tv Going Underground RT January 3, 2022 11:30am-12:01pm EST
which is flawed in many, many respects, and essentially adopted it as his own policy disregarded the advice of senior advisers and the pentagon state department, the white house. and i think the consequences have been plain to say that 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, they say ironically, trunk, believe it to. i think it's a mistake for the u. s. make, it's a mistake for mobile stability. certainly it's a mistake for the people of afghanistan. well in fact, as trumps feel, the date of a withdrawal was made the 1st you don't think that makes any difference. now look, i think all by and did 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 of firms what other people have observed that while at the beginning, many people said the withdrawal itself was executed poorly and 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 withdraw decision. fundamentally, i think people now realize we are less secure after the withdrawal than we were before the withdrawal. you said the 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 too confident. i wish you were ambassador. i was, you are dumb to get a bit of shorted you. you're competent and honorable. what do you think the president meant now president meant by that?
i think i took it as a compliment. this sort of a backhanded compliment to be sure, but look i, 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 he's going to appoint, you have 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 cars, eyes x, y, that's minutes. roman's lucky while on the program, who negotiated actually with by the, in the bus, he claim that it was trumps. the mother will bombs the, like a was nuclear bomb that was dropped by tremble. and again, it's done, acted as a recruitment sergeant for isis, but is that isis rights is kay, this is complicated. these different terrorist,
terrorist groups. terrorists factions don't have the identity cards that they can show. i'm al qaeda, isis, k. i'm this people drift back and forth. i think the, the main threat right now of regrouping terrorists in afghanistan is al qaeda. i think it is never really left. i think they've been embedded with taliban 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 sanctuaries. the rear base area that they used afghanistan 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 tip. roughly the territory of afghanistan is just another manifestation that the tragedy at the
mosque. you mentioned a similar bombing occurred a few weeks ago. i came to a 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 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 say 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 the danger that look 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 the government afghan, a stand in the late 1990. 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 buys administration has been hesitant to unfreeze afghan assets, turn them over to taliban to resume humanitarian assistance until we find out whether there's still a terrorist group as they seem to be or whether there's something else the pans 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,
might say it was after all 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 merger dean. isn't this another case of a terrible blowback that isis k is actually a kind of descendant 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 isis 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 of course, the thing to read. of course, one can say that then it's still a descendant of u. s. u k policy because of the invasion of iraq. i mean, either, either way but them, i, well, maybe it all goes back to british imperialism in 1900. everything does. and uh 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 150 nuclear weapons. what do you mean that was miscoded 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 errors groups at the pakistani government created
along with extremist in the inter services intelligence director and, and other parts of the pakistani military if those extremists took control and pakistan than that government would have access to the country store of nuclear weapons. and so did you make that point in 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 nato forces in afghanistan. obviously that was not persuasive. the donald trump and wouldn't have been persuasive. jo bud. 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 assange . good. coming up. you appointed richard grinnell is i right. yours. who took over his acting national security advisor when you know i didn't to point 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 and 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 riser at the time. and some might say that also emboldened, i says, i'll kinder in syria because you are defacto defending isis. al qaeda in syria. what did you, what do you, how do you look upon 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,
same thing us had responded militarily and clearly, assad had not been deterred from engaging. and that kind of conduct again. so this was actually started my 1st day in office, april 9th, 2018. it was a busy week, but the british, the french came together with us. we did another retaliatory attack in response. i don't think that to turn aside either, but to me it was, it was evidence that the danger of the anarchy we saw in syria with presence of writing forces has 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 and nato forces in northeastern syria, just another place. trump wanted to withdraw from. so this was part of the complex a dealing with in to trump administration to maintain stability, which was in us interest 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 madness from the pentagon said, if that missile strike killed russian soldiers, it would have meant war with moscow. i don't know when, when that is said that, but i can because it's, it's in the he, it's in the context of that the joint chiefs of staff chairman joe dunford, called his russian counterpart surely before the strike in syria, as he had done the year before. to say, look, you see what's happened here with this 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 was saying, that if we were not care all, or there might be
a collateral damage, which we didn't want. this was not in any sense, aimed at rush was aimed at the assad regime. all be that you said the person 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. zenick all the evidence indicate yeah, obviously very controversial. but you do mentioned in the book of antonio gutierrez, was 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 and it's political institution. sad say largely a failure. if we've gone to the security council, i think we almost certainly would have face stay russian and chinese veto. the administration had not gone for security council through on 2017 and i did the
british, nor the french show felt there was any need for security council approval. so i think we were well was in 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 the united states. after this break with what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race is on offensive, very dramatic development. only personally and going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very difficult time time to sit down and talk it
states, it has to be rest to be able to afford enzyme and find the luxury that for sure. despite having the most expensive health care system in the world, we have poor life expectancy. we have higher infant mortality. we have more deaths from treatable causes. so americans are suffering every day from it. it's as if these people don't count. i saw how they can choose your customers and dump a sick so also they can satisfy their wall street investors. no parents should have to see what i saw. if you're denying payment for someone's care, your make life and death decisions and determine to get to live and who dies to me, that's best getting away with murder. mm
hm. welcome back. i'm still here with the full, the u. s embassy 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 of national security adviser that some of that us subsidy, g u. n. g, we reduced, i've long shall. based on my tenure and in york is un ambassador and other positions. i've held that the u. s. money is, is wasted in many respects. miss spent in many respects and my, my overall reform proposal for the un is to abolish what are called assess contributions, which are essentially mandatory. the u. s. stays around 2022 percent of the budgets and most agencies, i make all contributions from national members of the you and i'd make all. busy contribution nibble labrador, i mean, there must be little 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 su nami, sweeping through the halls of the un. i'm him, the un security council, of course, rather fine than the u. s. a. j. c. b. o. a. what prospect do you think? i mean, what's the delay since biden 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 has gotten any better with age. i think the regime in tara is committed to getting deliverable nuclear weapons. it's never showed any evidence,
whatever views your views are 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 up 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 government to the people of iraq using the tile about. i thought it is quite popular in afghanistan and iran is obviously taken then maybe a 1000000 refugees there. and iran has been linked to their talks. i mean, obviously the new afghan talks happening in most regime in iran did the unpopularity the regime in iran. i think that 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. most of dec bernie sanders is fond of talking about that. isn't that how you got into this mess? i know douglas has a big hero of yours, actually seeing that one is with the nation. i should say we did it with the british, but it was actually most of back who had violated the iranian constitution at time . and i think it was, it was far more elements of popular opposition to most of the extra work for the shop. and it led to a lead to the islamist revolution of $979.00 now, 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 u. s. and nature sanctions on iran?
you think it's a price? what paying like madeleine albright with the $500000.00 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 their day and their families grown. you know, there is a 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, 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 significant in the $400.00 in the street and it's currently 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 to trump to meet maduro? 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 that one as another trump project, trump and go, trump had a feeling for authoritarian leaders like bottom your food near to want asian tank chem, john euro is just part of that 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 and 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 know 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? yeah, set up a meeting like that. kim jong, well, maybe not like the kim jong and when obviously, yeah, look at the question is what, what, what is in the interest of the people who venezuela, the interested the united states? and i think we saw very clearly that chavez and madura had driven the country into poverty. they had they had taken, as you say, a country is to 40000 people not being killed by us sanctions book. 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. and 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 tried to take you to go for the book, just to check for the 15 letter the 6th time, the, the 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 caught blows 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 it 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 have 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, the 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 except, except that policy has gib lee moved to moscow in beijing together. u. s. native
policy has moved moscow and b jane closer than ever as you know. i don't think it's us policy that's moving close together. i think they have a growing closer. i think that's moscow's choice, and i think it's a big mistake for russia. i think russia's got it, 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. mountain, i mean, you've got a country with a huge population and not many natural resources, south of russia, with that card, 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, let me go to the national security advisor 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 their, 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 approach. china wouldn't you me advising alliances with china. i very strongly believe. ready that it's not in rushes, long term interest to get closer to china, but 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 we have a way 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 a defensive alliance, and i would just say, and perhaps you and i should discuss this at greater length and in a future broadcast. i think russia's greatest 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. men 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 coven. 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 tom's on willingness to take proven seriously at the beginning because he worry, it would re, re effect his re election efforts. you see the, the world without a strategic arms limitation treaty is getting more dangerous or less dangerous. well, i think it depends on what countries like russia and china want to do with their strategic weapons. i think russia and the u. s. could find an accommodation. 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 operationally 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 is your boy got no extreme 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. that's it for one of your favorite shows of the last season. we'll be back on wednesday, the 12th of january, but until then stay safe. and you can watch all our interviews by subscribing to our youtube channel and falling us on all our social media. join me every thursday on the alex salmon show, but i'll be speaking to guess in the world of politics, sport business, i'm show business. i'll see you then mm.
a with police dogs and buttons are deployed against the until you locked on demonstrators in the cities mirror. gave the order to break up the 1000 strong on registered rally. bolted, coming up on the program. big pandemic, big profits. we examined high pharma giants, have another bumper year. almost 800 homicides were recorded in chicago in 2021. the highest number there for a quarter of a century. we look at that another crucial issues facing the u. s. over the past 12 months with.