ukraine and palestine. the word piece is not part of their lexicon. in the

meantime, israel has been given the green likes to do whatever it chooses, including ignoring international law as well as side lighting, the rules of war, the cross talking palestine. i'm joined by my guess, dan kabbalah can pittsburgh. he is professor of law, an author of the plot to escape code russia in california city. we have craig passage on do a. he is co hosts of the convo couch as well as a fill in host with a jimmy doors show. and in berlin we crossteck of our a sound. he is founder of seriana analysis, right? gentlemen, cross cycles and in effect, that means you can jump any time you want. and i always appreciate, let's go to berwin 1st, berkeley. i, as i said in my introduction of the united states and its closest allies, are not interested in peace anywhere in the world and, and particularly with this new conflict that is arisen in israel and gaza. we hear all of this talk about will there be a land invasion where they won't be? why the hesitation, the weather is bad or the waiting for re reinforcements with united as well. all

the, all the reasons are rolled out here, but they don't have a political strategy. and that's why a military strategy, in my opinion, is not only going to be difficult if not do the failure because they never think about the day after. go ahead and berlin, and actually they don't have a political the strategy because they haven't talked about what's coming next after this made it to escalation and to meet, at least in the individual. we can see that there are different players and they are causing, i think, between each other. for example, you're on syria and also known as the actors such as has well, a mazda. and just let me do you have in the house there may need to be a strategy against these, right? and also they know if things go out of control, they have a political agenda, how to end this conflict going through the escalade. however, from the american and european side, they have invested so much in the baskets of israel, that the only thing that is visible now is the military escalation. and what comes after the media to the escalation, if there is going to be negotiations,

for example, are the policy and inside delivery side or any of these part is concerned of the content going to negotiate with who are they going to negotiate with united states? united season is an integral part of this company and europeans. unfortunately, they have made themselves, again an essential player on the side of is where they didn't have to do that. let's remember a decade or tool go to french or the, or the gym as they were pretending that they can play him at the ocean role between different conflicting part. is there not pretending that any more nowadays, you cannot differentiate between the foreign policy of washington and brussels. there is not distinguish anymore, and this will create the backlash in the global science, especially in the middle east, and the increasing sentiments negative sentiments against the europeans as well as against the americans. of indicative or 20 years ago,