ma, particularly the economists say, is very much establishment and it is painting a very gloomy picture about ukraine's flight during this conflict with russia. or i should say, nato is conflict with russia. where is this all going? i mean, is this signaling something? go ahead. i think it is once you get something published in one of those, it's a matter of fact there's something along the same lines in for an affair is a short piece of this week as well. it's very much a matter of the establishment signaling that it wants to cut you loose. well, i mean, i'll buy the car, let me stay with you. i mean, cut you loose cut ukraine loose or as i've been ski loose or both the landscape 1st, because you know, a $100.00. that is not some change. so we've invested that we have a solid can cost if you will, for nato. and especially the united states in ukraine. this is,

this war didn't happen. 2 years ago. it didn't, it didn't even started in 2014. it has a long pedigree, much of which was laid out by former the jimmy carter's national security advisor as being your baranski. so that strategy i think, is still the ideal strategy for the united states that of creating and as well as putting, put an anti rush uh right under right it rushes doorstep and making sure that it is a well armed, an access to detroit to russia. so that's going to continue. so the 1st step is of course to, to get rid of the landscape, who is proving to be someone not up to the task. yeah. well you're,

you're being very gentle in your language, but because this is television, i want to express my exact opinion. sarah lemming, he's a nuisance. let's say it at least these that okay, these the pan handler. okay. um, sarah, but i mean, you know, for a lot of us it's been a parent that you claim is never going to win this conflict. it's actually a thing for most of us. and we, we were looking at how nato is going to react to it, not ukraine, because nato doesn't give a hoot about ukraine, really, certainly not about its people. okay. but sarah, that doesn't preclude have some kind of pros and cons, like, yeah, as nicolai's pointed out, you know, a 100 plus $1000000000.00. that's not some change. but you know, $3000000000.00 a year like they were giving to israel that sir, as you know, well, some would say lindsey graham, that's the best money we've ever spent. go ahead, sarah. well, i keep hearing about this frozen conflict. um idea an analyst circles on some, some media outlets, but when i think about frozen complex, i think of korea. and i don't believe that's a view based solution for ukraine,

for this conflict and for this region in particular. um, the reason why i think the united states might want a frozen conflict scenario is because it's what future appointments or an eastern europe, which is not a good, a good idea for easter, for that all giving them and another open door through which they can. so conflict, stage cues, whatever else they want to the stable. i was like, sarah, very much like syria. you know, i mean us troops are there you legally it, i'm not saying us troops are going to ukraine, at least not at this point. but it's the, it's the tape, a quagmire, tape a quagmire. there's no ad lug at low cost and, and irritate and keep the attention of the russians. brad, let me throw it to you here in moscow. what are your thoughts? you know, uh, one thing that i think is really interesting about this conflict because we've seen now research reports and assembly see that are talking about the fact that apparently western leaders and now and telling the ukranian authorities that they should start to think about some piece proposal to bring to the table. and what i

find so interesting about this now is that apparently, you know, joe biden and other western leaders are considering the fact that maybe, you know, we should, you know, have a peaceful resolution to accomplish something that a lot of us have been saying since the beginning of those of us to actually care about the ukrainian people in their lives and don't want to, to show them to just be sacrificed on the altar of washington's dominion. and i hear a lot speculating about what will this include and, you know, why would it possible piece scenario look like for as a conflict, but what, whatever. what's interesting to me now to look about to look at the situation is this, will russia accept this? well, that's something that nobody's talking and always talking about the fact that russia is actually winning this war. and maybe they don't even need to play ball with the west on this because they will just when it anyways, because let's face it. ukraine is having trouble getting troops just in the front line. all of these vendor weapons we keep hearing about that are going to the front lines are just not working. it's all total p. r. a propaganda for the weapons

contractors. and now there's a conflict in israel and palestine. the west doesn't have the enthusiasm to support and ukraine. so i'm just wondering the i, i, by the way of seeing russian analysts and writers talk about this. it's like, should we even play ball with them? i don't know, i, i let me tell me the honest i do, i hope that there's a maybe where that into this, but i think that the else really and russians court now, well let me throw that to nichol. i nikolai look, we, you know, i can remember the 1st few months of the conflict, and there were some people that thought they were enlightened. and so we need a new minsk agreement. well, we, why do we need to do? and when the 1st 2 failed and they were sabotaged here, my point, nikolai, is what? why would rush, who would trust any kind of western interlocutor at this point in time? because it isn't it, this isn't a stalemate. no rush is a game. one of its major aims is to be great, be cleaning and military. it is like doing that. exactly. so why would rush as a dad at the table, nikolai, in the long run,

a conflict is not in any one's to anyone's advantage. including russia, ultimately watch all sides agree needs to happen. whether they acknowledge it now or not, is good neighborly relations between ukraine and russia. there is no way ukraine as a state can survive without that. so i think the point made earlier that the ball is in, rushes, court is correct, but it is in rushes in dress, which is also by the way, losing material and manpower that it could better use elsewhere. it isn't a rush of interest to end this conflict, but i think the card the table is shifted now, so that it will have to be more on rushes terms. so it becomes increasingly important to understand what rushes terms are for ending this conflict as well as

sarah, they, the, the big problem for me and all of this is kind of culminating what we've said thus far on this program is that russia is not going to allow some kind of ceasefire and let you crane build a build up through nato and started all over again. it has to be much more of a definitive outcome, no, ne, till membership a change in regime and 2 of those that kind of security guarantees that rush you want. because as brad is already pointed out here, nobody ever thinks about what the russians want. go ahead, sir. well, the, even just the talking cease fire, unfrozen conflict, that it, it covers up the fact that russia is making consistent gains around the, and the, at the end could be honest, the area. so while we're all, well, everyone's kind of conflicting about a cease fires and frozen complex russia continues to chip away it lands, even them around videos have changed in town to where we will buy we buying apartments and key. evan revolve. we don't know what russia can do now that uh the,

the attention is taken completely off of ukraine and shifted to israel. and so those piece terms might even change. it's a shit push all the way out into western ukraine. um, at this point i think the ball is in rushes courts and, and they're the ones that are able to determine the destiny of this conflict because we're just wrapped up and the other one at this point. well, brad, let me go back to you here in moscow. i native and reading closely the time magazine article it zalinski is not someone you can negotiate with because i think if i'm not mistaken, even they use the word delusional. yeah, i think that's exactly right. you know, he's been surrounded by so many, yes, man and fanatics, people telling him, especially this washed in crowd, and a lot of these thing, tang folks, and that celebrities and so on. and you surround yourself in the west, then tell him that he's able to do anything he wants that the piece terms of or the ukraine cons leg will include getting back all of the territory the ukraine claims,

including crimea. but as i said before, i mean, this is not the reality. i mean, if you, if you're a real objective of the ukrainian leader in this conflict, is to, to say this, or your nation will be in isolated. and i mean, i just speaking so start terms, but i mean that's just the reality of it. and this is why i think the people need to really seriously consider rushes position on this. and i think that whether they like it or not, they're going to have to do that, you know, imagine before that there's maybe some idea of we'll go back to another minutes, get court or something, but this isn't going to work. i mean, you know, there was already in a time for the west to mediate this conflict and it just didn't work. you know, and like i said, the balls really and rushes court to decide the course of this because the west is losing and through. he has for this, so space it now, they're the ones, russia, i mean moscow is the one dictating this conflict. they're the ones who are going to be able to decide how it plays out and what are realistic terms. and i think that's

just a really unfortunate part about this because as much as these fanatics in the west of the surrounds the landscape is a totally yeah, we'll get you everything back. you know, all been done to us would be to crime. yeah. and now apparently they're telling them now yeah, you might actually have to give up, you know, a significant territory if your country, uh, and you might have just give that up. and if he's willing, i'm willing to listen to the reality. and i just think that he's he just cannot be the present ukraine and the breast brad, we have with the in the russian now. but he said he might be the last ukranian leader we have, we have like a slight time delay here. i'm going to jump in here, we're going to go to west a short break, and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on ukraine states without the look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings accept. we're so shorter is

a conflict with the 1st law show your mind, anticipation. we should be very careful about our personal intelligence. the point obviously, is to make a trust, rather than to the various things with official intelligence, we have somebody with demons. the robot most protects this phone existence was alexis, the operation. aerodynamic began shortly after world war 2, lost it almost 3 decades. it was a major effort to try and split the ukraine off from the soviet union, us intelligence together with hypnos execution. i was trained hundreds of 7 to us to be deployed in the soviet union. this focused on this one of the stuff my little stuff. but i've started with the dispatcher joiners to the on site or she needs

more deals today, security service of ukraine use. there's no telling me this. it does take methods, but also the idea elegy of the nationalist the the, the welcome back to the cross stock were all things are considered. i'm peter roosevelt. true mind you were discussing, you create the

let's go back to nikolai in kingston. the viewers of this program though, i've been quite passionate about covering this conflict and trying to flush out different ideas and went directions that couldn't go. but i appreciate nichol, i your, your passion as well. because when this conflict comes to an end, we all want it to come to an end. but what role will the west play in that this will they drop the sanctions? probably not. ok, well they, i find ways to integrate ukraine into settings kind of security arrangement, probably yes. rush, it will still remain the enemy. how do we get away from that paradigm? why can't we have the indivisibility of security for all can? is that something realistic to think about? it will have to be calmer reality,

and that is the path. that is the way to be true to truly settling this conflict. as has been mentioned before on both sides. well, all interlocutors are more than 2 sides here. all. busy the parties distrust each other. the solution is rather obvious because we've had these kind of a internecine as well as pan european conflicts before. and we gave them very appropriate names 30 years. ready or 100 years war. this is a war along the same lines. and the solution obviously, is a large scale pan european peace conference, to summit up quickly. the solution is not another means. it's a renewed and invigorated helsinki format, as well and the nichol. i mean, do you think the americans will go along with that?

i mean, if the americans, you know, we're just suggested, maybe it would work for a year, but they are the ones that would objects to it. okay. i mean, american, the hedge of hedge of money doesn't this, you know, say, well, i'm done, i'm picking up my marbles and i'm going to go home. that's not going to happen. let me throw this beserra here. obviously with nikolai is saying is absolutely right. but since the end of the cold war, you have the security and arrangement, not only without russia, but against russia, how do we change that? you can't, i mean the united states means to have its boogeyman and for right now and for the foreseeable future, it's going to be rational. we still haven't, we still haven't accepted here. russia's events, contributions to world war 2. we're not going to expect rushes winning and dictating the peace terms of this conflict. it's just not something that's going to happen. well, you know, brad, it's very interesting, john, near sha, i'm or the geo political think or the road a very interesting piece. i think now it's about 6 weeks ago, maybe 2 months ago,

and he said that russia will win, but it will be in ugly victory. i don't know if you came across that piece. yeah, i did. i mean, like i said, i've been saying this whole time, it is obvious any way you slice it, rush is going to win the complex and it's going to be either messy or it's not going to be mess. i mean, those me, they're going to be realistic. priest term, which nikolai was saying will have something to do with like a healthy format. i think honestly, we need to look more long term. you know, i've been living in europe for 5 years. i live in the czech republic, so i understand, you know, i, i can see that when you apply somebody like near time or is it the philosophy? you can see that the real as philosophy works. so, you know, okay, there's a peer competitor power going into rushes, pure of emphasis naturally creates tension. so on. yeah, i understand that, but we also need to think about people like the checks who, you know, when you have a country like russia who they have historical animosity towards, they are going to seek out another great power to protect them that being united

states. i think we also as much as i honestly do to test check politics, i think we need to actually take everybody's perspective in re, you know, give them respect and have a format for that. so we need to think larger. we need to have a security architecture that goes beyond just one format. that is a really, a thing that's, you know, goes beyond nato. and this is, i hope, maybe people like nat cloner a, talking about this to have the security architecture that's maybe complimentary tomato, a bigger thing cuz we need, i mean, europe has been the focal point of so many wars over the past centuries that have destroyed the entire world, when you really need to have some kind of long term security architecture in europe to make sure that these wars don't go on longer. and i really look forward to day this happens um about the united states not being a part of this. i think personally, what's important to recognize the united states is they're doing all of their capabilities that they're have. they're using them at all times what they call support full spectrum dominance. if they're not winning somewhere, it's because they can't win. and i think we have a little bit of reverse kind of american exceptionalism,

where we take all the united states could win, but they're just not putting in the effort. no, they're not, they can't. and i think the things genuinely are changing. we're at the united states doesn't want to be part of this. well, they can just so they can just show, honestly, i think europe is going to move on to the world's going to move on past america. and i look forward to that day. i really do well, nick like, um, how, how does nato acquit itself through all of this? okay, because my perspective is, with this conflict came about because nato failed the piece. okay. and they, we, we, we can have an end of the conflict as you point out, as all of us agree on russia's terms. but how does that, or how should it change nato's perspective? okay. you know, move out of area operations, expansion towards the he's doesn't put any kind of break on it or is there, you know, i hate, don't like to use this kind of woke language, but is there a re imagination of nato, or should it just be shut down and you know,

start from scratch next nikolai. well, i don't think that's going to happen any time soon. this kind of re imagining, i suppose future historians will debate, who the great loser was of this conflict. of course, a place of honor has to go to ukraine itself, but not far behind will come europe, the old europe, and nato. nato has to be seen as the big loser in this conflict. and i think of the expansion of nato's agend beyond europe and outside of its traditional realm of defense is a sign of, of grasping and, and ultimately getting security about sap. it's future mission. you know, sarah, one of the things that i really worry about, and i think maybe i'll surprise people, is that whenever there is some kind of

a conclusion, at least to the hot more that we're seeing in ukraine, there's going to be retribution who lost the war the stab in the back who got all the money? where'd all the money go? it will probably be very, very ugly. sarah, as i 100 percent agree i'm the follow up from this is going to be tremendous. the everything has gone into a complete salesman with the corruption, the aid, the just the overall tone and action. there has been a no holds barred sort of methodology here in the, in the united states where to give them every thing they want. and we'll ask questions later, very much the united states foreign policy, a strategy. and that's where we're at. and now we've started asking questions about where the money's gone. they don't know we'd started asking questions where the weapons gone. maybe they're in the middle east. we don't know. so in the blow back from this is going to be tremendous. the reverberations are going to be enormous

and they're not just going to be amongst world leaders or governments. they're going to be within the populations as well. because there's going to be a lot of angry, angry, ukrainian refugees. well, you know, sarah, to stay with you. i wonder how many refugees will actually come back, because he will basically have a country of people that are disabled because of the war and the elderly. and the very, very poor sir i in the economist article losing the general she did not make reference to zelinski at all, which is quite interesting. and the fact that the economists profiles him so highly, it looks to me that he's the person, the west is looking to to push out some in ski. he doesn't want to have an election . what, what? and then what they have is a military home to anyway, so why not have a real general sarah real quick before i go to brad? i 100 percent. i mean, even, even here, the started to be remembered that helps that the united states once and once the, the whole, the elections and the principals need to eventually run. and just,

or even that, i just don't for see that saving ukraine's. i mean, the jig is up, they just will kind of prolonging the inevitable at this. yeah i, if you go to brad now i, i think it's, you know, um, it was but i was gonna say window dressing, but it's kind of like more like putting lipstick on a pig. um a brands. i mean, they're looking for a way out and, well, i've set on this program before that they'll say ukrainians one because we stopped the russians before. they made it to paris. that's what they're going to say. brand . yeah, you know, and they're going to rewrite the history of this to make themselves look better, but it is no doubt a strategic loss and a very, very crucial one. you know, and i, i just think it's, it's very sad for ukrainian people because you know, i, i lived in europe well before the conflict. and i do remember that there are many ukrainians who came to the west looking for opportunities before the war. ukraine was not a good country and the never was, and it hasn't been for a long time. you know, since the fall of the soviet union,

people are always coming to the west. and i remember when i 1st moved to prague, people called them and i just little secure, they call them the mexicans of europe. that's what people call them, quite sad, you know, and i, i feel for the ukrainians, you know, we, you talked about before about how many people are going to be left out. they might not go back probably because their country is going to be basically just a pit out, you know, and i think it's really sad. it didn't need to be like this. nothing needed to be like this. and we could have had peace. we could have had a real security architecture that really brought in everybody's concerns, but that's just not the reality. and that this falls completely on the lap united states. and i think that really this will reflect very poorly on united states, the west and the rest of the countries that are basically the us as lieutenants. and that's why i think that, you know, this is, is part and parcel with just the downfall the united states. of america is the number one real power. and while that's a very sad thing to warn you crane in the end, it's kind of a good thing because you know, of the beginning of a new multi poor era is going to be good for everybody. i think it's going to be

better for the world nichol. i give you the last 30 seconds. go ahead as well. uh, i just want to reiterate what i was saying before. there is a pathway to peace, but it will have to include all the parties. and i's both mentioned the idea several months ago, but new treaty of westphalia, because one of the things that we have to think about is the new meaning of sovereignty. and, and territory and, and populations that need to be secured, which russia has been advancing recently. the idea not only of nation states, but of civilizations. and the obligations that we have under international law need to treat more seriously of the interests of oppressed peoples everywhere. and all that can only be dealt with in a multilateral large scale format, where people can hash out there are different well, the that to me,

that the music was that really, that's the music that's music to my viewers ears. so that's why people watch this program to hear that kind of rational thinking as all the time we have. i want to thank my guessing, kingston, seattle, and here in moscow. and of course, i want to thank our viewers for watching us here in our d. c. next time, remember across the russian states never as tight as i'm one of the most sense community best. nothing was all sense and up the in the 6595 and speed. what else? suppose question about this. even though we will then in the european

union, the kremlin, the machine, the state on the rush to day and split the see, suppose next, even our video agency, roughly all the band on youtube tv services for the question, did you say even closer to the which was the little thing interested us, the sluggish north carolina lecture naples going to look you getting this, the post is all the 50 is that i, that's a get a minute. some other students need which is easy to saw on the screen. so of course i'm showing material which is in line when i didn't like july. the 2nd is was oregon. rachel screw?

well in the middle of something in the we didn't present it to not the results. okay. would you 20 and then would you do me a solution for sure, and i'm comfortable which, which, which insidiously certificate products since world war 2, united states has fostered extremist and to russian prejudices and hatreds among the ukrainian. they ask for, in, at least in canada, united states and countries in eastern europe, probably everywhere in the it doesn't matter what these groups say or do. they will support them if it, there's, the groups are causing patriot and chaos within the target country.

joe again might done on the cheese. that sounds great deal of the sort of you, the squares on some of the socialist bodies, the dealer was usually just 50 below the ca uses anyone at any time if there's a religion the, [000:00:00;00] the, the middle of the 20th century, the board to gaze colonial empire was in an acute crisis, particularly late 10 situation had developed in mozambique the people of this country were put in

a humiliating position. the income inequality ramp and illiteracy. this respect by the portuguese for the local traditions led to a mass unrest. getting 1964, the liberal race in front of mozambie for a limo began its armed struggle for freedom. the regular army was not easy to resist, but the guerrillas inflicted considerable damage on the invaders through the sliders, against the colonial regime were supported by the soviet union and china. whereas the united states and great britain took the side of the invaders, the board to gaze responded to the guerrillas attacks with cruel counter insurgency . however free limos 10 year courageous struggle was a success after the overthrow of the fascist regime in portugal in 1974, the new authorities are rendered. a year later, lisbon fully recognized the independence of mozambie. but the victory had been

gained at a high price during the war, mozambique had lost tens of thousands of and sons and daughters or the headlines right now. what else you international, the israeli military size is forces on i'll by thing in quote, to very hot all the guns of the prime minister netanyahu states, israel will take over control of the security that quote, indefinite. ultimately, those remarks may contradict the countries closest allied with a us having to clad neither washington. no israel with see can control over the publish thing and then click today. and they have all of us joined the world in expressing part of the crimes being committed to the kind of time that the south africa's or 4 minutes of forcibly conducting israel's assault on gaza. drawing a direct comparison with the history of upon high in 5 nice