n n, a freelance reporter for shin wa high gentleman crosstalk rules and effect. that means you can jump any time you want, and i always appreciate, let me go to scott 1st. here it's got, what is your major take away from this meeting that we had between russia and nato? because the way my out reading of is that the, the, the americans and nato and general dis, don't take this very seriously. and they always end up saying, well, we just need to talk more. well, when russia showed up with 2 documents saying we got him, we need your reaction to this. we want a legally binding agreements and you know where we stand, but the americans, i didn't take it very seriously. that's my take away. what do you think scott? with united states and nato is trapped by, you know, 2030 years of, um, of precedent to that is precedent of by totally disregarding the legitimate national security interest of russia. and um, you know, using uh the um, you know, manufactured threat of russian aggression as a justification or continued expansion of, of, of, of its geographic boundaries. and the expansion of it's a global role. so, you know, there is going to be very difficult for the united states, nato to, uh, back away from a, from the stance of it, it would be akin to a surrender in russia. knew this going in. i mean that's the frustrating aspect of is that there was never any chance for a genuine negotiations because both sides are trapped by their respective positions . rushes position of course, is that it cannot accept of the accumulation of military power on its orders. that this is um, an existential threat, and one only has to understand russian history and the importance of a june 22nd 941 to know where the russians are coming from. as of course, with nazi germany invaded a setting off for years of l. o for the russian people in, for europe as a whole, a russia's hope here wasn't to get the united states or nato to, to come to an agreement. or their hope was to drive home the reality of the consequences of failure. um and get europe european nations theresa there hand and say wait a minute. um, maybe war isn't in our best interests and i think that's happening right now. i think we, we've seen the seeds of doubt being sewed enough, france and germany and elsewhere where they're beginning to question the wisdom in the by ability of the hard line stance, taken by the united states, nato. you know, it's got a david, david, i mean, what was south and burn the head of a of nato. he constantly says, like a broken record that nato is a defense of alliance. what kind of defensive alliance needs to constantly expand? because it seems to me that it has to expand to justify its existence, and it's expanded so much to russia's borders that now they can say, but see now there's a threat here that though it was, the expansion itself was what created the threat in the 1st place explained your view is how a defensive alliance has to keep expanding. david, well, i think you're forgetting the wonderful services nato has done in places like afghanistan and libya, and the incredible success of 30 stray ears and running containing the warsaw pact to the point where it practically doesn't exist. i mean, this is incredible. success for natalie. you're absolutely right, there is no purpose for nato. i eat, you know, it's, it exists out of bureaucratic inertia, out of obedience to the united states, out of the drive for weapons sales to eastern europe, and out of the need to maintain this mysterious substance called credibility. oh, which is not maintained by keeping the promise not to expand nato by adhering to they anti ballistic missile treaty or the intermediate range treaty or any agreements i even committing to maintain future commitments. that's all out the window has nothing to do with credibility. it's just belligerence, it's just hostility. i and that drive a risks, escalating this risks. conflict between nuclear governments and this is what nato has become. you know, a brand. i mean, one of the things, it's very interesting to me because i am old enough to remember probably the oldest one on the program to remember is it, we had a process during the cold war, the helsinki final act, where it was rip, made it very clear that, you know, security is indivisible, you cannot attain security when you're risking the security of another state. and this is exactly when nato still need to. i mean that this was a framework during the height of the cold war. it was a recognition that you know, you cannot have security at the risk of another nato doesn't recognize that any more. go ahead, brad, him and prague. well, that's exactly right, right at the end of the cold war in 1990 u. s. secretary of state james baker, under george bush, the 1st one george bush. i had made a deal of gorbachev and told him if you work with us on the reunification of germany and allow germany unified jerry, me to ally with the west. nato will not expand one inch eastward. this was a verbal commitment. there was nothing signed. and ever since, that nato has moved east or multiple times through the 1990, isn't 2000. and each and every one of these, from the russian perspective, is it trans aggression that the violation of that verbal agreement made between the united states and russia. and now finally as nato is potentially about to be at russia border. now russia saying that this is a red line, and it's not even, this is not an arbitrary red line. this is literally a red line. this is right, it rushes the border. and we don't even have to ask ourselves how the united states was react. there was a military build up on its border. everybody remembers in united states, 962, the cuban missile crisis, when there was a build up soviet ballistic missiles in cuba. and now was that described in the near a cataclysmic event that could have ended the world. why is it that we in the west, or especially in washington, don't see. russia has a legitimate national security interests, not have a weapon build up on its border with the border with ukraine, where most of the russian population lives in striking distance and moscow. how is it that we can sit here in the united states? american diplomats can look at russia situation and not even understand that they have a legitimate national security interest when we're militarized around its border, especially caucasus right in eastern europe, going right to russia's doorstep. for me, i haven't trouble seeing this as diploma. so we have tried and said that he's going to focus on diplomacy, diplomacy. first, we're not going to fight wars and regime changing. we're going to focus in diplomacy has this diplomacy when you, when you came in display the most basic people skills that they didn't, scott, i'm glad that brad brought up the cuban missile crisis, because we go back in time. i mean khrushchev, we say, well, cube is a sovereign country, it can have any kind of weapons. it was going to have the alliance relationships at once. and kennedy made it very clear. he said, if you don't take those missiles out, we will. why is this a reverse situation? because it seemed very clear to me, and this is what the russians referred to as military technical measures. ok. i think that saying pretty much, you know, what a kennedy said. you put these missile systems in there, you don't take them out, we will and i think that's what they are, that basically where we're at right now. i mean, this is so downplayed in western media. this is a really huge story. and i think brad and all 3 of you were right is, isn't it just kind of arrogance and inertia? go ahead, scott. well, we didn't, we have to preface this discussion with the, the prior actions of the united states. so during the cold war, you know, we viewed the soviet union at that time as a, as an equal partner. um. and so when we enter into agreements, they were bilateral in nature, their binding to. uh huh. you know, the anti ballistic missile treaty was one of the bedrock or no arms control agreements. the intermediate nuclear forces treaty another and de tional arms control agreement. each arms reduction treaty a united states has violated all 3. we've withdrawn from 2 of them. um, you know, and in, so we've created a situation where of, by withdrawing from these treaties which and, you know, brought a modicum of stability. um, where now redeploying, a ballistic missile defense systems into europe. oh, and we're getting ready to deploy intermediate nuclear forces in to your we've reactivated the 53rd artillery, a group in germany. anybody who is a cold war veteran knows that that's the old pershing to brigade that, that, that you know, to corporate. she her into the hearts of the so it's because a persian to fire missile that would be in the kremlin in 5 minutes. we're reactivating that we're going to deploy a system called a dark eagle sometime this year, which is a hypersonic, a missile capability. we're reconfiguring um our yo so called only anti missile system into a potential ballistic missile delivery system. they can deliver both. i'm a cruise missiles and i'm a sim, 3 missiles. it can vary for surface to surface use that the russian to say this is totally unacceptable. now, i think russia will do 2 things. one, they'll say, i understand that these are now become targets. so anybody who co host these understand you are now a target. and what i mean target, i mean nuclear because shall, we'll reintroduce a system similar to the s s 20 which was the intermediate range missile, the brush fear to europe. oh. and it was the mutual fear person to and as, as twice the led to the i n f treaty. because both i drill as we don't want the world to end tomorrow, which is what was going to happen. a russia is going to simply re deploy a modernized version of the us as 20. it was every capital in europe under risk. great. now what now, what you have, we have a situation now where we could have military conflict, mitchell mentored conflict in ukraine of that could spread other areas and be a trigger for regional nuclear war. in russia. sit at the moment, you fire, look on russian soil. we unleash everything, smell that global in alisha. nothing the united states has done is engendered regional or global security. and it's been very bad for american security. most americans wake up, you're worried about coded, we're worried about the economy. we should be worried about whether not we're going to be alive tomorrow because if we continue down this path, we won't be, we'll all be dead, the world will be dead. we don't take this step, but a global nuclear annihilation is serio
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American Libraries
TV News
Understanding 9/11
