or since the war began, and if you figure the u. s. a. you together in money and time and training and so forth, is spent close to 500000000. uh, that puts the price of a $5000000.00 per ukrainian killed that $50000000000.00 is coming from the frozen assets in europe is on us, has no more frozen assets they. they've already taken the 5000000000 much and ask since they had here his past spring, 260000000000 of the 300000000000 originally frozen is a european bags. so either really can't is to say, yeah, well, we're going to take that money, 50000000000 and give it to ukraine anyway, we'll ask you your premiums knowing uh, or agreeing uh, are you a p as in go along with that. uh, because very clearly the alternative that they were trying to do in the res, 50000000000 in the euro bonds as flopped. and they can't do that. so now they gotta

take the $50000000000.00 from the russian assets, which is gonna pay a big price for that. because a lot of the global, so if you just pull their money out of year 3 and banks and crash the euro, maybe. uh so, you know, 50000000 is really a very desperate move on the part of the us in europe. except so you have to pay the price and that to us, but that's been the case in this world long estimate to stay with us here in our to international up next on across the top, peter lavelle and his guest discuss clueless nato. once again, showing it can never entertain plans for peace and security for all bye for now. the . the,

[000:00:00;00] the hello and welcome to cross poplar. all things are considered and peter lavelle, nato says the line should not be considering a peace plan for ukraine, but instead, be focused on sending more weapons because of again, the alliance demonstrates it can never entertain plans for peace and stability, as well as security for all in the meantime, the slaughter continues the prospecting nato. i'm joined by my guess. scott ritter in del mar is a former intelligence officer and united nations weapons inspector. in salt lake city. we have david pine. he is deputy director of national operations for the task

force on national and homeland security. and in san francisco, he crossed to check ras moves. he is an associate professor of economics at st. mary's college as well as the author of the scourge of neo liberalism. alright gentlemen, cross talk roles and effect, that means you can jump any time you want and i always appreciate it. let's go to 1st. the scotts scotts in washington dc. scott, you're usually in delmar, but you're in washington. why to washington? because the, today we are closer to a nuclear or between the united states and russia at any time in the nuclear, this is a far more dangerous situation, then the cuban missile crisis. and if something isn't done to alter the trajectory that the united states is currently on with russia, there is a not just possibility, but probability of a, of a nuclear war. so on saturday, i will be moderating a uh, an event of the national press club of we're gonna have 3 panels of distinguish

speakers talking about the danger of nuclear war and talking about what can be done to, to get congress to, to take action, to put pressure on the bind administration between now and january, 28th, and also what can be done to get the trump transition team to speak out forcefully against this policy. specifically the use by ukraine of america and provided american targeted attack of dismissals. the united states is a party to this conflict. we are actively attacking russia as we speak. i would say one more died. so your audience is very clear on this. the united states is attacking russia. this is an act of war. and if we continue to do this, russia has every right to respond in time which could lead to direct conflict between united states and russia, which will inevitably become a nuclear. ringback so we're trying to stop this, this is what i've tried to do this coming saturday. well,

i commend you and i hope it gets as much coverage as possible. i will do my best, obviously, david in, in salt lake city, on the back of what scott just said, which is very important. is it in the, in the media? we get it, we're getting dribs and drabs right now of what of the a bite and the outgoing by the administration is leaving the incoming trump administration. we know the cast of characters we have. we've had a general keith kelly we of j. d vance. rick. right now, um. okay, fine. but the things i'm reading, particularly like from bloomberg, a quote, ukraine seeks a sustainable piece. well, it's what she expects the same stressing that temporary resolutions would not serve us. so ukrainian interest, this is a theme that we keep going over and over and over to russia, has interest to rush is involved in this here. but we constantly see plans being made really with the explosion of russia. it's, that's not going to work. go ahead and salt lake city. you know,

you're absolutely right here. um, when uh, you know, it's difficult when a power is, is in our country's when he, in a war, there are other wants to get this the terms. so in this case, russia has been even more over the last 2 or 3 years. but the gas uh no longer debatable. and you know, as a result, you prayed in the us have to accept a piece piece agreement terms that are minimally acceptable to the russian federation. and so that, that's really the key that's been missing all this talk about nato membership being pushed back. that's completely unacceptable. to russia, the idea of the week that we would send data peacekeepers to patrol a dmc that i me that is that on arrival there's no way that the present people would accept that. so you know, the key, the key to you praise security is, is not be align with west because we prefer not capable providing for the security of ukraine is as lost uh,

30 percent of its population since 2014 mostly refugees and its economy is it has been destroyed. it's pretty political structure, has been destroyed. it's notorious, been wiped out with a 1000000 casualties, which 400000 are data. and the only way can have security is through a friendly relations with russian federation. well, as it did from 1991, 2014. yes. but seeing yeah, it's go to jack and san francisco. that's why i have long argued the day this started ukraine last because the european pan, your opinion, security order had been destroyed, did bits and patters right now. and that is because of nato, that is because of nato expansion. we need a complete re thing when, when ukraine security is considered, it cannot be separated from russia's, and this is what the west, particularly nato does not want to deal with. go ahead in san francisco. i don't think uh, nato wants peace. they may, i agree with you. absolutely. i agree with you. sorry. go ahead. the items are good

pieces on the agenda here. they're looking for some formula to begin negotiations without any kind of intent of several anything. and what we've got going on in the american ministration. now there's been some time, some terminal battle as to who is going to represent the trump administration and trying to seek some sort of negotiations. and it's really where it's um, because of the appointments recently looked like a retread, neil kinds, i mean, you got walks through doug, work and i, you got rubio heads. this is probably out and you got the sense is probably in a most of the trouble appointments that were supposed to shake up the div state uh, you know, i think is blocked right now. and uh, i don't think it portends uh, much positive here. uh, as i said, they may try to begin negotiations of some kind, but that will be to justify. uh, uh, further uh, armed shipments to say, well, we gotta negotiate from

a position to strength. clear. so we gotta really post the ukraine, but you know, you can send all the weapons, you want the, but if the ukraine is losing reserves in the, you know, the quality of, of the new recruits is such a, it's not going to make much difference if they send more weapons and much scott, also in the same kind of media particularly bloomberg, seems to have a corner on the market right now. there was mention of, but of course the carrots and sticks will be needed. i think we've had enough sticks with this. that's why we need to resolve this complex. again, you know this, this is a, it's like a self licking ice cream cone. you, this is, it's all hermetically, close there. and plus, there was no communication with the russian federation at all. i mean, how can you even think about negotiations? let's go back to the premises. the you discussed with your other guess of the united states and data or not looking for

a piece. the current policy of the united states has to see the strategic defeat of russia using the ukranian proxy conflict is the principal tool of the stabilisation . that is the official policy as united states and nato. so everything that's being done right now is not designed to be in opposition to the policy, but you recognize the difficulties of the current situation in trying to mitigate that gets to feed by creating contain. but what we're looking at right now with all these talks about these is not about normalize relations. creating good relations is about containing russia, about trying to limit the scope and scale of the russian victory to keep it temporary in nature until some future date. when the russian gauge is not reverse, the gradients are straight up honest about this. so the trump administration has to understand that any success with russia, because i agree with your, your, your, your guess this is

a non starter. i can't speak on behalf of the russian government. it'd be just simply a period of the show was going to very much irritate the, the i would just prevent prohibited me from speaking to you to our team, to anybody in the russian government. but i don't care if he, but the fact is, we're not about normalize relations. we are about containing russia. and if we don't start off the truck, the administration started off, not only by preventing a nuclear war by ceasing this attack on russia, but by openly saying that we no longer are seeking the strategic defeat of russia. because that's the, that's the, that there is a requirement for going forward. if we continue to pursue a policy that speak 6, the strategic defeat of russia, russian will never sit down at the table with us. why sit down and talk to an enemy, who's trying to defend you? what you need to do, therefore, it is defeat the enemy, which is what russian is doing on the battlefield. a new, great, david,

the way the it's being reported that, you know, mean what's coming out of the, by the ministration. which of course is trying to make the situation as worse as possible. and that is a new and remarkable achievement of this outgoing failed administration. but essentially what they're doing is they're saying what's have min minutes 3. i mean it's, you know, almost no one knows that because the, the, or outside of a few programs like this and a judge nap where scott appears quite often. people do know that history means one to but we're not going to do number 3, that's not an on the cards. go ahead. dave, as well. main street was the symbol agreement. you know russia committed there and drop there and ask for it for a pre were you creating a territory? no, they're not for a structure like we would have a next the, the dog boss people through the complex, but that still would have left 93 percent of the brands that are nationally recognize territory for any control. so they had a tremendous opportunity to have a win win piece agreement back in march 2012,

22. and the final step worst johnson to be to it. so i don't think divided restriction is interested in these they're, they're trying to rash up the world present. uh, you know, the truck, with a little hard to sabotage is very sincere attempts to end the war. i think trunk will be successful in uh you know, 14 a ceasefire that ends ends. the warranty crane. i'm a little bit more skeptical that he'll be willing to immediately entertain, disturbs that are, you know, a long term disturbs that are acceptable to russia. yeah. but i make this appointment in general, can't walk the problem or the but the problem with that is i'll go back to jack in san francisco. is it a ceasefire? isn't the solution here? that doesn't solve the security problems that the, the european cotton in faces, right? now a ceasefire, a truce, it's not going to work for the reasons that scott, just a numerated. go ahead jack. before we go to the break. a. yeah, i don't think they the minuses fire i,

i think they want another formula for continuing to conflict. maybe at a, at a lower intensity here. the us, uh, you know, the neo cons. i don't believe they have to be, it has to be driven out that there's no solution to this through a negotiation in a compromise and ok, it's all over. let's go home. uh no they'll, they'll stay and they'll fight in some way. and that's what they're searching for. right now, they're searching for some new, a new arrangement where the, the war can be continued under the. yeah. but that, that would mean not going right back to the beginning of the program, wisconsin. that would mean escalation. well gentlemen, we don't have much further to go before you're at the ultimate escalation, jack. i mean, 10 seconds before we go to the break deck. yeah, well uh, i don't think they want the further escalation unless they can. uh, you know,

more uh russia into using tactical moods. i think that's what the price i, i think they have, they've taken care of that. what weapon care category. and we'll get to talk about that in the next part of the program. gentlemen, i'm going to jump in here. we're going to go to a short break. and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on nato and ukraine state without the, the, the, the take a fresh look around his life kaleidoscopic isn't just a shifted reality distortion by power, tired vision with no real opinions. fixtures designed to simplify will confuse