the the the hello and welcome to cross stock were all things are considered on peter lavelle when bindings masters born a package was passed by the us congress. it was met with much fanfare and political bluster. however, even mainstream media cast out on whether this aid will change military realities on the ground illusions it would seem die hard. the cross talking ukraine, i'm joined by my guess, matthew crossed in in washington. he's professor of national security and director

of academic transformation of our state university in philadelphia. we have aaron, good. he is a political scientist historian as well as author of american exception empire in the deep states and in rest. and we cross to michael my loop. he is a former pentagon senior security policy analyst. i totally think prospect rolls in effect. that means you can jump anytime you want. and i always appreciate michael. let me go to you 1st. here. you've been watching the coverage of the amazing transformation of mike johnson, the speaker um, but you know, the, the media received this package for ukraine with great fanfare, as i said in my introduction. but even in mainstream media right now, there's a whole lot of questions. i mean, you know, is this the 1st, the 1st crunch and an over many, many years? what is the strategy? i mean, this isn't the mainstream that we've been talking about it for 2 years. now it's in the mainstream, so this, that divergence between the elite and the media and everybody else is just get in

greater and greater. michael? yeah, i, i think that the work, this is just, uh, uh, it's not gonna go anywhere. it's not gonna amount to much. if anything, the money is going to replenish us stocks. they're going to be getting the ukrainians of anything. we'll get some older stuff and the russians. i've already produced 3 times as much, maybe 5 times as much as what the ukrainians would be able to throw at them. it's over there. the war has more has been over for some time. it's just a question of, of, uh let's, let's pick up and slap and take care and take them up. and, and zaleski has not seen the, the, the, the need to sit down and, and preserve what's, what's left of the ukrainian people. and i might add that we see that the nato leaders such as a chrome, that remained under ro an illusion as is united states that this is going to have

long term benefits to, to offset russia under some false narrative, the russia is, is on the march like, like a hitler was i haven't seen any evidence of any blood streak at all whatsoever. and this is, this is such a vain attempt to, to try and, and recast today in the, in the eyes of that are in the rear mirror of history. which just doesn't, does, doesn't jive the united states is i think there's going to change the, the desire to have a 10 year iron clad plan that won't be touched by the united states. a or any president is, is folly, you're probably we and it's, it's hardly even constitutional. okay. i mean i, it's not, i think these again, this is kind of unicorn and thinking, you know, matthew, they, you know, i've, i've said all along open for the last 2 years. is that obviously this has very little to do with ukraine. what it is like nato is trying to, in, uh, an from remove russia from the ranks of great powers. it has not succeeded. as

matter fact, it's the reverse right now. the whole point is, is not to lose. it's not to win any more. and that's a really sad comment for america's great allies in ukraine. matthew, i, i pretty much agree with, i've written for a long time in that sense that if the american foreign policy objective is to just sort of bogged down and distract russia with the current conflict, allow the conflict to expand and continue with no real end goal inside, just to simply make them make brush or weaker on in terms of its global presence on the global stage. i think that's all americans left with trying to do. it isn't trying to recapture territory that's been lost in ukraine. i don't think it can crop up savanski into a bigger type of international statesman. i don't think there's any value in that either. uh, the, the, the only value and this is what's awkward for me is that the united states right

now has a value that it can't really publicly profess, right of value is we just want this more to keep going because it's just going to grind up more people and more power within the russian states because it occupies them on that front. it's not a very good look to the united states for the. yeah. yeah. well they, they have people that they, their profession is double talk. i mean, we've seen it on so many friends over the last few months. it's not very convincing . i think you would all agree, aaron they, what's also interesting here is that, you know, a cynic would say, and that's my job. and being in broadcast journalism is that this is just the griffith. ok. and they just want to keep it going. and be, you know, we had the asked in griffin went on for 20 years. mike was already proud of, you know, maybe we should try the a 10 year plan gripped. okay. i mean, this is, this is a gift for, well, it's welfare for the defense contractors. aaron, that seems to be part of the short term gains for some people and some interest,

but this is all money that we're creating out of, you know, out of there at this point and adding to the debt. so there is no reason why they're going to try to stimulate the economy that way or inject money into the economy by spending in deficit, you're adding to the deficit that that has to be military spending. it's a, it's tremendously wasteful and stupid and it can't lead to, it's not going to reverse the situation on the ground there. and we're stuck between 2 bad facets of the us system, which is number one, the president's think in terms of very short horizons with their own re, elections, invite and seems really not to want to lose before the election and ukraine. i, i think that does talk of a 10 year plan is purely p r. i think if it is as diluted as they are, they don't really believe that this is going to go on that long. and the other issue is the long term planning of the us, which is not done by people who are elected or responsible public officials. really,

they're done by think tags, funded by oligarchs and serving the different constituencies of the us empire. and it's for the decades they've been pursuing a policy of uno polarity and the other people, the us political system, with the assassinations of the sixties and even watergate, they wiped out any sort of progressive internationalism, or even nationalism in the form of being on the side of american manufacturers and stuff, i think getting rid of nixon was the last bit of that. and so you really had 2 constituencies, the corporate, rockefeller types, and the neo cons and the neo cons. so the ones, the ones, the uniform world and unchallenged us, you know, the wilful it's doctrine don't allow any country to get strong enough to challenge the us. they prevailed in the us that have been more for decades, especially in the 21st century. they basically took control of us. foreign policy is a little bit of push back in like a 6 or 7 just to stop

a war with the ron and more to have the obama's, you know, deal with iran. that was another case of a little bit of push back against the neo con foreign policy, but they still manage to prevail and they're very intertwined design, isn't it? and the british are a part of that too, because they need the you to pull or us or their model to serve, to be workable at all. it's just a disaster that's, that's long in the making here. and biden's own short term good career goals to be re elected are also factor and it's just a sad spectacle. it's going to cuz it's already killed hundreds of thousands of people and it will kill more. although i do wonder if the army is going to be the breaking point. well, there's a, there's going to be able to feel that army. there is a growing indications is a lot of in subordination. the soldiers are surrendering or simply running away. but michael, you know that there's a bigger issue here,

something you and i've talked about for many, many years and it's humorous. i mean nato cannot stand the fact that it is on the wrong side of history. it doesn't think in terms of security. it does, it doesn't even think in terms of the military, okay. they just think that they have a right to dictate and this was an opportunity again to, to move russia down a few notches and actually it's done exactly the reverse. i mean, they have such a go on their face. this is television. after all, i have to watch my language, but you know what? i mean? yes. well, this, this trumped up more was a godsend for the preservation of nato. nato was looking for a, a new new job. basically, they were looking into space. they were looking to the arctic. they were even looking to the far east. they couldn't hold dive now where they were, they were also looking for to uh, a with girls education and afghanistan. that was a big one to don't forget. yeah, yes, yes, of course. and, and, and so this was a godsend for them. and so the new account as, as,

as our colleague points out that came along and out with, in the, in the form of tory newland and, and finding himself i created this because they wanted to contain a russia. now here's, here's, here's what's gonna happen. nato is going to find this as are the new well founded way to exist. and if, if you crank fails, where did they turn? i predict that they're going to turn to trans nice trio and then moved over area to create more habits. that an effort to contain russia, this is, and i think, i think of the russian planners are seeing this already. yeah. and, and if israel is to, let's say, get a base in azerbaijan and, and they use that as, as a stepping point to attack a iran then, then that this, this just at the united states won't care in the united states, wants iran to go away as in his present configuration,

because it now has this next effort to keep nato alive. but if truck for to come in, i think we i'm hoping that maybe natal needs to go away, but you're going to see macro and coming on board. try advocating for a european defense system, and i don't, i don't think that's going over title. i don't know why. so, i mean, is there anybody in the e b u that actually supports that? i mean, that's gonna cost them a lot of money. i'm. i was thinking, oh, i mean, let's remember all we just forgot. there is no cheap energy in europe right now. how are they going to re industrialize without cheap energy? keep going. well, that's the problem. that's the problem because their, their, their industry is down. if they want it to really a crack down and, and, and help ukraine, they would have to switch from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. and i'm sorry, some switch from a service economy to a manufacturing economy. and they're not into that. they, they,

they ended with 2 years and years. and as you just pointed out, they don't have, they've cut off their own energy supplies for the most part. and what they're getting is, is, you know, a quadruple what they were paying before. so even germany, which was the richest of all the nato countries, and the e u countries is finding it difficult to continue this not. and you're seeing countries such as hungry, one or bon beginning to talk about it. we need to regain our sovereignty. we need to get out of it. now, what is a, do you have to surrender your sovereignty to nato? that means to washington, that's within the plan. all along, gentleman, 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 ukraine. stay with our team, the part number executive. and i'm here to plan with you whatever you do. do not watch my new show. seriously. why watch something that's so different. little opinions

that he won't get anywhere else. welcome to please or do the have the state department to see i a weapons bankers, multi 1000000000 dollar corporations. choose your fax for you. go ahead. i changed and whatever you do, don't want my show state main street because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is called stretching time, but again, you probably don't wanna watch it because it might just change dwayne, say the

of the, in 1884, the german empire began its colonial invasion intent. and maybe from the very start berlin encourage the white calling is to settle in south west africa and take away the best land from the local drive. the germans were actively draining natural resources and using the local population as a cheap labor source. this was causing major protests and led to rebuild your in 19 o 4. they hear arrow and now my drive is rebuild against the german colonial rule. kaiser wilhelm the 2nd was fully determined in order to suppress the rebellion with

the utmost severity against the inhabitants of nan, maybe a germany through its 15000 well equipped army. all around the country concentration camps were built. in humane medical experiments over citizens were conducted within the period of 4 years. the german, skilled up to 60000 people, among which there were 80 percent of the here railroad tried and 50 percent of the number dr. the events in south west africa are called the 1st genocide of the 20th century and not without reason. park compared to the holocaust just 2 decades later after the massacre in nam may be a hitler to solve unit foot on the same brown colonial uniform which puts the world into the chasm of the 2nd world war. the

welcome ex, across the dock were all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle to around you were discussing you create the the okay. it's got to matthew back to matthew in washington dc. one of the managers that we have heard here and, and it's been part of this. administration's dna is the, a, a talk receive versus democracy world, world based order. all of these sites, laws based order. but we have this kind of inconvenience coming up is lensky and his term comes to an end on may 20th. there were no elections. so what about the political legitimacy of the entire regime and can no soon none of them will have been legally elected to power. go ahead, matthew, to be honest, i think that's the one area right now. as long as there's an active war going on, it's hard to try and profess that you're going to be holding free and fair like.

well, i mean, the united states, the ukraine would not be in the state that it is without the support of the united states. the united states going to said have elections. they had elections in afghanistan. the united states had elections in 1864. so i'm sorry, i'm not, i'm not into excuses. there's this, but i agree on the sense that, that's not really the goal of the purpose and supporting. so let's, right, like, united states is not supporting the landscape to make this lensky, this archetype of, of eastern european democracy. i think they are. i think they are. i think they, the time they say it all the tests as well. you, there's a difference between what we're progressing. we want them to be and what in actuality is happening on the ground in terms of what our support is, meaning to him on the ground and what he does with that support in ukraine, factual, this is not this, this is not probably not the ukrainian democracy long term, short term, medium term. and we will allow,

this is where the united states often will get itself into trouble in foreign affairs is it will say it stands for democracy. it says it stands for civil rights and human rights and, and to the democratic freedoms. but then as soon as some of that runs a file with its actual foreign policy interests, we focus on the foreign policy interest and the principles debates the principle commentary. so to take a backseat. well yeah, i aaron, because 1st of all the electrons have been cancelled. the opposition parties have been dispatched and there is only one media outlet. that's al outlet. it's the state of the attack. the orthodox church descent is frowned upon. if not imprisonment on the agenda, i don't, i can't see how they can talk about democracy very much. i, you know, but this was a group of a generally far right kind of ukranian nationalism the that, that characterized this resumed since the us installed in 20

a 14 and war time on the total war only kind of amplifies fast cystic trends in politics. i mean, to put it mildly so i don't know that they're going to rise up and demand democracy . i think they're mostly trying the people that are a, would they be able to stand up to the state anyway? are the ones that are new, military age, males and they're running out of them. i don't know that the, i think the election could be used as a way to, to criticize or to diminish his legitimacy internationally. if you're out of a fellow of the ukraine regime, but i don't know how much impact is going to have it in terms of the way things operate. it's going to be a dictatorship. but before the, the election, the that, you know, with that deadline passes or afterwards, and they're going to continue to try to mobilize as many people to throw that as me, congress possible. until, until the money stops. you know, michael, one of the things that i really worry about as the ukrainian lines begin to waiver

in break. and like i said earlier, there's um, ample information available that there are a lot of strips that are surrendering won't obey orders simply running away. i'm. i'm worried about a symmetrical stuff, terrorism, and another word we've seen in the ukraine back by the united states. they wouldn't do it if the westgate know engaging in these practices here. when panic sets in that kind of behavior will only increase. go ahead, michael. you know, i think that this is all that they can resort to. they have lost the war and they've lost the, the, the battle space. and they, they can't even mount a defense any longer because they're running away from the ink from the at dances by but by russia. entirely a but i don't see russia of holding on going going beyond that, what i'm going to be seeing however, is a country such as poland, lithuania,

and all these other countries trying to ship away at west ukraine and take back some share of from ancient treaties. in and out, and republics that they used to dominate centuries and centuries ago. and this and, and, and the nation state of ukraine will no longer exist as a, as an entity, a viable entity. but this, this country has where under, i'm under no illusion that the so landscape has never been a democrat in thinking. the fact that they didn't hold elections under cut the narrative that were supporting the democracy. it's all, it's all delusional. it's about it lose, you know, it's delusional. and nato is in the same way because many of the nato countries are acting very, very acting in the same way very, at the democratic and, and, and they don't, they no longer hold the principles for which they were established in the 1st place

. i mean, it is that they're, they're running a month and they're looking for a new order to retain that paid order that they, that's a quickly losing. and we're seeing the emergence of a multi polar world order. and that's my friend, alexander duke. and once i talked about when we were together about the, the creation of a multi polar world order, we're now seeing this happen. we're seeing some 40 nations that one are joining a bricks they want to get out from under the dollar. they've had enough of this rules based ordered that is dictated by the us and what and i and those rules are dictated by what the us says. they are on one day. they may not agree. they may not follow them the next day, but it's all based on what the us the sides and the world is sick of it. you know, matthew, i'm going to do a couple of programs. so over the next few weeks on the following topic, it's going that the data from different trajectories, are we in the middle of the 3rd world war. as i've actually written, written

a lot about this, where i, i try to give argumentation to at least try to say someone on the optimistic side. what, what is it? oh no, but i mean, it's already been brought up in this program, which i think is kind of interesting. what happens if you know, is real sets up a base and now is there by john, you know, rush, he's going to have to react to that. you ran, i mean you, you pull everybody's getting slowly but surely pulled into this matrix here. that's why i think it's kind of interesting and we see different sides of developing. okay . the, and very few people get allowed in the middle. that's a very toxic mix. go ahead, matthew. no, it completely is. and that unfortunately world war 3 and actual like being a gen x are growing up in an error when i was a small child, we were truly worried about nuclear holocaust. and we used to do the elementary school alarm drill. ready and things high them like when i are a lot older, we went through the same thing, don't worry. okay. but because of the i boss will probably grown up with the idea

of that. but in the end, that button didn't get pushed. so who's probably psychologically in my own mind, the sense that you probably know, nation or group of nations today would allow themselves to push that button. we could, we could create the framework and create a structured globally that puts us right on the precipice of it. but i still actually want to believe despite my cynical national security heart that no one would be that fundamentally insane. well that's, that's a, that's a really interesting questionnaire. and because i think the, the threshold of being and then the threshold, the fear of nuclear weapons has actually been lowered. i mean we, i, i think the policy makers are a lot more cavalier then let's say when michael and i were growing up, you know, during a, we'd be a mutual mutual destruction. and i think that, you know, there's a people are more of a cavalier about it. what do you think, eric?

it's hard to say what really is going on at the top of the american state because we all have a sense that we, everyone knows by them is the head of state that everyone has a says that by and is not in charge. and everyone has a sense that the pronouncements of these people like sullivan and kirby and blinking are that they can't be what they really think. and so we're left to wonder really, how much stability our sense there is at the very top. and the best evidence for their being any sense at all is that they haven't blown up the world yet, but that is really, damming them with faint praise. i think we'd have to say and it, this, it gets to the heart of what the us has been doing and how and saying that is to begin with, which is they want us to rule the world. they realized in the, you know, or around the reagan there. so the neo cons decided that they would really try to take down the soviet union and they were successful with financial more and supported civil society in eastern europe. crashing putting countries in debt and

the eastern blog crashing the price of oil. getting the new royal dinner war enough, ghana, stan, all these things brought down to the soviet union with some people. even george w bush was saying, we might not want to do this. but dick cheney was even arguing with him publicly at the time. and he was the secretary of defense because cheney represented a more powerful faction apparently than the president and the neo cons prevailed. and they wanted to go for this unit polar world order. we would challenge anyone and it alternately, they're running into this nuclear issue. and it's very foreseeable that this is what they're running into. it's what they should have realized would have happened, the new train anyway in 2014. and they shouldn't have attempted it. it, but here we are. and why if they play breaks midship up to now with this, we should be worried was leisurely, very, very worried because historically it's in, you, it was michael. it historically you had your mom's never give up willingly. and this is what this is all about. they, there, there are

a vector is around the world challenging his gemini, and the us will not back down. that's why we're, i've a talked about, are we in the middle of the 3rd world war. we don't call us out yet, but we might be in it, michael. yeah, takes on many forms. we're building up to it. and i think that way, if we continue acting the way we are, don't listen to the warnings. a red lines such as the risk of putting those pointed out, then, then it was, i think that's something that's a catastrophic is going to happen. i agree with you this talk of this blog, today's talk of what we might use nuclear weapons. if they only realize the impact of the force of a nuclear weapon, they would calm down at quick, lively talking about this as if it was the dropping of some $500.00 pound bomb someplace. it's not this, it's much more devastating and it kills tens of thousands of people and it, and you could, you, we could, we could see a slow death from it in the what,

whatever form, world war 3 takes. it could be the use of an e. m p a 20300 miles up, exploding to a nuclear weapon up there with us from a satellite. and at the slow depth would occur when all of your, uh, electronics and, and, and your and your other critical infrastructures that rely on these, these. why would that help these weapons exist? so that they'll be and because they exist, they can be used gentlemen, we're going to end on that note. i want to thank my guests in washington rested and in philadelphia, and of course, i want to thank our viewers for watching us here at ortiz. see you next time. remember across samples the, the, the

the the, the

the, i'm not sure come on this as they do little show a good this things for me is getting that we see me is the non smoker in your mind restored enough to monday. so stuff with a just didn't show erica, by a demo print that issue in years to do i try to come up with one of our that's not as makers, off of christ to train us me on the way people. so i just really want to right, uh, yeah, for the most just what i want to move over here, but it is a notion particularly like cut them around quite inflate and one of them is crazy.