tv Going Underground RT October 16, 2021 2:30pm-3:01pm EDT
national security advisor of donald trump to be on going underground. you say in your book the room where it happened, the afghanistan deal that's trumps one time will prove who is right. and the full extent of the deal may not become apparent until after trump leaves office. what is your assessment as a for the national security advisor, a fee by the administration foreign policy, especially on afghanistan? well, i think this is one of the few instances where biden and trump agree on policy both wanted to get out of afghanistan and both ignored the consequences. i think many people thought were foreseeable, what biden did was take trump's deal, which was flawed in many, many respects, and essentially adopted it as his own policy disregarded the advice of senior advisors and the pentagon state department, the white house, and i think the consequences have been plain to say, return to afghanistan to control by the taliban and everything that's flowing from
that, including the likelihood of foreign terrorist returning and again using afghanistan as a base to plan terrorist operations around the world. so this is a retreat by the united states, from the international stage, something by and believe then since at least 2009 se, se, ironically, trump believe dana to, i think it's a mistake for the u. s. i think it's a mistake for well stability. certainly it's a mistake for the people of afghanistan. well, in fantasy trump's feel, the date of a withdrawal was made the 1st you don't think that makes any difference. now look, i think are all by and it was extended a couple months and it showed how, how little planning had been done, either by the trump administration or by for the execution to withdraw itself. and i should note my own polling on this subject. i think affirms what other people have observed that while at the beginning, many people said the withdrawal itself executed for land. no question about that.
but it's caused them to rethink the consequences. the withdrawal itself, the return of taliban to power, the greater risk of terrorist attack, obviously calls into question the legitimacy of the withdrawal of decision. fundamentally, i think people now realize we are less secure after the withdrawal than we were before the was for all you said, that abiding, changed in that answer in a way. what do you, i mean, he said when he was helping to confirm you at the state department, to anyone, my disagreements with you that you were to competent? i wish you were ambassador. i wish you were dumb to get a better shot at you. you're competent and honorable, what do you think the president meant by the now president meant by that? i think i took it as a compliment to sort of a backhanded compliment to be sure, but look, i've been on the opposite side of joe biden on almost every major question in foreign policy for a long time. and i think that was a recognition. we disagreed,
they didn't have the usual politics of personal destruction issues. they could go after me on so they had to try something else. i don't think is going to appoint. you had national security adviser anytime soon. perhaps the top objective in your, in your book, as regards afghanistan, you make clear as to prevent the potential resurgence of isis just tell us what you think isis k actually is because we had cause isaac's violence. minutes, romans lucky while on the program, who negotiated actually with by the in the bus, he claim that it was trumps. my mother will bombs the, like a was nuclear bomb that was dropped by trump and i've got a son acted as a recruitment sergeant for isis, but is that i civil rights is kay, this is complicated. these different terrorist terrorist groups. terrorist factions don't have the identity cards that they can show. i'm al qaeda. i my says, kate, i'm this, people drift back and forth. i think the, the main threat right now, regrouping terrorist in afghanistan is al qaeda. i think. okay,
there's never really last, i think they've been embedded with caliban in their exile across the border in pakistan for the last 20 years. and i think al qaeda will take advantage of renewed taliban control to recreate the sanctuary. the rear base area that they use the afghan stand before isis is a new phenomenon. but look in iraq and syria. it was an offshoot of al qaeda and isis k, which is the acronym for the isis affiliate claims to control the roughly the territory about gotta stand is just another manifestation that the tragedy at the mosque. you mentioned, similar bombing occurred a few weeks ago. i c k 2 credit for both masks, isis k, obviously fanatic. sunni terrorist group, but there's rivalry between isis k and taliban. but i could say rivalry. today i
could see a coalition between them tomorrow this, this, this is a changing environment in afghanistan. obviously, just a couple months ago they were an exile across the border. now they're in control and carnival. i expect to see there to be further developments, but i, i think it's hard to predict. but what i would say is that this potential for congregating terrorist from ad arctic areas around the world toward a more hospitable government in afghanistan, i think it's something we should all be worried about. i mean the taliban obviously say they're sworn enemies with ices k and you seem to have that l kinder embedded within it. we've had the taliban on this program. there are defect negotiations going on between native governments and the taliban. you mean they're kind of negotiating without either more or less? well, i think there's a danger that there's, if there's a big question, whether there's a new moderate taliban leadership or whether it's the same old crew that governed
afghanistan in the late 19 ninety's. i think it's still early to make a final conclusion, but i think the early evidence is not very encouraging that moderate forces have somehow taken over with taliban. and i think it's one of the reasons why even the by the administration has been hesitant to unfreeze afghan assets, turn them over to taliban to resume humanitarian assistance until we find out whether they're still a terrorist group as they seem to be or whether there's something else the europeans through the european union have jumped in a little bit early. i think they may come to regret that a lot of money. they seem to be giving. i mean, some might say it was off to rule the united states and britain that were trying to overthrow outside of syria. and that meant that, of course, alliances were made with groups affiliated to i said ok and are in syria. and i
mean, everyone knows the u. s. history and the history of the major dean. isn't this another case of a terrible blow back that isis k is actually a kind of defendant of british and u. s. policy in syria since 2011? well, i don't think so. i mean, i think what happened in to take it back to the iraq syria theater is that after brock obama withdrew american forces from iraq in 2011. because really what could go wrong? everything? everything was taken care of best when ice. this arose in western iraq and, and eastern syria. and we had to go back in to counter this new threat or more virulent form of al qaeda. so i hardly think that it was in reaction to our withdrawal that we saw isis arise. i think it was the spread of this terrorist mentality which, which was a read of course one can say that then it's still a descend u. s. u. k. policy because of the invasion of iraq. i mean i, i the, the,
i way with them. i, well, maybe it all goes back to british imperialism in the 1900. everything does an ambassador. huh. no, this is more recent. oversee the 2001 war i should. i mean, before we leave afghanistan, i should just quickly say, you have warned that a taliban victory in gobble gives them potential access to a 150 nuclear weapons. what do you mean? that was misquoted from a, from an earlier interview. what i have said was, i worry that the take over by taliban in afghanistan could provide aid and comfort to radicals in pakistan. pakistani taliban itself, other terrorist groups that the pakistani government created along with the extremist in the inter services intelligence director and, and other parts of the pakistani military. if those extremists took control and pakistan, then that government would have access to the country store nuclear weapons. and so
it, did you make that point when you are a national security advisor and what no one listened to you, the potential for absolute catastrophe. i did make that point several times. i thought it was a compelling reason to keep american and nato forces in afghanistan. obviously that was not persuasive. donald trump and wouldn't have been persuasive to joe by. well, it's not necessarily meaning a continued occupation. it could mean other policies, but clearly that's a terrifying prospect. i should just because we go to trial here of julian sanchez . coming up. you appointed richard grinnell is i right. yours. who took over his acting national security advisor? when you know, i didn't appoint him 8. richard grinnell worked for me in new york and he was the spokesperson for the u. s. mission to you. and when i was un ambassador, will you ever privy to this thing? about grinnell and trump organizing in assange pardon deal if he revealed his sources as news to me? well, i have to go to the actual bombing of syria that you are
a national security advisor at the time. and some might say that also emboldened, i says, i'll kinder in syria because you a defacto defending isis elk. i do in syria. what did you, what do you, how do you look up on that to attack on syria or in 2018? we certainly weren't defending isis or, or anyone else way would have seen it. well, they would be wrong to see it that way. what happened was the syrian government used chemical weapons, probably chlorine based against civilian targets in and around damascus almost exactly one year earlier in april 2017. the syrian government done, same thing us had responded militarily and clearly aside, had not been deterred from engaging in that kind of conduct again. so this was actually started my 1st day in office, april the 9th 2018. it was a busy week, but the british and the french came together with us. we did another retaliatory
attack in response. i don't think that deterred assad either. but to me, it was, it was evidence that the, that the danger of the anarchy we saw in syria with the presence of ryan forces hes both coming over from lebanon to support the sad regime. the accumulation of terrorist forces in and around it was a compelling reason to keep us in nato forces in northeastern syria, just another place. trump wanted to withdraw from. so this was part of the complex a dealing with in the trump administration to maintain stability, which was n u. s interests rather than withdraw and see or return either to terrorist control or iranian back control. yeah, you didn't mention, you mentioned the regional allies, they didn't mention russian troops. you don't think it was compelling when mad. dog, mathis from the pentagon, said if that missile strike could kill russian soldiers,
it would have meant war with moscow. i don't know when, when mad he said that, but i can tell you if it's and he is in the context of that. the joint chiefs of staff chairman joe dunford, called his russian counterpart shortly before the strike in syria, as he had done the year before. to, to say, look, you see what's happened here with chemical weapons attacked by the assad government and just want you to know that we're not going to sit idly by so that you know, you need to look out for your russian forces. we understood fully and i think that's what madison sang, that if we were not careful that there might be a collateral damage, which we didn't want. this was not in any sense and that brush was and that the assad regime all be of that. you said the putin was lying about it not being a chemical attack. you also say in the book that actually didn't. that's right. that was the russian position. and that was incorrect,
isn't it all the evidence indicate? yeah, obviously very controversial. but you do mentioned in the book with antonio gutierrez, who slammed the strike for not having un security council approval. he was a being ridiculous kind of symptomatic of the fact, the lack of authority of the you and secret general in the you. and now you famously said it can demolish a whole lot of flaws in new york. it doesn't make any difference. i think the organization is grin locked in its political institutions. sad and say, largely a failure. if we've gone to the security council, i think we almost certainly would have faced a russian and chinese veto. the administration had not gone for security council approval and 2017. and i did the british, and the french show felt there was any need for security council approval. so i think we were well within our rights said to conduct the strike with without reference to the security council. i master boldenall, stop you that more from the 27th national security advisor of united states after this break.
well the kid is ah, president other land merican country armed with volcano energy is calling out the wall street and the whole financier class ah, it's over a month basically. but i feel like believe go, he did who bought i bought a dial tomorrow. a couple of these on your quote, but i know from politicians to athletes and movies don't to musicals, does it seems that every big name in the world has been here last year, copa bazooka corpus kristie, blue selection button. when you get the go for anything. when luca
does not give me a glove, would you put the keys? she said basil makes dreams. come true that every one who fall in love with people threatening lou wide. mm. welcome back. i'm still here with the full, the u. s. and bastard of u. n. and the 27th us national security advisor, john bolton, quite a lot of us subsidy to the you and i know that under trump you got out of unesco. biding, took you back in, did you advise is national security adviser that some of that us subsidy to the u. n. g reduced i belong, shall. based on my tenure and in new york is un and baster and, and other positions. i've held that the u. s. money is,
is wasted in many respects misspent in many respects. and my, my overall reform proposal for the un is to abolish what are called assess. a contributions which are essentially mandatory the u. s. pays around 2022 percent of the budgets. in most agencies. i'd make all contributions from national members of the you and i'd make all. busy contributions, wow, but i mean, there must be people all over the world. you believe that would agree with all this . why did you get nowhere with all of this, the notion to make contributions, voluntary, unfortunately didn't have agreement all around the world. but i think if it did, it would be like a soon army sweeping through the halls of the un. i'm in the un security council of coal is ratified, and the u. s. a. j. c. b o. a. what prospects do you think and what's the delay since by didn't go back in of the iran nuclear deal? i know you're, you're an opponent. i don't know whether you think you think the option is to attack iran militarily. i'm not sure what your view is of iran
u. s. relations in by the administration for all. busy public purposes remains committed to trying to get back into the deal and to get to run back into the deal . i think the deal is fatally flawed when it was agreed in 2015. it hasn't gotten any better with age. i think the regime in terra is committed to getting deliverable nuclear weapons. it's never showed any evidence. what is your views a well known about what, what should the policy be now, the best step forward given how unpopular the karen regime is inside? afghanistan is to find ways to split the top leaders in the revolutionary guards and the armed forces and to reflect what is the wide spread view among the population out. plenty of places where there aren't western reporters reporting how unpopular that regime is and see if it can't be overthrown . give the governments of the people of iraq using the title of that. i thought it
is quite popular in afghanistan, and iran is obviously taken maybe a 1000000 refugees there. and iran has been linked to the talks. i mean, obviously the new afghan talks happening in most regime in iran did the unpopularity the regime. and iran, i think bad is that it's, it's only through regime change in iran that you're going to get a strategic decision. they're not to pursue nuclear weapons, but obviously the last time there was a successful regime change by the u. s. was against the democratic lead monster dec . bernie saunders fond of talking about that. isn't that how you got into this mess? i know douglas has a big hero of yours. he actually seeing that with, with the british, i should say we did it with the british but, but it was actually most of back who had violated the iranian constitution at the time. and i think it was, it was far more elements of popular opposition to most of extra work for the shop. and it led, it led to the islamist revolution of $979.00,
and then it followed it best. you're engaging and a post hoc air go back, found it. now i've, i lived in iran. i got to tell you. and sanctions didn't affect rich people in iran, your vocal supporter of sanctions. i mean, do you know how many thousands of ordinary iranians men, women, and children are killed by us in nature? sanctions on iran, you think it's a price worth paying like madeline albright with the 500000 iraqi children. now it says that the sanctions have never been directed against the medicine or you know, the heights. but the effects are caused by the mishandling of the iranian economy, the corruption among even the mullers themselves, who have grown there, they and their families grown. you know, the case of you, except that, you know, it's shoring up. i mean, cuba is a good example here. you sanction the country you create support for that
government, whatever the color that government is, i think cube is a good example. the islands recently been swept by anti regime demonstrations. they're primarily from young people and this is, this is a significant in the for you 100 in the streets and it's going to be quiet now. thousands, thousands all over the island. i know in the book you're concerned about venezuelan help for cuba. the washington tank cpr claims 40000 children may be killed by sanctions on venezuela. why did you not want trump to meet madura? apparently trump expressed a desire to meet madura and you treated this guy. guido is a president, is very strange anecdotes in your book about the wedding ring of his wife. you might have to explain about one another trump project, trump and go. trump had a feeling for authoritarian leaders like vladimir putin there to want asian tang can. john non douro is just part of that, that a group of people,
and i think he decided ultimately on his own. he didn't want to do it. but the, the, the clear policy we had was to support the constitutional process in venezuela . and the, the duly elected legislature had declared bureaus, fraudulent election, invalid. and therefore there was a vacancy in the presidency, which one guy know was elected to fill. and we recognize that government, i might say this constitution was written by hugo chavez in his early days. so he always supported chavez. i now ambassador. and that's why i'm a freshman, but you don't, but it subscribed to churchill. george, or maybe trump wants to speak to madura the country with the law, just no noise reserves. why not? as his national security advisor say you set up a meeting like that kim jong? well, maybe not like the kim jong and one obviously. yeah. now look at the question is what, what is in the interest of the people who venezuela interested the united states?
and i think we saw very clearly that chavez enduro had driven the country into poverty. they had, they had taken, what was you say a country is to 40000 people not being killed by us sanctions. and that, that is, that is somebody's estimate. there's simply no evidence for that. it is the case that the medical system in venezuela over a period of 20 years of chavez bureau rule has been, has been, has been just devastated as has the economy more broadly. now, i know you are privy to the highest secrecy documents. you must have been because trump tried to try to take you to go for the book just to check for the 5th time, whether the 6th time the end of week any secrets. but all those documents must show that china is headed to become the most economically powerful country of this century. why? why are you against strategic ohms limitation treaties, given that that would arguably give china comp launched to make more nuclear
warheads, more nuclear missiles than even the united states possesses today? well, we, we could talk about the china's economic future. i think that statistics are inflated to say the least, and i think it has enormous internal problems. people don't recognize, but on the strategic weapons issue, what i've said is that i think we have to recognize that we're no longer in essentially a bipolar nuclear world. russia and the united states that was true and cold war days, there were smaller nuclear powers, china, britain, france, others. but in those days, if you are going to have arms control, it was, it was a bipolar negotiation today. and we read in the newspapers from commercial satellite overhead of chinese construction of hundreds of new ballistic missile silos, which are obviously being excavated to put in missiles carrying nuclear warheads. china's capabilities in the nuclear field are expanding enormously. so what i've
said consistently when i was in the government, but before that, and since i've left, if we're going to have new strategic weapons negotiations with russia, china has to be included. it makes no sense whatsoever to pretend that we're still living in the cold war. bipolar nuclear error. exactly. except that policy has you believe moved to moscow in beijing together? us name to a policy has moved moscow in beijing closer than ever as you know, i don't think it's us policy that's moving close together. i think they have a grown closer. i think that's moscow's choice, and i think it's a big mistake for russia. i think russia's got a lot of oil that it's happy to sell to china. it's got strategic weapons. it's happy to sell china, but i think brush is making a very bad decision by casting its lot in the future for the rest of the century, potentially with china. i think it is in danger of losing over
a long period of time control over much of russia, east of the euro mountains. i mean, you've got a country with a huge population and not many natural resources south of russia, with in that part of a lot of natural resources and very few people that doesn't speak long term strategic stability from the russian point of view. and i would just urge people in russia who are thinking about this issue to think long and hard before they get too close to china. but what would you say if you have that, and we have to, to the national security adviser given there is a u. s. s joint strike carrier strike fleet right now, sailing to china's maritime borders. and even boris johnson is sending his aircraft carrier to china. i mean, as a, as the basis increases, the number of troops increase around russia. as the navies of nato approached china . wouldn't you be advising alliances with china? i very strongly believe that it's not in russia's long term interest to get closer
to china by splitting away from, from the potential for closer relations with the west that we had after the collapse of the soviet union. i think we've lost a lot of time and opportunity and yeah, the way we were russia tried that. and as we know, the agreement with global job is broken. and we've seen u. s. policy as regards a iraq, afghanistan, and libya. syria. we've seen what nato thinks of relations with russia, a alliance nato remains the defense of alliance. and i would just say, and perhaps you and i should discuss this at greater length and in a future broadcast, i think rushes greater security lies moving west, not moving east. i just got to find the us then, obviously about the cove it pandemic. i don't know what you think the mistakes were by the trump administration, with your writing a day, maybe a sequel to this book about that element. but of course,
criticism came for you. why did you abolish the national security council's pandemic response unit? just ahead of the coven virus that killed hundreds of thousands of americans met in the world. i didn't abolish it. i did something really bureaucratically quite responsible. i merged it with the biological weapons unit of the national security council. and in fact, if you look both the bob woodward's book, if you look at reporting in the new york times, the national security council staff, these very people in early january 2020, we're raising red flags about the dangers of cobra. they were doing exactly what they were intended to do. the problem is not a bureaucratic re shuffle within the n s. c staff. it was time on willingness to take proven seriously at the beginning because he worry, it would re, uh, re effect his re election efforts. do you see the, the world without a strategic arms imitation treaty is getting more dangerous or less dangerous?
well, i think it depends on what countries like russia and trying to want to do with their strategic weapons. i think russia and the u. s. could find in a combination we did when i served george w bush's his under secretary of state for arms control. we signed the treaty of moscow in 2002, which reduced the operational and deployed strategic nuclear forces. both countries think that's possible again, but i think you cannot do that in the absence of having china participate. but do you think germany's your boy got no stream to i do i make a mistake? sure. i think work. i think it's a mistake to become strategically dependent on any, on any particular source of energy. and this is something that ronald reagan warren to europe about in the $198.00 jo bolden. thank you. and that's for the show will be back on monday when we asked for a technical co lead at google about technological clos war until then, keep in touch by social media and let us know what you thought of. john bolton's on says to our question.
i'm show business. i'll see you then ah, this ours headline stories. the challenge is its own members states over a migrant crackdown saying violent push backs on boarders may be illegal. the countries themselves reiterates if more health was given, they wouldn't need to take matters into their own. r t speaks to form a u. s. national security advisor john bolton, who shares his thoughts only chaotic american withdrawal from afghanistan. i think this is one of the few instances where binding trump agree on policy both wanted to get out of afghanistan. the extreme cold sky, high prices l. a shipping boom or correspondent visits. so once derelict talent.