mean agenda, this being 1st on africa to tackle what they say is climate change is very costly for the cause man to adopt. what do african countries think about this problem? in fact, africa is an increasing the heavy burden from trying to change and high cost soft. this is so exciting with time with adaptation. chad, for example, as cold for the establishment of a dedicated funding. mccadden is a full country suffering from time. it does last is the conflicts who have the likes of you've done that as well. same with should be more engage in tact, inclement issues and despise these goals. and these please, we know for a fact that the waste will not act on climate change until the fuels of pain. in fact, from africa, even the global solvece will not store wisdom government into any action any time. so not as of the signing of this, i'd like to sticking with us and we have c, c, the

hello and welcome to cross ok. we're all things are considered. i'm peter live out . in the waning days of the, by the administration, the us 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 exec,

such an empire and the deep states 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 mike larose, he is a lecture on political science at rutgers university. all right, time and cross talk roles in effect. that means you can jump any time you want. and i always appreciated. but i want to make it clear to our, our guessing or audience here there's been a zips. it 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 it of 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 ukraine. apple. russia has been very clear in 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, that old beat absolutely escalates the conflict. and the old book schedules any attempt by the trump administration in negotiating some ceasefire in the 1st days of his administration. so aaron, in philadelphia, so the failed let,

can see of the bites administration, they want to attack it onto the, the, the new administration in january, essentially, as everyone likes to say box a trump in. because if there is an escalation, obviously the, the optics of it is the 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, i don't see it is really changing the imperative for trump to in the go see and, and into this to this war. a 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 president 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 in russia as a mass of nuclear arsenal and is more, was always due. uh and so this is really a strange, strangely stupid, uh, move by the, by an industry as well than all the more so is before the unofficial announcement came out in, in various capitals in europe is confirmed in the news cycle before the person that is running ukraine, i guess the former president of 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 and ministration. 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 looming 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 administration was like, let's be honest, is by green lighting anything i mean by and it was not the candidate for president because he doesn't have the mental capacity to be candid, unhealthy the 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 cord 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 it is. escalation is going to move the interest of ukraine forward, or even the waning days of the biting administrator. 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 crane 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 means, 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. 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. yeah, it's active. we telling the landscape, this is the best deal that you're going to get because every time that you go on or reject it, rush,

it increases this fortune. this can only be seen as just another way of scheduling this. um, so i, i, i failed to see what the military strategy is except in just giving russian a bloody nose before the war ends. yeah. well aaron, 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, okay. 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 conflict, there's a western power politician. 6, there's nothing there knows and, and schedules that parents the 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 effective attack into russian territory, i would, they've said that they would, and they would consider responding with nuclear weapons in european cities and or the united states. and but i would wonder if they would also be more or if they would be more likely to just on least 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 a 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 then. no, of course not in. let's compare it by the way, to what's happening in god's, you know, where the west is packing a genocide and not just a genocide by the destruction of almost the entire infrastructure of guys, including churches and mosques and hospitals and ancient sites. and now that's the, you know, israel's move that the 11 on is, well, it's

a totally different war. the reason the war ukraine is lasted as long as it has, is because russia has not want it to engage in that type of devastation. i kind of want this very quickly um with some sort of blood squeak operation, but they didn't want to do that. they was the do, 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 our team, the, to the point where the slow level of the files is that he's got to see what we can connect to

the most signal supply the creation of the task. okay. do you guys, do you guys love us? is that possible? duddy, a little quick look for so some people are loading up those air conditioning, whether it's a total on the 15. yeah. would be their stuff and they do see there with these reasoning. they don't put them in yet. well, those are just as i said, i fit all the the,

the welcome across software. all things are considered on peter lavelle to remind you were 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 we'd really things 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 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, it's intensely anti democratic as well. i know because of the oddities of the american system that there is 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 defending 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 biden has secured another couple $100000000.00 to the

ukranian cause, which might which by the way, if it's 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 americans. well, so, you know, michael, a 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 that you know, daniel been on this program so many times that the thing i harp on 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 error, and 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 the going to have their demands. but every single player is going to 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 this 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 and ukraine. and 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, well aaron, aaron, i get a ridiculous so they told 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 span? no, i don't think so. i mean, i, because i don't think the answers are good. especially because this thing winds down in the war ends up, you know, at least for these regions in the east eastern part of ukraine, where we part of russia. that's inevitable,

i think. and so what was this were all about. right? and, and of course, you know, we talked about, are they claim is for democracy. meanwhile, the landscape planes to be president and is term ran out. months ago when he didn't go over elections and he was arresting your, you know, opposition leaders that he doesn't like. and destroying orthodox churches, i mean the answers are not good. this is not a pretty situation to billions and billions of dollars that the west to spend on this, that could have been used for the human needs of their own people. uh, there's just no accounting for that. and so i don't think they can ask the questions because they don't want to hear the answer. yeah, well michael, 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 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 here, mean we, 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 deliberate list theory of international relations? 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 rest of the ukraine crisis, but also about the, the limitations of liberalism in which there is this crusading ideology that these liberally states 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 have gone, use done, 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 in my own bed. michael. a lot of people made a lot of money in the, in between. oh, well then there's that's 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 the right. so now we're going in there to spread democracy in the middle east. now, i think, no, that's ridiculous it's, it's absurd here. aaron, you know, it's very interesting just today as 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 it'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 the policy . similar to what's happening in gaza. they the 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 and you know, with the end of the, the, by the ministration. 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 going to 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. so he is trump taking over this legacy it well when do we get started saying, i genocide don? yeah, probably for the day. one sadly, or before day one. i mean, i mean look at the picks that he's made. i mean the uh israel's cheering for, for the cabinet that he's picked, which just encourages netanyahu all the more back, you know, the reports or that israel's intensified its attacks against the gods or an 11 or so 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 wor us and it's a sad thing, but it's, it seems like it doesn't matter who's was it? yeah, yeah. well, i would, i would invoke some poetry from the last century and 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 as far as he's concerned. he's all in for ratcheting up conflict with china, with the iran. he certainly happy that the biking 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 mean, i, i don't, i'm, i'm not a fan of mr. bolton by any stretch of the imagination. but knowing what trump will be inheriting, not just with china, and with the middle east on it, he may still be busy either doing one of 2 things, trying to de escalate this tension. 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 cabal on all of that or, or trump could try to make peace with boots in. it doesn't work, you know, we didn't, it's been very clear in what is piece proposals are and trump is uh, using the us. so yeah. or any way we can 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'm going to take my guess in pittsburgh, philadelphia. and in new york, and it's like our viewers for watching us here at ortiz. so you next time,

remember prospect rooms the, the, the, [000:00:00;00]

the this is for digital rest of traces to operate. it didn't, don't pass under the orders of ukrainian special services. the hands are staying with a load of hundreds of people who were the neighbors in the towns and villages of john bass. beach was problem is money in a career and ukraine security service in case of failure, they were guaranteed st. you in ukraine. however, today's reality for them is jail time for many years, the outcome of working for you cry, and the enemy is up to 20 years in prison for terrorism and espionage. the,

the, the the native cynical us statement, the u. s. has shown it is responsible for the depth and sufferings of the palestinian people. most kind of clowns, washington decisions and veto for the full time. a potential un security council resolution for it called the seas font size has been a surprise when in charlotte seymour ha. 6, suppose it says ready? pound shoot on the west bank within the coming weeks, seemingly sounding and that's no sign. it might be a may to remember that didn't install fine correct from group pro coaching and the american allied. the talk is president has said washington authorizing kids to use