okay, baker. let's go back to you in plymouth. one of the interesting things is that what we hear from the head of nato sultan burg, his army, and almost default every other sentence. and he begins every paragraph and ends, every paragraph with nato as a defensive alliance. so can you explain to our viewers why a defensive alliance needs to expand? because i think the definition of defense is that you defend what you have. am i wrong? go ahead. well, that, that's the whole premise of, of nato is a defensive alliance. and it has been an offensive alliance in recent years. but if you, if you look at what's behind that, what is behind that change in, in, in orientation by nato is there's a lot of pressure, especially in the u. s. in britain to drive military defense sales for instance. so they need markets and they need situations where this can happen. and if you look at the amount of weapons that the u. s. has been pumping and military aid, they've been pumping into ukraine. this is effectively from the u. s. side. this is corporat

then americans, secretary of state james baker said to go, but joseph quote, not one inch eastwards bought a lance, the naive, incompetent food that gorbachev was never demand. it'll be americans that they put back in writing. now turn into the criminal and demands they all the demands for any self respecting country would make, namely, about nato puts into rights in the clenches in rights. and that it will not admit ukraine, georgia into its ranks. and secondly, that nato will withdraw its forces from the russian order. now, nature is actually obliged by the nato, russia found in act 19. 97 to not have its forces in eastern europe and also in the baltic states. which brings me on to another point. even if nato was to put into writing what the kremlin is demanding of it, a pledge by nitro, normally, or in writing is actually worthless. because firstly, nato has, as well as i already said, has violated the nato russia found in act by decision in its forces in the baltic states in eastern europe. and secondly, nature violated its own found in treaty in 1991 when it on the federal republic of

then american secretary of state james baker said to go, but joseph quote, not one inch 8th, 2 baths. alas, the naive, incompetent food that gorbachev was never demand. it'll be americans that they put back in writing. now turn into the criminal and demands they all the demands for any self respecting country would make, namely, about nato puts into rights in the clenches in rights. and that it will not admit ukraine, georgia into its ranks. and secondly, that nato will withdraw its forces from the russian order. now, nature is actually obliged to by the nato, russia found in act 19. 97 to not have its forces in eastern europe and also in the baltic states. which brings me on to another point. so even if nato was to put into writing what the kremlin is demanding it, a pledge by nitro, or really or in writing is actually worthless. because firstly, nato has, as well as i already said, has violated the nato. russia found an act by decision in its forces in the baltic states in eastern europe. and secondly, nature violated its own found in treaty in 1991 when it on the federal republic o

then american secretary of state james baker said to go, but joseph quote, not one inch 8th, 2 baths. alas, the naive, incompetent food that gorbachev was never demand. it'll be americans that they put back in writing. now turn into the criminal and demands they all the demands for any self respecting country would make, namely, about nato puts into rights in the pledges in rights and that it will not admit ukraine moved over georgia into its ranks. and secondly, that later will withdraw its forces from the russian order. now, nato is actually obliged by the nato russia found in act 1997 to not have its forces in eastern europe and also in the baltic states. which brings me on to another point. even if nato was to put into writing what the kremlin is demanding it. a pledge by nitro, or really or in writing is actually worthless. because firstly, nature has as well as i already. ready said has violated the nato. russia found an act by decision in it is in the baltic states in eastern europe. and secondly, nature violated its own found in treaty in 1991 when it, on the federal republic

then american secretary of state james baker said to go, but joseph quote, not one inch 8th, 2 baths, alas, the naive, incompetent food that gorbachev was never demand. it'll be americans that they put back in writing. now turn into the criminal and demands they all the demands for any self respecting country would make, namely, about nato puts into rights in the pledges in rights and that it will not admit ukraine moved over georgia into its ranks. and secondly, that later will withdraw its forces from the russian order. now, nature is actually obliged by the nato, russia found in act 19. 97 to not have its forces in eastern europe and also in the baltic states. which brings me on to another point. even if nato was to put into writing what the kremlin is demanding of it, a pledge by night, so formally or in writing is actually worthless. because firstly, nature has, as well as i already said, has violated the nato russia found in act by decision. it is in the baltic states in eastern europe, and secondly, nature violated its own found in treaty in 1991 when it on the federal republic

then american secretary of state james baker said to go, but joseph quote, not one inch eastwards, but alas, the naive, incompetent fool that gorbachev was never demand. it'll be americans that they put back in writing. now turn into the criminal and demands they all the demands for any self respecting country would make, namely, about nato puts into rights in the pledges in rights and that it will not admit ukraine. georgia into its ranks. and secondly, that later will withdraw its forces from the russian order. now, nature is actually obliged by the nato, russia found in act 19. 97 to not have its forces in eastern europe and also in the baltic states. which brings me on to another point. even if nato was to put into writing what the kremlin is demanding of it, a pledge by night. so normally all in writing is actually worthless because firstly, nature has, as well as i already said, has violated the nato russia found in act by decision. it is in the baltic states in eastern europe, and secondly, nature violated its own found in treaty in 1991 when it on the federal republic of yugosl

then american secretary of state james baker said to go, but of quote, not one inch 8th to its box. alas, the naive, incompetent fool that gorbachev was never demand. it'll be americans that they put back in writing. now turn into the criminal and demands they all the demands for any self respecting country would make, namely, about nato puts into rights in the clenches in rights. and that it will not admit ukraine, georgia into its ranks. and secondly, that later will withdraw its forces from the russian order. now, nature is actually obliged by the nato, russia found in act 19. 97 to not have its forces in eastern europe and also in the baltic states. which brings me on to another point. even if nato was to put into writing what the kremlin is, the mom denied it. a pledge by night, so formally or in writing is actually worthless. because firstly, nato has, as well as i already said, has violated the nato. russia found an act by decision it is in the baltic states in eastern europe. and secondly, nature violated its own found in treaty in 1991 when it on the federal republic of yugoslav

okay, baker. let's go back to you in plymouth. one of the interesting things is that what we hear from the head of nato self and birth. he's on almost default every other sentence, and he begins every paragraph and ends, every paragraph with nato as a defensive alliance. so can you explain to our viewers why a defensive alliance needs to expand? because i think the definition of defense is that you depend what you have. am i wrong? go ahead. well, that, that's the whole premise of nato is a defensive alliance, and it has been an offensive alliance in recent years. but if you, if you look at what's behind that, what is behind that change in, in, in orientation by nato is there's a lot of pressure, especially in the u. s. in britain to drive military defense sales for instance. so they need markets and they need situations where this can happen. and if you look at the amount of weapons that the u. s. has been pumping and military aide, they've been pumping into ukraine. this is effectively from the us side. this is corporate welfare

okay, baker. let's go back to you in plymouth. one of the interesting things is that what we hear from the head of nato sultan burge, his army, and almost default every other sentence. and he begins every paragraph and ends, every paragraph with nato as a defensive alliance. so can you explain to our viewers why a defensive alliance needs to expand? because i think the definition of defense is that you defend what you have. am i wrong? go ahead. well, that, that's the whole premise of, of nato is a defensive alliance. and it has been an offensive alliance in recent years. but if you, if you look what's behind that, what is behind that change in, in, in orientation by nato is there's a lot of pressure, especially in the u. s. in britain to drive military defense sales for instance. so they need markets and they need situations where this can happen. and if you look at the amount of weapons that the u. s. has been pumping and military aide, they've been pumping into ukraine. this is effectively from the us side. this is corporate we

ah okay, baker, let's go back to you in plymouth. one of the interesting things is that what we hear from the head of natal sultan burg, he's almost default every other sentence and he begins every paragraph and ends. every paragraph with nato as a defensive alliance. so can you explain to our viewers why a defensive alliance needs to expand? because i think the definition of defense is that you defend what you have. am i wrong? go ahead. well, that, that's the whole premise of, of nato is a defensive alliance. and it has been an offensive alliance in recent years. but if you, if you look what's behind that, what is behind that change in, in, in orientation by nato is there's a lot of pressure, especially in the u. s. in britain to drive military defense sales for instance. so they need markets and they need situations where this can happen. and if you look at the amount of weapons that the u. s. has been pumping and military aid, they've been pumping into ukraine. this is effectively from a u. s. side. this is corporate welfare. thi

in the event american secretary of state james baker said to gorbachev, quote, not one inch eastward, but alas, the naive, incompetent fool that gorbachev was never demanded of the americans that they put back in to rights in now turn into the kremlin demands. they all the demands for any self respecting country would make, namely, a ride in the clenches in rights, and that it will not admit ukraine moved over ga, into its ranks. and secondly, that nato will withdraw its forces from the russian border. now, nature is actually obliged by the nato. russia found an act 1997 to not have its forces in eastern europe and also in the baltic states. which brings me on to another point. even if nato was to put into writing what the kremlin is demanding of it, a pledge by night, so formally or in writing is actually worthless. because firstly, nature has, as well as i already said, has violated the nato russia found in act by decision. it is in the baltic states in eastern europe, and secondly, nature violated its own found in treaty in 1991 when it on the federal republic of yugoslavia. specif

okay, baker. let's go back to you in plymouth. one of the interesting things is that what we hear from the head of nato sultan burg, he's almost default every other sentence, and he begins every paragraph and ends, every paragraph with nato as a defensive alliance. so can you explain to our viewers why a defensive alliance needs to expand? because i think the definition of defense is that you defend what you have. am i wrong? go ahead. well that, that's the whole premise of nato is a defensive alliance, and it has been an offensive alliance in recent years. but if you, if you look what's behind that, what is behind that change in, in, in orientation by nato is there's a lot of pressure, especially in the u. s. in britain to drive military defense sales for instance. so they need markets and they need situations where this can happen. and if you look at the amount of weapons that the u. s. has been pumping and military aide, they've been pumping into ukraine. this is effectively from the us side. this is corporate welfare. this is

okay, baker. let's go back to you in plymouth. one of the interesting things is that what we hear from the head of nato. seldom birth. is it almost default every other sentence. and he begins every paragraph and ends, every paragraph with nato as a defensive alliance. so can you explain to our viewers why a defensive alliance needs to expand? because i think the definition of defense is that you depend what you have. am i wrong? go ahead. well, that, that's the whole premise of, of nato is a defensive alliance. and it has been an offensive alliance in recent years. but if you, if you look at what's behind that, what is behind that change in, in, in orientation by nato is there's a lot of pressure, especially in the u. s. in britain to drive military defense sales for instance. so they need markets and they need situations where this can happen. and if you look at the amount of weapons that the u. s. has been pumping and military aid, they've been pumping into ukraine. this is effectively from the u. s. side. this is corporate welf

assured me call, which off in 1990 would not happen in the event american secretary of state james baker sent to gorbachev. quote, not one inch easterwood, but alas, the naive, incompetent fool that gorbachev was never demanded of the americans that they put back in to rights in now turn into the kremlin demands. they all the demands for any self respecting country would make, namely, about knighthood puts into rights in the pledges in rights and that it will not admit ukraine moved over all ga into its ranks. and secondly, that nato will withdraw its forces from the russian border. now, nature is actually obliged by the nato. russia found an act of 1997 to not have its forces in eastern europe and also in the baltic states, which brings me on to another point pizza. even if nato was to put into writing what the kremlin is demanding of it. a pledge by night, so formally or in writing is actually off list. because firstly, nature has, as well as i already said, has violated the nato. russia found an act by decision it is in the baltic states in eastern europe and secondly, night violated