of direction, but again, you probably don't wanna watch it because it might just change the way inside the the hello and welcome to cross ok. we're all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle. zalinski says kemp does not want to prolong the war and make it last for years. is even suggested using intermediaries to achieve that and at the same time can please for greater nato involvement. as usual, zalinski is steps between a rock and a hard place. the cross knocking ukraine. i'm joined by my guest, then cabal,

look and pittsburgh. he is a professor of law and the author of the plot to scape goat russia and kills. and we cross the pascal last task. he is an associate professor at kyoto university gentlemen cross type roles and effective means you can jump anytime you want. and i always appreciated, pasco, let me go to you. here. we've had a flurry of comments coming from the former president of ukraine's zalinski. he's no longer legally the president and even under the constitution of the country. but you know, he's talking like, just want a prolonged war. he doesn't want to have it last for years. looking for intermediaries, possibly another a piece summit after the failed, 1st one, which could include russia. but at the same time, he wants a no fly zone over a western ukraine. obviously, always asking for more aid, all kinds of a particularly, um, financial aid. ukraine is facing international default immediate, it's very so now they're in very big financial troubles here. well, is there a,

the attempt to change the narrative? uh, is there an attempt to change course on how to end this conflict? how do you read it? because it's kind of all over the place pass go honestly. like when you reached out to me yesterday with that article i tried to find the original source. i had trouble to locate it and what i found was, uh see, let me see this and then skis, explanations of how they still want to the feed russia and how the oh the, the, all the right pieces is adjust piece according to the ukraine. new piece formula, and that, that's something that can be said towards 3 days ago. at the same time, it is very much possible that these kind of talk from him, these rhetorical chief, this old stuff. so happening at the moment with me, with mr. savanski, i just don't know what is the case and who is currently in charge of what he is

saying. he has being consistently talking out of both sides of his mouth, which is very different from what we've heard from. let them you put in who in a rush has had a very consistent narrative, actually with what they wanted. so the one thing that i'm waiting for is for either mr. lensky or joe biden, or somebody in the west to actually actually start picking up rochelle. and it's all 1st for real peace negotiations, which would the and we know that by now that we know that for 2 years the main pillar of that would be ukrainian neutrality. so as soon as somebody starts saying, we are again serious about contemplating you printing, and you try that, you have to meet as a lensky was 2 years ago during the eastern border negotiations. then then i will start believing that something is really moving until and unless that happens, i do think it's just more rhetoric out in the east there in order to,

you know, satisfied the demands of newspapers in different parts of the western world. yeah. and, and to keep the ukraine story uh, at the top of me, keep it as a headline here. yeah. you know, tad, it's interesting when pascal's side, you know, because the legitimacy of, of zalinski in ukraine is quite questionable. but after the dimension debate, one has to wonder who's running the show in washington, d. c? i mean, a more ambiguity. go ahead. i was going to, you know, i'm a many times and this program called a biden's war and things like that. i mean, well, i don't know if it is his war, but i don't know who is war is that it is at this point here. i mean, again, it gets more and more convoluted. we um, if this is biden's policy? well, we saw from the debate, we really don't know what he's talking about most of the time. and so who in the administration is deciding these things it's gets there's one layer of a mystery after another. go ahead, dan. yeah,

well i think certainly anthony blinking is a big player and all of this victoria newland had been i guess she's gone now to the administration. i don't know, but she may be lurking behind the shadows. uh but yeah, no, you raise a good point. i mean, the guy who, i guess has his finger on the nuclear button is completely absent. you know, they, they say that he's just not, they are no ones inside that body, you know, and it's very sad and, and again, but it's very dangerous because it means there's on elected officials for sure. like a blank and 2 are really in charge. and these are near cods who want more . and really i, i've said before, you know, every president, since world war 2 is seen, one of their main tasks as preventing nuclear holocaust, you know, protecting americans from world war 3 if they did anything else. right. this

administration seems to want one or 3, and i think part of that is that you do not have a chief executive as a functioning chief chief executive at the helm to check these crazies as the crazies are in control. and you know, it makes me very freight and it makes me very afraid to dan, you're absolutely right. ever since the 2nd world war with the primary mission of the chief executive united states as to avoid a new killer holocaust here. but posts go, we have with this administration, they seem to have rejected the idea of deterrence, of nucular deterrents. and this is what, you know, they, they talk about who is a saber rattling, but it's really the west that is doing it because they no longer play by the rules of deterrence. i mean, they nodded states and the soviet union were ideological opponents. okay. and they kept the peace. there is no ideological difference here,

except for i would say the west is far more ideological. but if you don't play by the rules of, of deterrence, that's the nightmare scenario plus go they don't believe in deterrence anymore, or they believe in the thing one way deterrence, they do not for steve, russia, as somebody who has a legend legitimate reason to, to who determines the to me, the west is so full of it's set off at the moment that it has lost a capacity for strategic empathy and trying to understand what the world looks like from your opponents view point is a basic necessity of any thing. foreign policy making and the last 30 years off, up there, really polar of the pull above and has taken that away. so people like mister blinking then all this, they are literally not able to perceive any more the world from the viewpoint of

the russians. and therefore they goes back to that day and therefore they think constantly abruptly it's bowski, maybe not think it's rita. this is a super huge problem. and it might blunder in a nuclear or, and then nuclear holocaust if it continues. because the russians are not the last thing. i don't believe groceries. fluffy. well, i think, dan, because from the rushes point of view, this is x a central. i mean we have an incoming of foreign affairs of our for the european union call us. and she wants the breakup of the russian federation. it's pretty expensive. so don't you think, i mean, and the russians do believe in deterrence? and if you don't, if you have all of this ambiguity and decision making, it's going to make you apprehensive at the very, very least. go ahead den to. yeah, no, i mean, the russians do have an extra essential, a threat. you know, the fact that these radar systems in russia were packed by ukraine that have nothing to do with defending against you credit. right?

they were created under the soviet union at, as you know, so that they could proceed. strikes from intercontinental ballistic missiles from the united states. so of course watch has to say, are you destroying these radar system so you can have 1st dried capability against us. i mean that would be a rational conclusion to be drawn. meanwhile, yeah, by just saying ukraine can use us in western weapon rate to attack russia deep within its territory. you have this attack on cry me on criminal, cried me, and civilians recently, which may have used us weaponry and re cognizance. um, how could you know if she were on the other foot, if, if cuba, and, you know, during the cuban missile crisis, this was a possibility, was using russian technology to attack targets within the united states to capt beach doors in miami. and the us would immediately respond. i mean,

how do we know that john kennedy said that that's what we would do. so obviously russia is under x, is the central threatened, frankly rush. it has to be applauded for it's incredible restraint in the face of all this. well, that's go, that's, you know, we, we know that, um, the defense minister here to us spoke to the secretary of defense in the united states for the 1st time. i think in 16 months, and we don't, we don't know what the read out is, but i can well imagine is it, get your drones out of the black sea and of course not threatening but saying there could be consequences if they stay. ok, again, being very restrained pasco, that's maybe the only positive although space that it seems that for the 1st time these casualties at the beach is of us. the pole uh, actually managed to worry people in the us or in the highest levels the,

the secretary of defense, to actually say like, we need to signal that this was not the intended. and that's actually something i believe probably this is something that, at least from the us side, might not have been intended to. maybe i'm being too gracious yet. maybe it was. but it looks to me as if, though this might have been a genuine kind of accident, like real collateral damage. and if the us for the 1st time understood that they might have crossed the line, then maybe we are getting closer to a point where strategic input the, as i just said, is again on the table, which is the minimum. yeah, but the longer go get to us, go discuss. i won't be so generous because if we have drones are being shot down over the black sea than the united states is going to have to reapply. and do they really want a go? i will go up the escalation ladder that's it will be the ball will be in the airport passcode quick before we go to the break. recently, we have seen that the united states when push comes to shop. they actually walk

back from the brain as with the wrong. i do think the same still goes for rochelle . our 3rd world war is not in the interest of the us and they do walk it back sometimes. and i hope it's the case also the start. well, we have to keep our fingers crossed here. gentlemen were good to go to a short break. and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on ukraine steak without the

the welcome back across stock were all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle to manager were discussing ukraine. the let's go back to dan in, in pittsburgh here. dan has been report a bit of a foreign minister, a lot better off had a conversation with the us and bass that are here in moscow. and the read out is pretty simple. we are no longer at peace, very interesting statement. how do you interpret that? well, 1st of all, he's stating the obvious that the u. s. is engaged in a proxy war against russia. um,

there's no way to interpret the situation any differently. so 1st of all, our office simply stating what the world you know recognizes. but obviously what he also is saying, and that is a warning. he's saying that, look, we're not gonna sit around and continue to not respond to this and, and that you, the united states is going to be a target. if you continue to attack the rushing heart land and you continue to threaten russia ex, essentially we will have to respond. we haven't responded so far against any united states targets, but that they may be coming soon. and i do hope the us gets them as well. that's kind of, i mean, to see what, obviously the nato is beating, rushing into responding in a way that they can point the finger is that the russians are escalating. the russians haven't taken the bait thus far. but there's a wide variety of things that can happen. so satellites being destroyed,

drones being destroyed. i mean, it's gonna, it'll be hard to make the argument, you know, article 5 has to be invoked, okay? so i mean, this is the, this is what makes it very, very tricky is we, we see both sides in parlaying. that's absolutely true. which is why does this such a dangerous moment? then this is something that a lot of people have warned about including mr. law girls who said, if this keeps spirally, then you know, a, an accident might be interpreted as a publication or a pro vocation as an accident, then we don't know anymore. what's happening i'd, i do not believe that the decision makers in moscow in washington and even the, the satellites in key if and, and process and so on, that they, that all of them are on the same page. this is why it is imperative, absolutely. imperative to get back to this whole, she ations now because we are rubbing closer and closer to a,

a gulf of tonkin bowl and, or, or a, what a lot of these issues, one of these sparks that can really cost another general european war or a 3rd well, yeah, well and then, you know, when, when a president of united states, even if he's a candidate for re election, finds himself in a very deep trouble. i have to watch my language here. i'm focusing the world's, i think the public attention on foreign policy is always one of those things you can do here. it, it, it really bothers me very much a can including everything we have said here is it, there is a past forward. i mean, the russians have said this, we have a starting point. now you may not like the starting point. i get that. okay, i got it, okay. it's called the g o. c h, is it where you draw the site live in the sand here? let's start from that point. okay. the west refuses me even to put up anything except for this ridiculous zalinski program. go ahead, den to yeah, i mean we have to be reminded that back in march of 2022, there was

a deal on the table that apparently zalinski would have been willing to accept which would allow the ukraine to keep all of its territory. that the u. s. u k blocked. you know, the truth is that deals off the table. they're not going to get back. well, they'll never get back right be, and they won't get back to don bass certainly. nor should the, in, in, in, in my own view. and the us and the west are gonna have to wake up to that, you know, but you mentioned that yeah, that the, a president that's and travel and guides and trouble. they like to focus elsewhere . so to, to try to, to be able to win. but you know, one way to focus else. why, how about bringing peace to somewhere? you know, now you've got a start, a war. the win is ridiculous. the american people, the polls show they want peace, they don't want to keep supporting ukraine. they want the us to stop, to stop supporting israel's war. in the eyes. you know,

why can't the ministration wake up to the fact that maybe making peace could be a winning a winning strategy for them? well, i mean pascal, i mean, if we look at the recent elections in, in europe, the, a piece of proposal is something that is far more positive. i mean, we, when we see a political party after political party supporting the american position on ukraine, they suffer at the polls. okay, badly. and we're going to see one in the u. k this week as well. that will probably go. both parties are very pro war, but we've seen this in the, in the european elections that there's a lot of anxiety about where the european union is going. always telling the american line pascal that is true. on the other hand, unfortunately, it's not enough yet. i mean, the centrist parties that are basically pro bore in, across the board in europe still have something between 50 to 60 percent of, of support. the 40 percent that they lost is pretty huge compared to where they are

coming from. but it is not huge enough in order to be aligned slide to kind of take them out of power, which is what you're seeing in the u. k. like you'd change from one pro war party to the other one. and while support is roading, it the, the, the, the inertial if the system is still strong enough to keep the, the people who actually want to push forward the war in power. and that's, that's, that's a tremendous problem. and i would hope that at some point, they understand that they need to change the narrative and didn't need to be come pro peace in order to remain there. but this, you know, it's a ship, it's a ship and it's still on course. and i don't know if we can avoid the iceberg on time, although it seems as if though, the general public once does, there is theory. it was to continue your metaphor, posts go, i mean, we all see the iceberg. it for everyone can see it just like we saw during that debate. everybody can see what's going on here. then you just said moments ago that the dog about should not be returned to ukraine, explained well,

i've been to the dom bass, peter 3 times in the last year and a half. and i can tell you that those folks don't want to go back to you crazy and why? because ukraine began attacking those people began attacking their own people. they were their own people at that time. they were part of ukraine and they attacked them because they were russian speaking people, and 14000 people died in that conflict between t as in the dom, best even before the special military operations began in 2022. i think, you know, once ukraine went down that road attacking its own people in the dog as it seated any right to have that as part of ukraine. in any case, these are historical parts of russia. these, the, you know, the dumbass was the backbone of the russian revolution of the civil war and, and frankly, of the soviet union and of russia, you know, as the industrial hard land. and you know, if they're not going back,

they never want to go back in their way. she should be respected. yeah, will self determination is something that we hear a lot about here. let's go, what country threatens ukraine more russia or the united states? russia, as the russia is the one that, that bombs, the ukrainians, and the united states is the one that drives the ukrainians into the russian by on it. so if i was ukrainian, i would say, i would probably hate both of them. i mean if i was that's a very new that's their that's fair. yeah. keep going. nights. it's an absolutely horrible thing. i mean the ukrainians are the greatest lakes victims. i mean every day ukrainians have the greatest victims a bit. the 2nd victim instructions the, the, the ones that i wish were more humane would be, the more mongers video collins in the united states. so actually on the stand that know we're playing with human lights here,

but that's something that i think does not cross their minds because they still see this as a strategic victory. which in all fairness it 8 us has never been in a better place into european theater off of geo politics than now. even in the last 30 years, i mean switch over to your strategic competitor check, get the europeans all behind you, even to what do you want to do in, in china check. i mean, this is a huge us 63, but it comes with a lot of the premiums. yeah, well then i agree with pascal, but i, even though the united states has gone through the check check, check that pascal the. i don't think that's necessarily good for a year a, but i think the a lot of european voters are beginning to realize that, dan, yeah, well, i mean, europe lost its lifeline, which was natural gas from russia. i mean, and that's what the partly, what do you guys wanted to do in this conflict is to cut them off from that so that they depend on us natural gas, which because of transportation costs will be a lot more expensive. if i were a german in particular,

i would be just absolutely furious that my economy had been wrecked. now, if i wrote you, but by the united states and look, the people in europe are waking up to this, the elections in france show that, i mean, i think the elections turn out the way they did in large part because of frances, a terrible foreign policy in regards to both russia and, and israel, and a, you're going to see more government small in your is they realize they've been sold to build goods by the united states. pascal, what is next year between now in the election? because everybody is, is that as a benchmark here, you know, we have to wait up until the election. but what, what happens after the election in the united states, nobody talks about that, go ahead bus, go ideally, something would change, right? ideally, we would move towards toward final reconciliation with ross showing the escalation

with china. but to me i think it's, that's probably my inner fairy tale land. because what we have seen coming out of previous elections in the united states is that the permanent states carries on. so i have no objectives. oh, judging from from past elections that something is fundamentally going to change. maybe in the best case, we will see you at the escalation with russia, but that would probably mean the re focusing of us efforts to china, which might be an even bigger well over time for rapidly running out of time. but then i, i do know that this ukraine is on its last legs, so you can make that case here, but nato nato is not on its last legs. people have to remember that in this conflict is gone, going to be over for quite a bit of time. go ahead den. well, that's right. you know, i mean, of course, the candidate donald trump is talking about making piece a new crane. he says it can do it 24 hours. um you know, that is, you know,

could be taking his bluster, look, he made good. um, you know, noises before the 2020 election and really didn't. he didn't not become a friend to rush. i think because of pressure from the deep say, well, you know that unfortunately we've run out of time, but i, i'll leave you with this thought with vote with the wealth of you. even if donald trump gets selected, which i think is very unlikely in the the way the system is designed, but they'll in peach him before he is. and now if you rated, even if he wins, just i'll leave that with both that talk with both of you. that's all the time we have gentlemen. i want to thank my guests in pittsburgh and in kyoto. and of course, i want to thank our viewers for watching us here at our to see you next time. remember prospect the,

the, the, the, see the silver. so the somebody how can it be that um the ship to the middle east from a country whose top officials constantly complain about shortages of our munition and military equipment. is literally located in the believe, but of boston llc or even maybe a little in your system and below grade level nominal facility or some of those out of slash we. i'm about the easiest kid in the middle. so one of the easiest on bottom of the sort of wellness that will kind of get the 2nd kind and what level.

why are weapons from ukraine spreading over the world? to turn this country into a major arms hub, will continue to bolster ukraine's and forces by rushing them a capabilities that they need to defend their country. the everyone knows very well that we don't sell but known as pineapples or any kind of children's toys. we sell women's yes, we're also known in the world is almost dealers that we must not be ashamed of that the, to the suite. the nice the,

what so striking for me is this contrast of in california where some people i so reach and other people are barely making. and that's a, that's a call cost of the whole united states that there's worried about for, for, i don't know, $400.00 people that have all the more income than all of us together. you do think there's a gap is becoming smaller or is growing all it's growing? i don't know. they only want a handful of people. uh, controlling everything they want to keep people under their under this under your son's control people. that's a way of controlling people. you know, power and money. everyone should have had these housing food, you know, healthcare, education close, you know, stuff, you know, things like that. yeah. and a little extra so you can maybe go to the movies or go out to dinner or something on a little vacation. you know, he's doing the,

did the whole dance with the yeah, i'm 77 and i don't get enough nearly enough income, but i have a affordable housing. it's called affordable housing, but they keep facing the rants that they don't work that they don't keep. they don't raise my income to match, you know what i mean? my social security retirement. so do come here to make some extra money. yeah. supplemental of the stuff. you know what i mean from the very last job i have was security, but i've done many things i've, i've been an optician, i've done security. i've been a secretary, i been a forklift operator. i've sent them different things and you are working all your life. right. well, you know from the 17 on us. yeah. the new i've been waiting for housing for awhile

. like around 17 years and um, pop home, whole personal care and uh, salvation army. they got together and they got me a room for a year. so you know, which is pretty good because you know, now i don't have to travel a lot too much and still like be pushy. i had a, i had major surgery on my legs. come on this thing, but i also have a disease and my legs for my blood cells and i most will switch. and my skin has a hard time sticking to my legs. so they put these on there to hold it back. but this is the big one right here, because you don't want to kill them so many times. so it's funny around here, this, in other words, you know, that really is like, i don't know, that's what a lot of lots of people are homeless then. then the houses are nice and co sign you up telephone's working for new york one year, you know, and so you can see it for worth talking.