looking. at his annual state of the nation address president putin reveals russia has successfully tested a new nuclear powered underwater drone we'll bring you unique video of the test also in the president's speech. next week when all us part of this has to be our mission straight forward with russia does not pose a threat to anyone any actions we take to retaliate tree that is to say in defense . putin stresses that russia doesn't pose a threat they can defend itself if necessary he also reiterated that washington must be honest with moscow and not use quote trumped up i can say sions. in the past is used in the media as a credible source alleging a slew of in scituate concentric claims that donald trump. president said he did
not believe that north koreans have the capability to hit us here to which the president replied. i believe. a sensitive deal kept under wraps as house democrats in the u.s. know want to an investigation into alleged secret plans the white house is ready to transfer nuclear power tech to saudi arabia. you're watching aussie international welcome to the program. our top story the russian defense ministry has unveiled new footage of a successfully tested underwater drone named poseidon here's the video of those tests on the new weapon system news they had been successful came immediately off to vladimir putin gave his annual state of the name. an address the president said
in his speech that the drone is expected to be in full operation by spring. the president stating the branch new poseidon naval system was designed if necessary to counter u.s. navy forces and washington's efforts in creating a global missile defense primarily at sea is the it that the russian system. underwater vehicles a small difficult to locate in and sept gladsome a putin also provided an update on a new hypersonic missile known as the column which he says is a way in progress here's what the russian need to have to say about the weapons they are. we conducted successful drills of a nuclear powered cruise missile with unlimited range you're going to put it best nick and also poseidon an underwater pilotless device with unlimited range we didn't say before but i can now announce that this spring we will launch the
system's first nuclear submarine. and i did you today i can also provide official information and more perspective on the hypersonic missiles the speed of which is nine max with a range of over a thousand kilometers is able to hit both maritime and ground targets in this regard i want to emphasize that for the protection of russian national interests the russian navy will be given seven new multi targets submarines in the nearest time possible five ships will be engineered and another sixteen ships of that category will be deployed by twenty twenty seven. for the remarks came during the president's annual state of the nation address that's a may appear to be largely focused on domestic challenges in the country's economic development but he brought up foreign policy concerns today saying that most scared us not seek confrontation with this international partners. reports i'll start with how the russian president got to the final part of his speech where he allowed
braided on america and its allies plus how russia gets along with them he said that he was obliged to bring this issue up after washington tore up the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty the donald trump administration insisted on that after the idea first surfaced in washington last year mr putin called on the american leadership to be honest about the actual reasons why they were leaving the treaty and the russian president believes that these reasons are russia and america being a blow. to limit their missile arsenals while other countries not being put in that position here's what else we heard from mr putin on that. well our u.s. partners had to be honest and straightforward with us they should not have used
trumped up accusations and allegations to unilaterally withdraw from it like they did in two thousand and two which they did in an honest way when they pulled out of the i.b.m. treaty i felt it was done the wrong way but at least they did it in a straightforward manner but how do they act in fact they violate everything and find excuses to put the blame on someone moreover they mobilize their allies along with them so while addressing the lawmakers in some way mr putin address the american leadership as well and the gist was russia is not a threat for america and its allies but it could become one if these countries start being aggressive against moscow but i see you. russia wants to have a proper friendly and equal relationship with the us russia does not pose a threat to anyone and the actions we take are retaliate that is to say in defense
we never seek confrontation we do not want it especially with a global power like the us and this was the point when the russian president may even have sounded aggressive definitely serious the russian president began to talk what his country would be forced to do r. and d. and actual military deployment if the western military expansion continues. russia will be forced to produce weapons that can be used not only against those territories with direct threats originate from but also against the places where the decision makers are located we should let the u.s. take into account the range and speed of our prospects. weapons and then they can make a decision that might create an additional threat to our country however we kept hearing it time and again that the bear only wars when someone attacks it anything that russia would choose to do will always be in response to hostile
actions and the russian president still bill is to make steps towards each other positive steps. where we can discuss this further now with former u.s. congressman ron paul ron welcome to the program now nato accuses the russian president of threatening u.s. allies with new weapons systems but mr putin says it's only for washington to calculate the cost of their actions he's talking about the withdrawal from the i.n.f. treaty here so what message is he trying to send to the international community and especially washington. well i think it's a reasonable massy you know i have to tend to agree with the sentiments that putin has expressed because i saw no purpose i think the. acceleration of the animosity between these two countries came by us is cancelling out of i and out of the treaty and that opened up the door for this so i think it's
reasonable for defensive purposes to do this but i think our justification or the president's justification for getting out was he wanted to participate in building some of his own weapons that way and i think he's thinking about china and other places but no i think it's it was wrong for us to do that i think has responded in a reasonable manner i'd like both of them to just quiet down but i think that right now has more legitimacy in responding to us getting out of that treaty in the address say that was cool cooperation between countries so why is nato seeming in on any part saying temperate as a threat. you know that i don't know why they would do this because it doesn't make any sense to me because it seems like
a long way from the position that almost all governments hold and that is always preparing for war and being carrefour and animosity and yet my institution my position in congress has always been we don't need to do all this it doesn't make any sense why why haven't we taken real advantage of the elimination of the cold war in one thousand nine hundred ninety nine it was a great time but we've drifted away from it and i wished i could just not have to say well maybe we have a responsibility for some of that maybe we can blame somebody else but i don't think that would be right i think that. we have taken the position that that we should make sure everybody know who's running who's who's the boss and that we want to build weapons we just get out of a treaty i think that is not good and i just wish we could work on people getting along together because if you strengths about
a your looks like your country then is obligated you know to to protect themselves if they think it's a it's a an attack that might come because of the rhetoric well why do you think we've been seeing these headlines already impairing of page ten fastening the u.s. with new weapons why is it the media's focus. well if because it. and if he has a new weapon you know they will they will say well why is he doing this and if they don't think it through then they can blame him and blame russia for without thinking about well maybe you should listen to his explanation of why and if if if we're more likely to put more weapons on the borders which. is part of the policy right. now they are. thinking defensively you know a country has a right to prepare if weapons look like they may be turned against them i don't
think that's exactly the case but it certainly can be interpreted that way so as far as i'm concerned it was just totally unnecessary getting out of that treaty because it's bound to accelerate. the conflict and yet i've always wanted to argue the case that there's no reason in the world why two countries like russia and i say you can't get along together and we were doing pretty well right after the downfall of the soviet system was a lot of strain there's still a lot of trading and it's not unanimous you know i think we have a more aggressive policy toward iran than the europeans do because i work on the assumption that has been taught traditionally united states is that the goal is to have peace by trading and dealing with people and not by force of arms and telling people intimidating putting on sanctions that i think is detrimental let's talk about the pit side in fifteen minutes said to nullify us sing creating
a global missile defense network is that so can washington avoid the system. well i don't know whether they can it's just a shame that we're at that point but you know i'd like to see less of these weapons and less of the reason to build these defensive weapons. and it's almost no one no matter where we stand on the rhetoric you know there's a lot of propagandizing our government has to speak to a certain group of people or be pressured by certain groups of people i imagine that's true in all countries that they can't look we because they want their government to defend up so i think they they have their motivation they're justified but my argument since i don't know all those details is that we ought to have an open ear and not. be doing things that amplifies the disagreements because i think that's more likely to have an accidental breakdown you know it might be
just rhetoric strong rhetoric and show that we're. both sides are tough but eventually you know action is going to happen and then there are ramifications that to me is something that we should all be concerned about looking at the bigger picture as well be unveiling of the weapons well and convince the us to reconsider that withdrawal from the i.n.f. treaty. how i wish. i think it be hard for. him to swallow that no i don't think they'll reconsider it this is hope it a few of us can make the point that it wasn't necessary and that we ought to go forward with. you know doing what maybe they did it for was to build more weapons you know for us to go on more weapons so if we can't get back in the treaty an agreement we ought to get people on our side to understand that we don't need more
weapons and besides i think united states is pretty strong you know we spend the most money on weaponry i don't feel intimidated if somebody is going to attack is that we can make mistakes and we do spend a lot of money but we also know that compared to what the other countries are spending and what we spend it's there's no it's not a close close close because we spend more than probably the next ten countries all put together so i think i think we're a lot safer then the people in washington and the people who build our weapons claim we are because even if it's not for the fact of aggression and starting a war i think people when they make profits building weapons there are likely to promote problems well thank you for your thoughts on the address today mike asked for me u.s. congressman ron paul thank you. the
former acting director of the f.b.i. andrew mccabe has provoked a firestorm of controversy by claiming both in a new book and to the media that the us president is in the kremlin's pocket do you still believe the president could be a russian now so. i think it's possible i think that's why we started our investigation i think the president is a threat is that what that means i think it's entirely possible i think that's one of the reasons why we open the case against him we had good reason to consider that the president might be a threat to national security did you suspect the president might actually be working for russia he thought that might be possible the u.s. justice department fired under mccabe last year just before he was set to retire saying he'd lied multiple times and about comments he'd made to the media he claims though that the decision was politically motivated our senior correspondent morris
go to morrow takes up the story. sensation selves it's the fact of life the bigger the dirtier the ruling shia your story the more people listen this book is dirty but we'll get to that first his revelations who could have believed that senior u.s. officials discussed seriously talked about declaring trump mentally or physically unfit to be president meaning he could be constitutionally removed from office discussion of the twenty fifth amendment was was simply rod raise the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort and the attempted coup some call this in the united states of all places insanity and was this an attempted bureaucratic
i don't know this was a coup attempt there's no doubt about it but hey one man's coup is another's revolution and would you believe there's worse stuff in this book allegedly trump trusts putin more than his own intelligence agencies unbelievable the president said he did not believe that north koreans have the capability to hit us here with ballistic missiles and united states intelligence officials in the briefing responded that that was not consistent with any of the intelligence our government possesses to which the president replied i don't care i believe putin it's almost too crazy to be true come to think of it that is a pretty outlandish claim but hey folks buying it because you know one of the things that impressed me about mccabe in the interview was how careful he was about
what he knew what he didn't know and what he had overheard. it was very almost as if he was justifying a trial did seem like mccain was being credible and it's a pretty incredible allegation that he's making about trump a word trust putin's view on this over the us intelligence agencies well some people will believe anything especially if it tarnishes trump the more sensible bull look at the author andrew mccabe who may not be the most honest person in the world at all according to the justice department inspector general report was the sensation here when he was the f.b.i. as deputy director leaked sensitive information to the press and then lied about it four times three of those under oath mccabe is rightly perceived already as a lie before with
a major set of conflicts of interest mccabe is i think he's under criminal investigation already he's trying to sell this book now so the guy might be a liar ok it's given the benefit of the doubt trump trusting putin more than his intelligence guys which is strange because trump threatened north korea with biblical vengeance meaning he must have taken the threat seriously they will be met with fire fury more than that in two thousand and seventeen russia joined in on sanctions against north korea meaning moscow to saw a threat facts fly in the face of sensation mr mccabe it seems is back to old habits theory a lie to spice things up get the book selling and then the timing the timing just as trump and kim jong un prepare for another summer.
the u.s. house of representatives has released a report indicating that the white house may be planning to transfer sensitive nuclear power technology to saudi arabia a democratic led committee is now launching an investigation artie's caleb maupin has the details on this. well it's a report from the house oversight committee that's the congressional committee that overlooks the activities of various areas of government and it essentially shows that according to certain whistleblowers who are involved and other sources there was talk of transferring rather sensitive nuclear technology to the kingdom of saudi arabia and enabling them to develop nuclear power some of this some of what was said in the report can be heard here these reports also indicate that saudi arabia is refusing to agree to prohibition on enriching uranium and processing plutonium similar to those agreed to by other countries in the region however
experts worry that transferring sensitive u.s. nuclear technology could be a to produce nuclear weapons that country b. two the proliferation of nuclear arms according to the report donald trump actually directly engaged the deal was supportive of these efforts and now one of the nuclear power companies involved i p three has defended the idea of transferring nuclear technology and nuclear energy technology to saudi arabia this is a statement from i p three it is a strategic imperative that the united states competes and win against russia and china in the nuclear power arena it's important to note that while it appears here there was open talk of giving saudi arabia nuclear energy technology that the united states has long had sanctions against the islamic republic of iran for simply trying to pursue nuclear technology and nuclear energy peaceful nuclear
energy themselves now when confronted about a kind of double it department showed a rather strong lack of clarity how do you characterize saudi arabia's commitment to democracy and does the administration believe that democracy is a barrier against extremism. we so used. at this meeting. we were able to make significant progress it's important to note that donald trump recently defended the u.s. relationship with saudi arabia but didn't defend it on the basis of human rights or on the basis of even stopping terrorism but pointed to the fact that u.s. weapons sales to saudi arabia are a big source of revenue and that potentially other countries would get in on those
weapons sales if the united states pulled out this is some of what trump said defending the us saudi relationship so america first told me it's all about america first we're not going to give up hundreds of billions of dollars in orders and let russia and china and everybody else have a it's all about for me very simple it's america versus critics of the u.s. saudi relationship have often pointed to the lack of human rights in saudi arabia as well as the saudi monarchy has ties to terrorism but it seems at the moment that we now have pretty solid evidence and a report from the house of representatives oversight committees showing that the united states for not the first time but just like on previous occasions openly discussed the idea of helping the kingdom of saudi arabia to develop nuclear power . top u.s. official staying to pittsburgh on the same page when it comes to america's military strategies on syria on wednesday iraqi officials kind that u.s.
forces would be withdrawing from syria of iraq by april the feste the pentagon has refused to confirm the deadline speaking instead of an orderly exit. the unity and territorial integrity of syria. president trump announced in december that he would be with during the u.s. military from syria after a five year mission this part of an international coalition to fight terrorism in the region but to spy the imminent texas washington's envoy to syria has signaled that may not be the end of america's some patients that. which means we're not. at all in favor of the regime coming back in because a regime does not promote stability a promotes instability as. we can discuss this further in life with joshua landis he's a director of the center for middle east studies at the university of oklahoma in the u.s. thank you for your time this evening but now how can the u.s.
speak of in or than a minute trick that from syria while at the same time advocating regime change. you know there's a very good question the u.s. doesn't want any of that possibilities for to that are likely to happen after it's it withdrawal to happen it doesn't want turkey to move in because it's worried that turkey will kill the white p.g. and the kurds there it doesn't want syria to move in because that will help russia and iran it wants the kurds to maintain independence in the north of syria but it it wants to withdraw and not help them and so people are looking to us is trying to figure how to way to continue to support the kurds without actually having any troops in northern syria and votel the commanding general in charge of this operation has said look at that the president is still on target for withdrawing american troops he wants
a what date but we have to withdraw but he says we shouldn't do it and and clearly they're looking for other options off of a withdrawal they think it will offensively mark the end of america's involvement in syria no i don't you know people are looking for different ways to stay involved can they do it from iraq some of some generals are saying well we can we can stay involved by being in iraq. continuing to have airpower that flies over syria or keeps the turks or the syrians and the russians from bombing the kurds and providing the kurds with arms and that seems to be what america is exploring right now they also want the french and the british and australian troops to remain in the region to be assisted by america from iraq that's that's what they're exploring right now i don't know if in this role of helping kurdish was the independence in the north of syria the pension there has been quite vague on me that timeline of
the military at fit do you think it change in events on the ground perhaps could lead to an extended stay. absolutely you know isis has been destroyed now as a territorial strait but is far from destroyed as a terrorist group killing people every week this could go on in syria if there is no orderly transfer of power and that's that's of course the danger and if there isn't if there are continued isis attacks then the united states will have a rash now for remaining behind in order to fight the war on terror so that that could be a reason for staying behind. and have had allies rely on the u.s. if american officials contradict themselves on key issues. you know that's a very good question it's obviously something that international governments are becoming used to and they're trying to constantly keep up with the contradictory
statements that come out of the white house versus the secretary of state and national security council so there right there seems to be a tug of war going on everybody's looking back and forth between the president saying we're leaving it and these other officials who say we're not leaving our strategy is the same we want to keep iran out we want to keep russia out doing you want to keep the kurds independent are about and they want to continue to fight against isis so how do you leave and continue to do all those things big question mark. time hair with evening my guest joshua landis director of the center for middle east studies at the university of oklahoma thank. you and that brings you right up today to the global news some next on the tape is going underground.
is america ready for a real anti-war candidate clearly the political establishment and media aren't criticism of presidential candidates and anyone else who questions foreign policy or that our peace is swift and unrelenting fighting for peace has never been so difficult. in twenty forty you know bloody revolution here to correct the demonstrations going from being relatively peaceful political protests to be creasing the violent revolution is always spontaneous or is it you know we hear i mean i lived with video producer in the. school in the middle of the former ukrainian president recalls the events of twenty fourteen. those who took part in this today over five billion dollars to assist ukraine in these and other goals