started defending seats, and i just want to make this contribution to his legacy. he was a great young man and a probably the crow, proud to be as friend and real should be proud of these men and apologies foot. thanks guys. thank you. okay, let's make a minute or so let's make a minute of silence in a honda of these folds man. speaking for one of us here at all to the international, the mothership here in moscow, we express 2 documents, finally friends and all of his colleagues here at on to you to national lots sincerest condolences. you can see more of his work online at odds, e dot com the

the the hello and welcome to cross ok. we're all things are considered on peter level. in the waning days of the by the administration, the u. s. has reversed as longstanding policy, allowing ukraine to use long range missiles against russia. the binding administration clearly intends to escalate the conflict before trump into his office. what could possibly go wrong, the cross sucking ukraine. i'm joined by my guess. erin, good in philadelphia. he's a political scientist historian, as well as author of american exception empire in the deep state in pittsburgh. we

have den kabbalah key is a professor of law and author of the case for palestine. why it matters and why you should care. and in new york we have michael rossi. he is a lecture in political science at rutgers university. all right, time and cross talk roles and effect. that means you can jump anytime you want. and i always appreciate it. but i want to make it clear to our, our guest in our audience here there's been a zip to, uh, is this of this recording. there's been no official word from the white house on the change of policy. however, many players involved in a dive already a signal that it is a reversal. so i want to make that clear for the record here, michael, let me go to you 1st. i mean, the obvious question is why, how does this help ukraine? and is this an escalation to trip up the new administration? you can answer any one of those questions. go right ahead. i mean, i'm looking for a one word way of describing all of this and i'm caught between either reckless or insane. on behalf of the, by the administration,

but it doesn't help you frame at all. for russia has been very clear in the stating that any use of long range missiles by you cream into russian territory will be met with a retaliatory response. and russia has just updated its nuclear doctrine of wednesday of this week, saying that any attack on russia by a non nuclear state, with the support of a nuclear country and the support of a larger military alliance will be seen as a joint attack. so this does not help ukraine situation at all. beat absolutely escalates the conflict and did all but scuttles any attempt by the trump administration in negotiating some ceasefire in the 1st days of his administration . so aaron, in philadelphia, and so the failed legacy of the bite ministration. they want to attack it onto the,

the, the new administration in january, essentially, as everyone likes to say box a trump. and because if there's an escalation, obviously it'd be the optics of it is that trump doesn't want to look weak. that's the whole point of this, aaron, i'm not sure what the point is because i agree and it's difficult to figure out what the point is. i agree with the go ahead. yeah, i don't see it as really changing the imperative forks from to in the state and into this to this war. one wonders if it is about attempting to sort some idea of maintaining credibility to at least keep russell from wiping out the rest of ukraine. were you friends on forces before trump is sworn in or, or making further gains in that time period? maybe the hope is that it will have some kind of restraining effect on the pretty much inexorable march of the russian military. it is a baffling move for

a lame duck press. is it to do? and his supporters who are so sad about the trunk, you know, and the prospects of the trump presidency, which i'm not excited about. but it's very strange that his supporters and all of the democratic supporters, really they were so clueless about foreign policy. because they should understand that by them is risking the lives of a of them and all of their children and everybody in the world with this policy. it's pretty clear that this uh, that russian sees this is an existential threat. and rosa has a massive nuclear arsenal. and is more, was always due. uh and so this is really a strange, strangely, stupid, uh, move by the, by the industry as well. then all the more so is before the unofficial announcement came out in, in various capitals in europe. it's confirmed and the news cycle before the person that is running ukraine, i guess the former president zalinski told his own media that the war was coming to

an end probably early next year. he said that in the next news cycle, we get this from the bite administration. so what do you say to ukrainian soldiers? and i guess russian ones too is said, you know, it's good to come to an end. maybe you'll make it maybe you'll live through it. maybe you'll make it to the last day. right. that's a pretty gloom gloomy way to move forward. yes. well, yes, it is gloomy and again, it's dangerous. and that's why, by the way, you know, by announced through the, by the minute administrators announced he would make the decision on these long range new 3 missiles after the election. right? because he knew this would be unpopular, right? so we knew what he was going to decide. we knew he was going the green light. this was the administration was like, let's be honest, is buying green lighting. anything i mean by and it was not the candidate for president because he doesn't have the mental capacity to be a candidate. how could he have the mental capacity to be president and make

a decision that could lead to world war 3? i mean, that should be the scariest of prospect or anyone could face it is as you've mentioned, his supporters don't seem to care. they care about friends, social issues, and not about the fact that the world to blow up tomorrow. well michael, i mean, what is some of the scenarios here? i mean, again, they're saying that these attack them, they'd be used against the quarter screeching, for example, where the, the ukranian troops are slowly but surely being wiped out and pushed out. i mean, again, how does that help ukraine? i mean that, that, damn, it was a failure from the, from the beginning. i mean, i just don't understand how this escalation is going to move the interest of ukraine forward, or even the waning days of the biting administrators. what did they suppose to say? we went out with a bang. well, i mean i, i, when this was 1st reported in the new york times,

even the new york times itself had said that they see very little way in which this will change the fortunes of war. and it won't produce much um and if this is primarily going to be used in course, the only logical reason that i could see this happening is that it gives you cranes some attempt to retaining a foothold within this territory in some hope of using it as leverage for some negotiated solution afterwards. and yet, at the same time, it completely neglects the fact that every day, a town or a village in ukraine's east himself is captured by the russians. so it seems to be this fools venture in desperately holding onto the course with some belief that they will have something to bring to the bargaining table. it also seems to me,

right, that every time ukraine comes close to a new, to some negotiated solution, some western country scuttles it's. so you have the midst of the chords in 2015, which we have evidence of the right of, of the french and the germans telling part of shingle store don't sign arm and you'll be able to retake that, that didn't work. then we have the stumble agreement shortly following the start of the special military operation. we were ready to sign to an agreement, boris johnson, who seems to be more pro ukrainian than even the landscape. this pullman decides no, don't sign, you know, change the fortunes of war. the boating has said what his terms for peace are and the radio chatter has gradually started to come to peace to come to terms with this selectively telling the landscape, this is the best deal that you're going to get because every time the useful or

reject it rush, it increases this fortune. this can only be seen as just another way of scheduling this. so i, i, i failed to see what the military strategy is, except in just giving russia a bloody nose before the war ends and will air. and that's that, that's not thinking geo politically, i mean, what's interesting is that over the last few weeks, i think almost all of you would agree that there was a growing consensus. this thing has to come to an end. ok. and then all of a sudden, out of the blue, know what we need another offensive, just as michael just said, every time someone talks about a process, the end, this complex, there is a western power politician. 6, there's nothing there knows it and schedules that aaron. right, and i'm not sure where this could possibly lead when you say, give russia bloody nose as i'm trying to game through these things militarily. and this is out of my wheelhouse. exactly. i'm not the expert in like the art of,

you know, blowing things up with mechanized in a warfare, but the response from russia, if they were to launch some sort of a, a, affective attack into russian territory. i would, they have said that they would, and they would consider responding with nuclear weapons in european cities and or the united states. uh, but i would wonder if they would also be more or if they would be more likely to just on lease conventional weapons in ukraine to devastate them because they realize the other, the only other options would be nuclear escalation. they don't want, i don't believe that they want based on their conduct so far. they don't appear to want to destroy ukrainian civilian, no structure or civilian populations. but they faced with the choice of potentially escalating the nuclear tuesday, or just saying good bye to what's left of ukraine. i think they would likely go for the latter. and then what, how would the us let us wouldn't have the excuse to launch a nuclear war that it would be clear the world. i believe that the us provoked this

. um, this would just be a disaster. so it makes no sense to me once. well, let's be clear everyone, the main going new killer is, is a part of a, a possible reaction. but i think we're far from that. down there. russia is already demonstrated. it has conventional weapons that are very, very powerful and can create an enormous amount of damage. i agree with there, and i mean, it's this war, it's been going on a long time, but the infrastructure has not been the point. i mean energy because it's part of the military infrastructure, but for the most part it has not been a, a war of complete destruction of civilian life. go ahead, den. no, of course not. and let's compare it by the way, what's happening in god's, you know, where the, the west is backing a genocide and not just a genocide, but the destruction of almost the entire infrastructure of guys, including churches in mosques and hospitals, and ancient sites. and now that's the, you know, israel's move that to 11 on as well. it's

a totally different war. the reason the war ukraine is last and as long as it has is because russia has not wanted to engage in that type of devastation. i cut one this very quickly um with some sort of blood squeak operation, but they didn't want to do that. they was that we don't need any and you know why is because they don't want to rule over ukrainians. and then we're going to talk about that when we go, come back from the break gentlemen, i'm going to jump in, we're going to go to a short break. and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on ukraine. stay with starting the the, the,

[000:00:00;00] the, to take a fresh look around. there's a life kaleidoscopic, isn't just a shifted reality distortion by power to vision with no real live indians. fixtures, design to simplify will confuse really once a better wills. and is it just as a chosen for you? fractured images, present it is. but can you see through their illusion going underground? can

the welcome act across popular all things are considered on peter lavelle to remind you we're discussing ukraine the okay, let's go back to michael in new york. i, i suppose another we've already given a number of reasons why this is a bewildering decision. but i guess what really stings the most michael, is that there was an election. i wouldn't even say a pebble of sites in the united states. and part of that publish site is on war and peace. it wasn't the number one issue. i agree, but it was there. okay. and the people voted and it was a referendum on the binding administration. and this is what we get. i mean, it's intensely anti democratic as well. i know because of the oddities of the american system that there's a break between administrations, but this is

a very callous approach. i think most would agree. um yeah, i mean ukraine is still on the lines of, of, of some, but it's no longer a trending hash tag that it once was. and, you know, government officials, not just in the united states, but across major european countries are still holding to the, you know, the liberal, this belief that ukraine is defend things, democracy for the western worlds. and a growing sentiment among the population is asking a very simple question. why and how, like, why do we need to spend so much money into ukraine? disaster after natural disaster in the united states and by ministration. yes, throws little bit more than pocket change. and yet, shortly after trumps victory biting has secured another couple $100000000.00 to the

ukranian cause which might, which by the way it is all in regards to, you know, human rights and defending against aggression. it's amazing how nobody refers to the palestinians. nobody refers to the lebanese, and this is not lost on many american welto. now, michael, i also shouldn't be lost upon any one, is that the pentagon again, failed in audit, but it's still found another $7.00 to $8000000000.00 for you quite. it's just really remarkable. okay. they know, how do they know how to cook the books when they need the money? aaron, let me go to you. you know, again, i think it's fair to say even the new york times and the washington post and all the rest of them. you know, there was this feeling that with a trump victory, that this conflict would have to be wound up. and one of the things, and you know, daniel been on this program so many times that the thing i harp on all of the time, i want peace, i want the end of the complex. but i want security for all that's the only way we're going to avoid this happening again. so aaron, when it says good, this discourse,

gonna start where you know you're gonna have to sit down and everyone's going to have their gripes and they're gonna have their demands. but every single player is gonna want security. and that's where we begin not a ceasefire. not a 20 year delay on nato membership and all the other points that we, there's flooded the zone here. we have to talk about security when we talked about security. that's when we get moving. aaron, right, this is going to be the way it works out. eventually, because i do not see it being possible for the ukrainians and nato to reverse their fortunes in ukraine. i also don't think that there is much appetite in nato for maintaining the um, the sanctions regime and everything else. i think that the rest of western europe is struggling economically and that they, you already see moves from germany looking to affect rep rosemont, with, with moscow. so i, i don't think the time is on the side of the us and nato,

and ultimately this could end up bringing about the end of nato, which is an organization that really doesn't need to exist if it, if it ever did well, the origin. well, aaron, aaron, i get a ridiculous a tow nato is a threat to security that it's been my thesis all along here. yeah. it, you know, a dan, this, but what the winding up this war ending it is going to oppose some very, very awkward questions. like, what was nato's role in this? i mean, we'll ask it a lot of other people that don't have this vested interest. will ask it, will they ask about themselves stand? no, i don't think so. i mean, i, because i don't think the answers are good. especially because it's this thing, winds down in the war ends up, you know, at least for these regions in the east eastern part of ukraine will be part of russia. that's inevitable, i think. and so what was this were all about. right. and of course, you know,

we talked about, are they claimants for democracy? meanwhile, the landscape claims to be president and is term ran out months ago. and he didn't go over elections and he's arresting your, you know, opposition leaders that he doesn't like and destroying orthodox churches. and the, the answers are not good, this is not a pretty situation, the billions and billions of dollars that the west to spend on this, the could have been used for the human needs of their own people. but there's just no accounting for that. and so i don't think they can ask the questions because they don't want say you're the answer. yeah, well michel there. there's already been forensic studies without this conflict started. and this mythology about democracy. and anyway, every country has a right to join alliances and all of this, it's pretty worn out by now. i mean, if you tune in and you're interested listening to people like yourself and our

other guests hear me, we know the chronology very, very well. and it's in slowly, but surely it kind of seeps into the main stream. but i want that to happen because i want people to be held accountable like victoria new and i would, we know what was your role in all of us. all of us know what it was, but this, the general public, not really michael. right? i mean, this is ultimately what is the weakness of the liberal, this theory of international relations. um, you know, i tend to be myself more of a constructivist. i agree with about 80 to 85 percent of what professor john mearsheimer has, you know, said not just about the russian ukraine crisis, but also about the, the limitations of liberalism, in which there is this crusading ideology that these liberal estates will take, which exonerates them of any wrong doing any culpability. and if there is any damage to the country that is being saved, it is a small price to pay for

a larger victory. the biggest problem that we are going to have to face is not so much what becomes of ukraine, but how do western leaders a tone for this? how do they come to terms if they lose? afghanistan was our pet project for 20 years. we gave it up to the pallet, it's a to, to the tally bon in as many days as we occupied the country for years. and we don't talk about it anymore. and what is the rights? what are human rights enough gun use them today? they are appalling, they're just as bad as they were 20 years before. we don't talk about it anymore. they have a nice little bit, michael, a lot of people made a lot of money and in between, oh, well then there's that. and then democracy is just simply a nice candy coating way of explaining at the end of the day that you know, great power interests. but with a spin it's, it's a nice brochure model. well, i mean, i agree with you. i mean, i don't, you know, a, you know,

going into iraq if, if the bush administration said we're going into a rack for the oil. well, i think it's wrong, but i can understand that, right? so now we're going in there to spread democracy in the middle east. now, i think we'll, that's ridiculous, that's, it's absurd here. aaron, you know, it's very interesting. just today is i was coming down to the studio, looking at european leaders that support biden and escalation. but this is a couple of people that are it odds with their own electric, who in europe ever voted on ukraine, who i mean, the amount of propaganda that's put into supporting this thing. and the fact that the public is, you know, look, the support is wavering at this point or not very intense to begin with. i mean, it just shows how the policy is at this point in the us. they, they're not even really effective at manufacturing consent. they just need to make sure that there's not any kind of critical mass that's dead set against a policy similar to what's happening and guys of a public favor to cease fire very early on. and then we had,

we had 3 candidates for a little while and then only 2, but all of them were, were slavishly devoted to the israel lobby. so there's very little democracy in this system. it's a very top down system of the oligarchic rule and the public is, i think, increasingly coming to understand that it's not really a question of this or that politician. and i think the trunk with his cabinet picks looks to be continuing many of the same policies and so on yet. so it's not going to be much of a change. and more people are starting to understand that in the west, the west is an oligarchy. presume that is anti democratic, a stand, you know, with the end of the, the, by the administration. and as far as i'm concerned, i can express my opinion. it's my program. good riddance with the a failed presidency, particularly in foreign policy. but trump is gonna come in and ukraine will not have been resolved. i'm sorry, mr. president elect. not in 24 hours. it won't be. and the genocide continues in

gaza is trump taking over this legacy? it well, when do we start saying i genocide don? yeah, probably for the day one satellite or before day one. i mean let me look at the picks that he's made. i mean the israel's cheering for, for the cabinet that he's picked, which just encourages netanyahu all the more back to you know, the reports or that israel's intensified its attacks against the gods or an lab or not. um, since trump was elected. so i think you can start calling in that now if you wanted to. and the other thing is that it looks like trump's looking to start a fight with china. and you know, so they used to say the business of the united states is business. now the business

of the united states is one more and it's a sad thing, but it's, it seems like it doesn't matter. who was it? yeah, yeah. well, i would, i would invoke some poetry from the last century and i'll give this to michael, meet the new boss. same as the old boss. you know, you had mentioned just a bit earlier about how if we had been more honest than our foreign policy instead of candy coating it with we want to bring democracy. that would be one thing. uh, one of the most brutally honest people with in the built way now is john bolton, who i usually would go. i regard john bolton is kind of a discount. john foster, dulles. he's pretty much of the same caliber, and as far as he is concerned, he's old in for ratcheting up conflict with china, with the iran. he certainly happy that the biden has given the order to do with missiles and ukraine. he said,

we should have done this 2 years ago and the war would have been over. i don't, i'm not a fan of mister bolton by any stretch of the imagination. but knowing what trump will be inheriting, not just with china and with the middle east did make, he may still be busy on either doing one or 2 things trying to de escalate this touch. i mean, is it entity has effectively 2 months to do this until trump comes in and then from could put the, you know, put, put the, the, the, the ca bosh on all of that. or, or trump could try to make peace with boots in. it doesn't work, you know, put in has been very clear. and what is piece proposals are, and trump is uh, using the us. so yeah. or any way beyond scan, we could, and we'll get russia gate 3 point oh, or 4 point oh, or 5, whatever it is right now. it's all the time we have gentlemen, that's fascinating discussion. i want to thank my guest in pittsburgh, philadelphia, and in new york. and it's like our viewers for watching us here at archy. so you next time, remember, prospect rooms the,

the, the, the 1918, the countries of the west won the final victory over the ottoman empire. the sultan's government capitulated to the ins and sign the humiliating armesis of little girls, great britain and france, and italy wanted not only to destroy the ottoman empire, but also to divide the prime orderly turkish lands among themselves. in 1919,

their armies began to land on turkish territory. but the west decided to choose greece as the main striking force. seeking to make others realize its aggressive plans for an intervention, provo mass, indignation among the turkish people. the national liberation struggle was led by the experienced general mustafah come all as a 3rd in order to bear down the enemy, a bank on the mobilization of the nation. and the alliance with russia, which acted as a united front, with turkish patriots. at the end of august 1922. as a 3rd, so army won a decisive victory over the invaders in the battle of doomed living art. and within a month liberated all asia minor. from them, the impressive success of the circus army force the west to make concessions. in 1923, the loss on these treaty was signed. turkey. one of the 1st countries in asia manage

to defeat the colonial empires and defend its independence. becoming an example 4 and a millions of the press on the planet. the, to the headlines here, what i'll see international, the russian defense ministry says it's taken out an entire group. we could pray and, you know, on forces that work. and so cold in the quote region assets, the operation to remove all of key of troops from russia's borderline. to continue the 5 being a member of nato, i can cover a size that the u. s. is responsible for taking the world to the brink of a grateful that focus president slamming washington's decision to give chia, the green light to use as long range missiles to attack will start dumpling down on the escalation. joe, by the time is running out is not reportedly approved supplying by the end of the

personnel. land mines to ukraine. essentially ongoing is post policy and adding