that when they not only through of slavery, but also began to rule their state, the the hello and welcome to cross stock were all things are considered. i'm peter lebow. 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 rocks and a hard place, the cross knocking ukraine. i'm joined by my guest,

den cabal look in pittsburgh. he is a professor of law and the author of the plot to scape goat russia. adam counts and we crossed upon scouts. last task. he is an associate professor at kyoto university, a gentleman cross type roles, and the fact that means you can jump any time you want. and i always appreciate 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 of 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 the same time he wants a no fly zone over a western ukraine. obviously the always a 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 have trouble to locate it and what i found was a select misters and then skis, explanations of how they still wanted the feed russia and how the oh the, the old the right piece is, is adjust piece according to the ukraine your piece formula. and that, that's something that can be said 2 or 3 days ago. at the same time, it is very much possible that these kind of talk from him, these rhetorical chased is olson o, 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. okay. smiles. 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 factory with what they wanted. so the one thing that i'm waiting for is for items zalinski or um, 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 at the end, we know that by now that we know that for 2 years, the main pillar of that would be ukranian neutrality. so as soon as somebody starts saying, we are again serious about contemplating your premium, you're trying to see has mr. soleski 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, dad, it's interesting when task outside, 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 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 worth it. it is at this point here. i mean, again, it gets more and more convoluted. we, 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 a 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 war . 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 for more 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 cheap, cheap executive at the helm to check these crazies, the crazies are in control. and you know, it makes me very afraid and it makes me very afraid to pan. you're absolutely right . ever since the 2nd world war was the primary mission of the chief executive, the united states is to avoid a new killer holocaust here. but pascal, we have with this administration, they seem to have rejected the idea of deterrence, of new killer 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, united 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 legion and 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 opponent's 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 of us, 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 comes to the rush res bluffing. they do not think it's rita. this is a super huge problem and it might land this in a nuclear or a nuclear holocaust if it continues because the russians are not the last thing. i don't believe groceries. plastic. well, i think dan, because from the rushes point of view, this is ex essential. i mean we have an incoming of foreign affairs are for the european union call us uh, she wants the breakup of the russian federation. it's pretty expensive. so don't you think of me 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 central thread. 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, you abide in saying ukraine can use us in western weapon rate to attack russia deep within its territory. you have this attack on crimea and criminal crime, e 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 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 kill

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 threat and 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 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 that get your drones out of the black sea. and of course not threatening but saying there could be consequences if they stay. okay. again, being very restrained pascal, 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 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. and maybe i'm being too gracious here. 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 on the stuff that they might have cross the line, then maybe we are getting closer to a point where strategic empathy as i just said, is again on the table, which is the minimum. yeah, but by the go get to us go. this guy, i won't be so generous because it will have drones are being shot down over the black saved in the united states is going to have to reply and do they really want a go? i will go up the escalation ladder that's it will be the ball will be in their court pest go 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. they 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 acceptance. and i'm here to plan with you whatever you do. you do not watch my new show it seriously. why watch something that's so different whitelisted opinions that he won't get anywhere else. welcome to please or do i have the state department to see i a weapons bankers, multi 1000000000 dollar corporations. choose your fax for you. go ahead. change and whatever you do. don't want marshall stay main street because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is called stretching, but again,

you probably don't want to watch it because it might just change the way you the story is we are which are ours to make. you know, i'm not. you care about me. if you care about the place. i wish somebody could just tell me why this is their hair patriot lynching beating poverty. why supremacy is just the disgusting campbell, the people in mississippi voted on a wire. and 65 percent of the people voted to keep the car and why our purposes to this in the name of the confederates sold because of these monuments that you see are required or not. they're not monuments to the consider government. they're

monuments to the, to the soldiers, to the veterans. you know, if we're going to be offended by everything, every negative part of our history, we have to get rid of everything. the welcome back across stock were all things are considered. i'm peter level true manager. we're discussing ukraine, the guys go back to dan and in, in pittsburgh here. dan, it's been report a bit of a, for a minister lot, but 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 organs, 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 the threat and rush 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 par laying. that's absolutely true. which is why this is 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 by 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. that this is why it is imperative. absolutely. imperative to get back to this whole, she ation now. because we are rubbing closer and closer to a, a gulf of tonkin,

both and or, or a lot of both of these issues. one of the sparks that can really cost another general european war or a 3rd world. 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 a big the public attention on foreign policy is always one of those things you can do here. it, it, it really bothers me very much. it can, including everything we have said here, is it, there is a path 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 ghost base of it, where you draw all this, i 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 blocks, you know, the truth is that the 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, you're gonna have to wake up to that, you know, but you mentioned that, yeah, that the, a president, that's in trouble in diamonds and trouble. they liked 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 or we're, the win is ridiculous. the american people, the polls show they want peace, they don't want to keep supporting you crate. they want the us to stop to stop

supporting israel's war. in does it, you know, why can't the administrator can 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 you 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. but there's a lot of anxiety about where the european union is going. i always tell him the american line pascal that is true. on the other hand, unfortunately it's not enough yet. i mean, the sentries 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 wants to is, there is theory. it was to continue your metaphor because go, i mean, we all see the iceberg is it for everyone can see it just like we saw during that debate. everybody can see what's going on here. then you decided 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 ukraine 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 f and 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 don bass 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, uh, you know, it is, they're not going back. they never want to go back in their way. she should be respected. yeah, well, 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 to 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, well that's a very new that's their that's fair. yeah. keep going. nights it's, it's an absolutely horrible thing. i mean the ukrainians are the greatest lakes victims. i mean every day ukrainians are the greatest victims of it. 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 as never, being in a better place in the european theater, off of geo politics. the now even in the last 30 years, i mean switch off to you or both strategic competitor check, get the europeans all the find you even to what do you want to do in, in china check. i mean, this is a huge us x 3, 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 dance. 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 turned out the way they did in large part because of frances, a terrible foreign policy in regards to both russia and, and israel and the, you're going to see more governments fall in your is they realize they've been sold a bill of goods by the united states. pascal, what is next year between now and the election? because everybody uses 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 russia and the escalation

with china. but to me, i think it's, that's probably my inner fairy tale. and um, 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 every focusing of us efforts to china, which might be an even bigger pets as well. you over to, i more rapidly running out of time. but then i, i do know that this ukraine's 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 peace in ukraine. 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 afraid to rush, i think because of pressure from the deep say well, you know his dad. unfortunately, we've run out of time, but i, i'll leave you with this thought with, but with relative you, even if donald trying to get selected, which i think is very unlikely in the, in the, the way the system is designed. but they'll in peach him before reason. 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 guest in pittsburgh and kay also. and of course, i want to thank our viewers for watching us here at our to see you next time. remember, prospect the,

the russian states never as one of the most sense community best english. i'll send, send up the calls course about this. even though we will fan in the european union the kremlin mission, the state on the russians cruising and split the ortiz full neck, even our video agency, roughly all the band on youtube tv services. for what question did you say even closer to the

of the okay,

here we go. hi everybody. i'm rick sanchez. and this is among the things that uh well that we're going to be talking about today. the 1st ever federal ban on proud price gauging on food. i'm a better looking person sent by dear friends around the world. you cannot, even if you try to make this stuff up, that we are watching here in the good old united states of america, we're going to a deep dive into the u. s. presidential elections and you have to hear to blame what both sides are saying. numbered sanchez, hey, let's do this. the right. why do you say though, that we start this whole thing instead with what is happening right now in christ, right? russia? the world media is fascinated by this. that i get it. i understand why ukraine

invades russia. it's getting a lot of attention, right? but, but like the dog who finally catches the car. we have to ask. now what ukraine, even western media are saying that this is a bit of a flash in the pan. impressive. yeah, you can help, but look at it, you know, you through oil in a hot pants. lot of attention, but not much will likely be coming out of this because ukraine simply doesn't have the manpower to back up this incursion. and the fact of the matter is russia does. now here's a real story that the media is purposely ignoring senior snap. that's a, a live you, a map. i look at it all the time to kind of do my own research on this stuff. by the way, it's a very thorough ukraine website, completely pro ukraine website. but even it shows just how successful rushes troop movements have been. look at that, look at that a.