well I don't know what they're discussing internally but the situation is bad and blinkin is on his way out of course this is the end of uh his period um it's the end of the Biden Administration uh we don't know uh what will come next it seems to be pretty much 5050 between Trump and uh and Harris whoever wins blinkin won't be there and even with Harris there could be some change of policy with Trump there would be a decisive change of policy so I don't think that blinkin uh can can do too much except this one issue that obviously is being discussed and that is uh the approval for Ukraine to use uh NATO weapons to reach deep inside Russia uh this by rumor seems to be uh in the process of being approved the British of course want it the British want anything that escalates any War anytime anywhere uh the United States seems to be giving in to my mind it's another step of uh Reckless escalation by uh the US and UK but this perhaps is the topic of the discussion you consider a significant difference between Camala Harris and Donald Trump considering the conflict in Ukraine can we understand what would that be considering the latest debate that there they had yes B basically Harris is a um a a continuation of the US deep State and she said it and every word she said is yes we stand up for continued War we stand up she didn't say it this way but for continued Slaughter of ukrainians we stand up for continued escalation in other words she stands up for uh what has been US policy for 30 years which has been confrontational Visa Russia expand NATO uh put uh Ukraine in the front line to die on behalf of NATO to weaken Russia all of that is what she said whether she understands anything I don't know uh but she obviously is the mouthpiece of the US deep State Trump said he would end the war um he and certainly his vice president as well vice presidential candidate JD Vance uh know that this is a a losing proposition uh that this war should stop um I think Trump would would stop it uh you know what he would do in other areas I'm not not so uh sure or clear about but when it comes to Ukraine I don't think Trump uh sees uh this issue which uh the Deep State views as crucial which is confronting Russia and expanding NATO as in America's interest and so on this I think Trump is absolutely right and that there's a a clear difference between Trump and and Harris it seems that zalinski is talking about a victory plan and on the other hand they're asking for more ammunition they want to strike in the deeper in the Russian territory right now the British government is totally in with this plan and how about the United States do they really at the end of the day permit zalinsky to do that well look there is no Victory uh there's only the possibility of escalation to World War III that that's the only issue uh what does Victory mean that Ukraine is going to defeat Russia the whole idea is absurd uh what can happen is escalation by the US uh with cheerleading by the UK and then escalation by Russia and then escalation by the us until we have a full-fledged nuclear war uh that's that that's what they call Victory uh it's so foolish so irresponsible so lame this language uh and um they don't have obviously a plan for victory uh we heard uh you know the people who really run the show basically the CIA uh and MI6 on display with the with the CIA director Burns telling us H don't worry about nuclear war that's just a bluff that's well you better say it now before the world ends because you won't have a chance to say it afterwards I never want to hear a senior Us official say such absolute irresponsible Reckless things as this because that's what it is and burns knows better absolutely and burns is the author of The Long memo in 2008 which EXP explained this war clearly when he explained that the Russian political class completely opposes nato in Ukraine and he explained why and he explained how the you how uh the Russians feared in 2008 not only that NATO would be so reckless but that it would probably lead to Civil War inside Ukraine he laid it all out now he's CIA director now we don't ever expect to hear truth from CIA directors but what he's telling us don't worry about nuclear war well I completely totally utterly reject this and refer everybody back to Burns's 2008 memo let everybody read it it's online they can see why we have this war they can see that the CIA director knows why we have this war and they can see why there's no such thing as victory in this war there's only Global disaster or NATO saying we won't expand to Ukraine we'll find another way for peace which is so obvious and was achievable all along and so all of this talk about victory is I can't use the word on air because it's an exploitive but that's what it is and they don't uh explain anything to the public but there is no concept of Victory and no possibility of Victory there is only the possibility of escalation or peace and so that this is what it's about blinkin has been a disaster of course I don't know what what his role is the CIA has been a disaster in this Biden is nowhere to be seen anymore uh not only a lame duck but um possibly not really functional very much so this is where we are it's not good the United States was in Afghanistan for more than 20 years and at the end of the day they left Afghanistan in that situation that we we've witnessed but right now it seems in Ukraine we are witnessing the farri right Ultra nationalist are totally in charge of the government in KF it doesn't seem that zalinsky have any sort of power when it comes to what's going on in Ukraine do you think right now the Biden Administration considering do they have any sort of Leverage on these people well let me say by the way about Afghanistan that what I said to ukrainians uh before all of this was if you continue the way the US is pushing you will be the Afghanistan of Europe and this is exactly what's happening and it is true that the stay power of the US to destroy a place utterly and totally is there so the us could continue for years on end to uh fund the destruction of Ukraine of course that's not how it's portrayed but that's what it is uh we're going to see all the cities destroyed we're going to see a whole generation of ukrainians killed and then some president will come and say well that's not really in America's interest so we end it uh and then one day the helicopters will leave and people will be running from the US Embassy in Kiev this is so typical of the United States I've seen it all my life this kind of US foreign policy failure it was completely clear for 30 years that pushing NATO to Ukraine was a disastrous idea and that any intelligent Ukrainian would know that it's not in Ukraine's National interest uh and the last one that was in charge that knew it was yanukovich so the US overthrew him uh in February 2014 and that's when the war started now Biden okay he's he's gone uh maybe now already in effect I don't know we don't see any much of him anymore uh but um he's gone as of January 20 uh uh 2025 and um the question is whether the next one that comes in just continues what has now been a policy by the way established 30 years ago this year because it was established in 1994 by Bill Clinton that NATO would expand and it would expand to Ukraine uh we now know this from historians who are digging through files archives Memoirs and uh their discussions that this I thought it went back to brinsky in in 1997 but it apparently goes back to Decisions by the Clinton Administration in 1994 yeah and here is what Lloyd Austin was talking about the the official position of Ukrainian government right now asking for more amunition for more weapons um well thanks Phil I did get a chance to uh to spend some uh quality time with president zalinski and you'll recall that President zalinski outlined his goals and objectives uh during his opening comments and I would point you to that to um if you have questions about specific objectives but in terms of the plan for victory Phil we uh we didn't discuss that um that uh uh we we talked about a number of things but that in uh that specific piece we we didn't discuss and president zalinsky is going to present that to uh President Biden and other leaders uh you know uh at the first opportunity in terms of whether or not um Victory is achievable um again I think this war could end very quickly if Mr Putin decided to uh pull his forces out of uh uh the places that he's occupied in Ukraine I mean this was started by by Putin it can end U be Putin could end it uh very quickly if he just made the simple and right decision to uh to undo what what he's done uh in terms of absolute Victory it really depends on how you define that Ukraine is is focused on defending its Sovereign territory uh we're going to continue to uh to do everything we can to help them do that um you know what Russia's goals and objectives are you know I couldn't speak to that specifically and victory would be defined by goals and objectives uh but I we know from the very beginning that he's wanted to Annex uh Ukraine because he doesn't believe that Ukraine is a is a Bonafide country um I I I think uh eventually uh this this conflict will be uh decided at a negotiate uh resolved at a negotiation table um but uh yeah completely incoherent by the way uh the idea that uh that that Putin from the beginning wanted to Annex Ukraine is is doesn't even reach the the Dignity of a talking point it's it's a joke it it's an absurdity it's if you're talking to people who know nothing or you don't care whether what you say has any respectability at all is he serious no of course not uh because this is not been Russia's objective Russia's objective was NATO should not expand to Ukraine the US should not overthrow governments in Kiev and the US uh should uh absolutely uh uh stop sending ukrainians to their death and instead honor the Minsk agreements you know during the whole 2010s or from 2015 onward there was a negotiated peace except the United States and Ukraine rejected it even though Ukraine had signed it and the UN Security Council had supported it the Minsk 2 agreements was that for annexation no come on Mr secretary tell the truth the truth was that the United States absolutely told the ukrainians you don't have to to follow through on an agreement you've signed because you can have it all we'll arm you you'll be part of NATO all the fairy tales and so when you hear the defense secretary saying that the goal was annexation it's not even propaganda because it doesn't even come close to no Cil of Truth at all to this this is this is why it's so sad because without responsibility Wars can go on forever what I'm told by people who know is that lot of people are making money on this a lot of former Pentagon senior officials are now in the military contractors for them longer Wars better War this is a you know this this is big business big military contracts I'm not part of that world I don't know whether that's really the motivation or whether the motivation is power whether the motivation is us has to be able to have it say anywhere in the world it's a little hard to know whether this is about power or just greed of military contractors but it's certainly not about peace and it's not about Ukraine because Ukraine is losing terribly in this the other point he was talking about is to withdraw all the troops from the eastern part of Ukraine Russian troops and after more than two years in this conflict 700,000 Ukrainian were killed and more than a 100 Russian soldiers as well and he's talking about withdrawing the troops from the eastern part just pretending that nothing happened how how he can come with this conclusion to put an end to this conflict in your opinion and why he's suggesting that right now there have not been negotiations between the US and Russia basically I would say incidentally for 30 years uh the US attitude is uh we say and you do and that is the attitude that the US held when the Soviet Union ended and uh Russia became an independent uh successor state or continuation State uh according to international law and the US said we can act with impunity and you fall into line so there have not been real negotiations over anything and President Putin repeatedly called for bilateral negotiations uh a US Russia security agreement he put it on the table uh on December 15 2021 the US rejected negotiating over it because it said stop NATO enlargement uh and uh this is the opposite of what the US deep State wants uh so yeah they say what they want they don't get the results that they want ukrainians die in massive numbers this Ukrainian regime is it was brought in for this purpose and it it this is its purpose is to uh fight on behalf of the United States against Russia um and uh Lloyd Austin's the one that said that our goal is to weaken this already years ago that um this is really about weakening Russia that's our goal well it's a it's a miserable goal it doesn't work uh and it's sacrifices Ukraine in the process Victoria nulan in her recent interview she was talking about why they have decided not to negotiate with Russia in 2022 and here is what she said told by former Israeli Prime Minister naal Benet that that boss sides were really close to the end to the the successful end of of the negotiations and then prime minister Boris Johnson interfered and stopped uh ukrainians prevented ukrainians from from signing signing the deal and then uh Ukrainian representative arami kind of confirmed it that gu he said in in an interview that that there was some kind of advice from Boris Johnson to uh to stop negotiating and to win this war militarily where is the myth where where is the truth relatively late in the game um the ukrainians began asking for advice uh on where this thing was going and it became clear to us uh clear to the Brits clear to others that Putin's main condition was buried in an Annex uh to this document that they were working on and it included limits on the precise kinds of weapon systems that Ukraine could have after the deal such that Ukraine would basically be neutered as a military force and there were no similar constraints on Russia Russia wasn't required to pull back Russia wasn't wasn't required to have a buffer zone from the Ukrainian border wasn't required to have the same constraints on its military facing Ukraine um and so uh people inside Ukraine and people outside Ukraine started asking questions about whether this was a good deal and it was at that point that it that it fell apart yeah that it fell apart yeah so uh the US and Britain stopped the agreement but what they didn't do and and Britain is Britain is a cheerleader for war with little role in this it had a big role in 1853 in the Crimean War Britain is now just a cheerleader for Western hegemony uh it's not really an actor in it it's falling apart internally because it can't keep the National Health Service running can't keep the budget running and so forth but a cheer leads for war like it has always done and it's not coincidence because this is the anglo-american world that it's MI6 and CIA together that it's uh Lamy and and blink together it's absurd but anyway so Britain's there rhetorically but this is about the us but you see Newland well it's just I again lose the words and polite uh company but Newland has no awareness of responsibility at all late in the day the agreement was stopped well where was the US negotiating with Russia because this is what this is about this is about the US and Russia in which Ukraine is dying in the middle this is a war between the US and Russia it's not only a proxy war it's a direct War because there are plenty of Americans that are directly engaged in the war it's extraordinarily dangerous Newland shows and never had any responsibility she had formal I mean she had power but she had never an e sense of responsibility to Ukraine or to peace because if you're late in the day on negotiations and you're arguing about something in an Annex you close a deal you finish the deal you don't then say no uh they leave stop the negotiations and we'll have another 600,000 dead which is exactly what she did and her accomplices did in the United States condemning Ukraine to probably another 600,000 dead or so from that moment onward uh because of technical details about we systems in an Annex that's why well I I went to Ankara to talk to the Turkish mediators and they said that one day the ukrainians gave a note we're done negotiating they didn't say well we're working on this Annex they said we're done negotiating that's the US deep State at work newand was part of it again I I just hesitate because I I have the words but I can't share them in polite company the most important country in the European Union is Germany is the engine of the help that goes to Ukraine from the European Union is this engine running out of gas considering the latest changes IFD and far left both of them are against the conflict in Ukraine Chancellor Schultz is one of the most unpopular political leaders in the world today he has an approval rating of about 20% uh the Coalition that he leads uh uh basically collapsed in the two recent State elections and there more ler elections to come the German people know that uh this is Germany at the service of the US this is not Germany for uh Europe or for German national interests which would be to end this war which would be to continue economic relations with Russia uh it was not in Germany's interests that uh the US blew up nordstream uh so this is uh Schultz has been uh basically um a uh a full accomplice of the US War agenda from the start this is not the typical case by the way of German chancellors because uh you go back a long time to vly bront to Schmidt to Cole to Schroeder to Merkel they all had some personality they all told the US no there are limits they told the US no Iraq is not a good idea Merkel told uh Bush no uh a uh a road map to Ukraine's membership of NATO is a is not a good idea uh yes we want to have a pipeline they used to have a a personality they used to represent Germany uh Schultz is the least of all of these uh in terms of standing up for Europe's interests uh and Germany interests and so it's been extraordinarily disappointing and the German people are fed up with it because the economy has suffered terribly because the dangers to Germany in the front line of World War I are palpable because what uh uh Schult says and uh his defense minister and the general say makes no sense uh people know it they they're paring the US line uh that's why Sarah vag is uh making such a strong showing together with afd one one on the so-called right and left but it doesn't really matter they're both in this sense they're both for peace and they're both for a completely different approach and the public is saying yes obviously what's happening right now makes no sense now Schultz is okay he's started to say something about negotiations well come on stand up as a chancellor of Germany as previous chancellors have stood up and express what is in Germany and Europe's interest which is for this war to end and it does not need to have escalation on behalf of the US putting its military bases in Ukraine this is the bottom line but it's been the story of this whole business for 30 years now and they know it and they know it because the Germans used to say to the Americans at least in private don't provoke this but Schultz doesn't even say this now yeah it's the economy just to wrap up this session is the economy of the European Union right now with the situation that they're in right now going to help all of us all around the world and would be the solution to the conflict in Ukraine because when the economy is not doing great that's why the countries would change their mind toward the conflict in Ukraine would that be the case in the in this conflict Europe needs a completely different kind of policy by the way the drogy report has some very good ideas but you can't do the dragy report in the middle of War you can't do in industrial policy and the development of green digital future for Europe in the middle of a war uh instead what you're seeing is Volkswagen shutting down plants and the German heavy industry shutting down and losing its competitiveness that spreads by the way everywhere because uh German industry was a B workk for industry across Europe and so everybody feels that pain uh and to say uh well we're going to not have economic uh relations with Russia and think that Europe is going to somehow benefit for that or even more stupidly to follow the US line on China uh and try to decouple trade with China which is fundamentally important for the European economy uh raises the question uh is Brussels working for the United States or is it working for Europe uh is chancellor Schultz working for Germany in Europe or is it working or is he working for the United States these are the questions right now but for Europe Europe needs peace it needs a diplomatic settlement uh Europe was never in favor of NATO enlargement to Ukraine when it was proposed in 2008 it tried to resist the US it didn't succeed uh it then watched the uh Europe slide into this War it didn't raise its voice this day it has been silent because the US has dictated the terms but it's not in Europe's interest thank you so much for being with us today great pleasure as always Professor great great to be with you thanks so much by right