I would like to share one life testimony that we have. We have Jamie, can you please come up to the stage? She drove all the way from sunny side, which is about 45 minutes away, just to share her testimony. You know, Jamie, we really appreciate that because we believe that testimonies, they are like a seed and somebody will be encouraged hearing your testimony. If you can come up right here. Would you please start sharing what was your life like before you received Jesus Christ and rededicated your life to God? And what was the struggles that you had? Wow. Well, for one, I was at the age of 16, I was diagnosed with depression and anxiety and I dropped out of high school at the age of 16. That's okay, that's okay. It's normal to be nervous. So I was so anxious and so I dropped out and then I just, my life couldn't move forward. I was so stuck and I'm like, sorry. What were the things that you experienced during that time of depression and what are the things that you couldn't do normally? So I was having like nightmares, I couldn't go to one of them was school, I couldn't get a job because I was just so anxious and I just have like panic attacks.  So that's how like it was affecting me.  I didn't want to be around people. Just a hateful person, a very negative person. You also mentioned to me earlier that you were completely stuck at home and you didn't want to go anywhere because of that depression. Yeah, so I was like, it got to the point where I just didn't want to get out of bed anymore. It was just like, I had no hope, no hope.  Like I would have people tell me, you should pray.  So Jesus kept pursuing me. He's pursuing everybody that is not yet to has, what's the word for it? Give him himself to him. And so during the time of your depression, you lost your faith completely. What happened? And how did you come about that?  Would you please talk about how you actually became an atheist? Okay, yeah. So I was an atheist. So I grew up in the, through a Catholic church. And it was just like, I didn't have a relationship with Jesus. I didn't know, I didn't feel loved by Jesus. I just was like, well, I don't believe in you. Like, you don't love me. And that was like, that's how I became atheist. I was atheist for like about four years.  So he brought somebody into my life that I can physically see him moving this person. I had to physically see it. And I was like, what is that? And that person was like, that's Jesus. And I was like, wow.  I don't understand. And then it was so random. He like romanticized me and he put a beautiful hummingbird in my face. So close to my face. And he was like, I love you. And it was just like, that was like my moment where I was like, okay, Jesus, I'll let you in. So when God brought that person that you saw the work of God in the life of that person and you started to become doubtful of your atheism, right? And you started to kind of be drawn and to find if God is real and who he is. And through that person, how did you rededicate it or gave your life back to God? And how are you now in church and what's going on with you now? So how that all started is I got planted, right? So that person was like, here, come to this church, you know? And Jesus was like, here, I wanna take you to Hungry Jen. So I was like, okay, like, what do you want me to do? What do you want me to do here, Jesus? And then they were doing like a call and I could literally feel the presence of God like on me. And I can feel that like peace all over me. It was so crazy. And so since that time, you have been coming to this church and you're also involved in a live group and you have people that lift you up and build you up, correct? Yeah, so I have all that. So I was praying for all those things.  Here's like a free car. Here's like friends and here's this and this and this. And he just kept providing things. And I'm like, I'm so undeserving and he still loves me.  Wow, that is so touching and amazing. I believe that God changes lives and even like he did for Jamie, found herself in depression and anxiety, could not come out of her house, dropped out of school, completely shut the door on God. And this is what God can do with the person. I was worshiping and the Holy Spirit showed me the picture. There is one young lady that is watching us right now or will be rewatching that you really connect yourself with the testimony of Jamie. You are like in depression, you are not going anywhere, you're alone. In fact, this quarantine thing is not new to you because you've been stuck alone by yourself at your home for many, many years. And you are trying to get out that stage and you can't.   Jamie, would you please share a word of advice to people who might be just like, just like you find themselves in depression or could not do life by themselves anymore? What would you tell them? My advice to you is that the enemy is trying to discourage you and that Jesus is giving, I feel like this had to happen to me. I had to be depressed because I had to know what it felt like to be depressed so I could know how it feels like when Jesus comes and rescues me. And another advice would be that when you're going through these battles, remember that it says in the word that victory is yours but you can't have victory unless you have battles. Amen, thank you so much, Jamie. Wow, what an amazing testimony. Let's give God the glory, where you're standing, where you're sitting in your house. We just want to appreciate God, how much he does for us, for each one of us and he loves us. Hi there, this is Lana. Thank you so much for watching this testimony. I bet you were blessed. If you would like to see more of these testimonies, please subscribe and thank you again for watching.


What's up, y'all? We had such a great and busy week. What is it a Sunday? So week end, weekend. Hopefully y'all are cool with this being a prerecorded video. We've got so much to do and catch up with before Monday rolls around. You know how it goes. Oh, good ol' Monday. I've got about a zillion emails to answer, so I hope you guys aren't too upset with us for being busy this weekend and I haven't gotten any emails answered yet, but I will. That will be my top priority tomorrow along with getting the rest of some orders out. I've also got to finish inventory tonight, which will be amazing. Who doesn't love doing inventory? Anyways, I don't want to leave you guys high and dry without a video, so here I am. Jeff is heading towards a vigil for a friend of ours. She's not doing so hot, so we're gonna go give our support to her and her family while she recovers. Also, it is super chilly here, which is fine. It's not as chilly as it was in Oregon. Not that it was that chilly, but it's colder than it usually is here. So that's fun. Also, we got to meet Lord Taylor, who is an absolute doll. And she's dealing with those fires out in Paradise, California. Goodness, so much going on right now. So, and there's a lot going on. You can always just turn to art. Just get your mind off of it, or get perspective.  So right now it's super quiet in our loft and I'm gonna get my art on. I do apologize for not getting to emails as promptly as I would like. At least Austin was here this week to get orders out while we were gone. Did you guys get a chance to see those two new colors, the teal and the purple? If there's enough demand for those, then Stone Coat will carry them. Just shoot them an email, let them know if you liked either of those colors or just comment below and I will screenshot it and let Stone Coat know whether you guys are interested in those shades or not because if they're not popular, then just make new colors. I liked them a lot. Jeff, of course, favored the teal and I, of course, favored the purple. They did sell like the other base tints, the black and the white, so that was amazing. I don't have a rag. Of course not. Okay, so the colors I'm working with tonight are Midnight Violet by Just Resin. I'm also using Electric Blue Powder by Artisou and Bright Gold from Artisou. Actually, I haven't used the Bright Gold in a long time since Just Resin's Bright Gold came out, but I wanna leave enough on the shelves for y'all so I didn't go break out a new one of those. I don't know what it is about a blue, some sort of reddish color and some kind of yellow color. That's just my favorite combination of colors. Oh, I didn't make any white. What am I doing with my life? Gotta mix a little bit more, y'all, sorry. Okay, by a little bit more, apparently I mean a lot more. Oops. I also, while we were up there, learned a new technique about, and I know some of you guys have told us we should like use spray paint and spritz over the alcohol, like the metallic wash alcohol. And we never do it just because we weren't really that versed in it. But this week we did a couple of projects up at Stonecoats where now I think we'll feel a little bit more comfortable with that method. So you might see that a little bit more here. I'm still not 100% how it turns out the way it does, but it definitely gives a unique look that I don't know how one would get any other way. It was not overpour, it's not overpour. It's so different not being able to like read what you guys are saying, but that's fine. Let's see, what else is new? I went and picked up Mu today. He is right by my feet as per usual. He loves going over to his sitter's house though. Her name is Tressa. You guys have seen her on the channel before.  They always have a good time. I think I'm gonna have her come up here this weekend and guest on the show, bring one of her pups up. Spend some time with Mu. Also, we started watching a new show that I don't know if I can say on it. It's spelled S-C-H-I-T-T-S Creek, and it's a comedy. I think it's on like Pop Channel, but we just started watching it on Netflix. And it's kind of hilarious. It's not as offensive as the name Lens Itself, but I don't know, check it out. See if you like it. Let me know. Also, we got a lot of really neat ideas for upcoming videos. I'm gonna finally finish the table, the geo table that I've been working on forever. I figured out how to touch the legs without adding some kind of weird base to it. So that's a good thing. So this color is white base tint from Stone Coat. It doesn't take a lot. In fact, I recommend using as little of it as possible so that your cells stay and don't continue to grow so far that they just turn into kind of like weird blobs. Also, don't forget, y'all, that we are doing the artist summit, our teasing summit in Vegas. I think it's April 3rd weekend. I have to give a 45 minute speech, which I have no idea what I will say or talk about. So that's fun. It's so different if I'm talking just like here with y'all instead of up in front of thousands of people. Because I have this to distract me with if I don't know what I'm talking about, but if people are standing in front of me watching what I'm saying, it's so different. I'm not intimidated by it. I'm just very confident in the fact that I'm not a public speaker. I also showed a whole bunch of people my super swipe technique at our meet and greet up at Stone Coat, which I loved. Because he doesn't like showing people new techniques. I know I do. I also painted my largest piece to date. Oh, I don't even know how big that board was. It was like the size that a countertop would be. And to be super honest, I wasn't sold on how it looked at first, but then it kind of came to life after really, really reworking it a few times. It looked very interesting. But anyways, it was a fun experience and I'm super glad we had the opportunity to go up there. Now we get to just relax and get ready for new adventures that seem to be coming up faster and faster and faster. I need an assistant for real. Can't even handle how pretty these colors are together. So I hope Austin took care of y'all while we were gone. Please let me know if that is not the case so I can talk about it with our little helper. Nope, that wasn't bad. Let's hit some heat on this. Not so sure about this one y'all, but we'll see. Let's see, what can we do here? Let's do a dirty pour. Cause I haven't done one of those in a long time. I also have plenty of resin leftover if we need to back up and regroup. Make more of a color. Always be cautious of how much gold you add to a piece because it can and will take over. I just love how these ribbons look. They remind me of like those old school candies that I can't really remember the name of, off the top of my head. But you know. I'm not talking a lot y'all. We also got a whole bunch more of the round boards in. So I'll be adding to the website shortly. It's a little bit more interesting I think. Let's put some heat on it and see what happens. Maybe we'll add some of this gold dust if I can get it open. First world problem. Okay, let's just add a little, I don't know if I just messed it up or just added a new dynamic to it. Let's see. Maybe I should have gone with the flow of the piece instead of rogue like that. But maybe we'll like it. Well, if I was going for something different, I feel like I probably maybe nailed it because this is nothing like I was going for unless you just counted as something different. It's like, I don't mind it. Definitely different. Definitely different. Let's go put this bad boy away. So it looks like I have a little bit of resin left over for a couple of coasters. Let's see. What else do I have to tell you guys? I'm sure I'm forgetting something very important because I tend to do that, just forget. Nope, can't think of anything. I think I told all of you guys all of the things. This violet is just too pretty. Such a deep, rich midnight color with just a subtle shimmer. Brilliant. Also, we flew Alaskan air this last time. Very interesting journey. I never have flown on Alaska before. Also, I almost took us to the wrong airport. That was exciting. We were almost to the one that's furthest away in our town. And for some reason, I decided last second to look at our flight booking. Oh, it was nerve-racking. But we got to the right airport and flew out on time and then our, that plane ended up leaving just a little bit late and getting delayed, pulling into our connecting flight airport. So we had to run through that airport to get to our next flight. Never had to do that before. That was exciting and scary all at the same time. We got to wake up to beautiful geese every morning. Quite an experience, I would say. The sounds up there were lovely and we got to go see the redwoods and the beach. It was a little chilly, but completely worth it. If you've never been, highly recommend checking out the redwoods up there. But you've already seen all that if you're in our Facebook group or follow Jeff and I on Snapchat. It's so much easier to post to those platforms to keep you guys posted rather than YouTube because YouTube is like, you have to create a whole video. But I think they're fixing that so you can do just updates, I don't know. I feel so out of touch when I've been gone for so long. I feel super bad about it, but thank you guys for all of your patience. Also, Jeff has all of the hoodies counted and they'll be going up on the website first thing tomorrow and I'll be answering all of the emails that I know you guys are very frustrated that I haven't gotten to yet. So that'll be my priority, Mignana. This is where I've never any kind of idea when I'm doing coasters what they're gonna turn out like. Always a surprise. These are kind of happy little surprises I feel like. Definitely fun and unique little coasters. I feel like they have to match the big ones so let's put just a little bit of this in here. Just a little to tie them all together. So much for that, that one came out a little bit more than I anticipated. So there we go, some little glitter coasters, focus. They'll be very nice when they're all set up. So you all rock for all of your patience and dealing with us when we're away like this and we're going to thank you guys for the surprise coming up. But it's a surprise so I can't tell you about it quite yet. I have all of these boards here that I have to put up on the website. It's actually a stack. So much so that I can't even get to that seat. But I promise it will be worth it for all of y'all's patience with us while we go on little learning retreats and doing what we gotta do for the company and the channel and I hope you guys like all the surprises that we have coming up for y'all. Yeah, we do it all for y'all. But anyways, I hope you all had a good time on this quick video, read all of these things and we will be back on our regular schedule tomorrow is Monday so it will be 8 p.m. Dallas, United States time. So that would be an hour and 45 minutes from right now, come here Ms. Come here, come say hi. Come here. Yeah, you know it, come here. Oh, it's a big boy. Moose says hi y'all, he missed you too. Anyways, we'll see y'all tomorrow, 8 p.m. And yeah, take care of one another. We love you all, bye. Moose says bye.


The Bemidji School District is moving forward in its search for a new superintendent. Yesterday, the firm hired to recruit candidates held a meeting to figure what qualities the community wants to see in the new leader. School Exec Connect says they spoke with about 100 people yesterday, including principals of Bemidji schools, the school board, students, parents, and teachers. They all gave feedback about the current state of the district and what they want to see in the future. The firm will use this feedback to help them pick candidates for the position. Clearly somebody who is very collaborative and someone who values relationship building and will be a leader, not only in the district but in the community, very visible and engaged and a great instructional leader and manager as well, strong financially, all the things you'd expect. Community members who would like to express their opinion about the next Bemidji School Superintendent can fill out the public survey on the school board's website. It will close next week. If you enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Lakeland PBS.


We're going to start with Assistant Secretary Rose. Well, Tom, thanks very much for that kind introduction. And it's actually good to be back here in Washington. By the way of introduction, my name is Frank Rose. I'm the Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification and Compliance. And my work at the State Department is focused on enhancing strategic stability around the world. Arms Control, Verification, Compliance are some of the tools that we use to enhance strategic stability and reassure our allies and partners that we will meet our security commitments. Missile Defense is another tool to do just that. At the State Department, I am responsible for overseeing a wide range of defense issues, including missile defense cooperation with our allies and partners around the world. In this capacity, I serve as the lead U.S. negotiator for the Missile Defense Basing Agreements in Romania, Turkey, and Poland. So I am pleased to be here today to discuss our efforts at enhancing missile defense cooperation with our allies and partners, one of the key goals from the 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review, or BMDR. Now you have already heard from Elaine Bunn and General Todorov about our missile defense policy and operations. So instead, let me focus my remarks on three areas. One, the significant progress we have made in implementing the European Phase Adaptive Approach and NATO Missile Defense, two, cooperation on missile defense with allies outside of Europe, and three, I'll conclude with a few points on Russia and missile defense. Before I do that, I do want to reiterate one point that you undoubtedly heard from Elaine and Ken. The President's fiscal year 2016 budget protects and enhances our important missile defense priorities, such as the European Phase Adaptive Approach, and reflects the high priority we place on these efforts. As such, the U.S. commitment to NATO missile defense in the sites in Romania and Poland remains as former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said, quote, ironclad. With that, let me take a few moments to discuss where we are with regards to overall implementation of the President's European Phase Adaptive Approach, or EPAA, and the United States' national contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty's organization's missile defense system. In 2009, the President announced that the EPAA would, quote, provide stronger, smarter, and swifter defenses of American forces in America's allies, while relying on, quote, capabilities that are proven and cost-effective. Since then, we have been working hard to implement his vision and have made great strides in recent years. I just returned from Turkey and Romania last week and had the opportunity to discuss our progress with these two key partners. Turkey was the first country to receive EPAA elements in Phase I, with the deployment of an ANTPY2 radar to that country in 2011. At the same time, we began the start of a sustained deployment of Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, or Aegis BMD, capable ships in the Mediterranean. With the declaration of interim ballistic missile defense, or BMD capability, at the NATO Chicago Summit in May 2012, the radar in Turkey was transitioned to NATO operational control. Additionally, Spain agreed in 2011 to host four Aegis BMD-capable ships at the existing naval facility at Rota as a Spanish contribution to NATO missile defense. In February of last year, the first of four missile defense-capable ships USS Donald Cook arrived in Rota, Spain. A second ship, the USS Ross, joined her last June. During 2015, two more of these multi-mission ships, USS Porter and USS Carney, will forward deploy to Rota. These multi-mission ships will conduct maritime security operations, humanitarian missions, training exercises, and support U.S. and NATO operations, including missile defense. Currently, we are focused on completing the deployment of an Aegis Assure site in Romania as part of Phase II of the EPAA. Romania's strong support for the timely completion of the arrangements needed to implement this deployment in Romania's provision of security and its infrastructure efforts have been superb. In October 2014, the U.S. Navy held a historic naval support facility establishment ceremony at the missile defense facility at Devasulu Air Base in Romania. This ceremony established the naval facility and installed its first U.S. commander. Currently, this site is on schedule to be completed by the end of this year, and when operational, the site, combined with BMD-capable ships in the Mediterranean, will enhance coverage of NATO from short and medium-range ballistic missiles from the Middle East. And finally, there is Phase III. This phase includes an Aegis Assure site in Poland equipped with a new SM-3 Block IIA interceptor. The site is on schedule for deployment in the 2018 timeframe. For example, the President's FY16 budget includes approximately $200 million for the establishment of this site. The interceptor site in Poland is key to the EPAA. When combined with other EPAA assets, a Phase III will provide the necessary capabilities to provide ballistic missile defense coverage of all NATO-European territory in the 2018 timeframe. So, as you can see, we are continuing to implement the President's vision for stronger, smarter, and swifter missile defenses in Europe. I would also like to highlight the efforts of our NATO allies to develop and deploy their own national contributions for missile defense. A great example is that, today, Patriot batteries from three NATO countries are deployed in Turkey under NATO command and control to augment Turkey's air defense capabilities in response to the crisis on Turkey's southeasten border. Voluntary national contributions are the foundation of the NATO missile defense system, and there are several approaches allies can take to make important and valuable contributions in this area. First, allies can acquire fully capable BMD systems possessing sensor, shooter, and command and control capabilities. Second, allies can acquire new sensors or upgrade existing ones to provide a key ballistic missile defense capability. Finally, allies can contribute to NATO's ballistic missile defense capability by providing essential basing support, such as Turkey, Romania, Poland, and Spain have already agreed to do. In all of these approaches, however, the most critical requirement is NATO interoperability. Yes, acquiring a ballistic missile defense capability is, of course, good in and of itself, but if that capability is not interoperable with the alliance, then its value as a contribution to alliance deterrence and defense is significantly diminished. It is only through interoperability that the alliance can gain the optimum effects from BMD cooperation and enhance NATO BMD through shared battle space awareness and reduce interceptor wastage. Let me now turn to some of the other regions of the world. The United States, in cooperation with our allies and partners, is continuing to bolster missile defenses in other key regions, such as the Middle East and the Asia Pacific in order to strengthen regional deterrence architectures. In the Middle East, we are already cooperating with our key partners bilaterally and multilaterally through such four as the recently established U.S. Gulf Cooperation Council, or GCC, Strategic Cooperation Forum. At the September 26, 2013 Strategic Cooperation Forum, Secretary Kerry and his foreign ministry counterparts reaffirmed their intent, first stated at the September 28, 2012 Strategic Cooperation Forum to, quote, work towards enhanced U.S. GCC coordination on ballistic missile defense. Both of our partners in the region have expressed an interest in buying missile defense systems, and some have already done so. For example, the United Arab Emirates, or UAE, has contracted to buy two terminal high-altitude area defense or THAAD batteries when operational will enhance the UAE's national security as well as regional stability. The UAE has also taken delivery of its Patriot PAC-3 batteries, which provide a lower tier point defense of critical national assets. We look forward to advancing cooperation and interoperability with our GCC partners in the coming months and years ahead. Additionally and separately, the United States maintains a strong defense relationship with Israel, and our cooperation on missile defense has resulted in a comprehensive missile defense architecture for Israel. Israeli programs such as Iron Dome, the David Slang Weapon System, and the Arrow Weapon System, in conjunction with operational cooperation with the United States, create a multi-layered architecture designed to protect the Israeli people from varying types of missile threats. Turning to the Asia-Pacific region, we are continuing to cooperate through our bilateral alliances and key partnerships. For example, the United States and Japan are working closely together to develop the SM-3 Block IIA Interceptor, which will make a key contribution to our European phase adaptive approach, as well as being deployed in other regions of the world. We also recently completed the deployment of a second ANTP-Y2 radar to Japan, which will enhance the defense of both the United States and Japan. And finally, we are continuing to work on enhancing interoperability between U.S. and Japanese forces, which will be aided by recent changes to the U.S.-Japan defense cooperation guidelines, which we expect to be completed soon. We also continue to consult closely with our allies in Australia. For example, as a result of U.S.-Australia foreign and defense ministerial level consultations over the past year, the United States and Australia have established a bilateral missile defense working group to examine options for potential Australian contributions to ballistic missile defense. Additionally, we are also consulting closely with the Republic of Korea as it develops the Korean Air and Missile Defense System, which is designed to defend the Republic of Korea against air and missile threats from North Korea. The Republic of Korea recently announced it plans to purchase Patriot PAC-3 missiles, which will enhance its capability to defend against the North Korean ballistic missile threat. Finally, let me say a few things about missile defense in Russia. Prior to the suspension of our dialogue on missile defense as a result of Russia's illegal actions in Ukraine, Russia continued to demand that the United States provide it, quote, legally binding guarantees that our missile defenses will not harm or diminish its strategic nuclear deterrent. These guarantees would have been based on a criteria that would have limited our missile defenses and undermined our ability to stay ahead of the ballistic missile threat. The ballistic missile defense review is quite clear on our policy. U.S. missile defense is not designed nor directed against Russia and China's strategic nuclear forces. However, at the same time, we have also made it clear that we cannot and will not accept legally binding or other constraints that limit our ability to defend ourselves, our allies, and our partners. The security of the United States, its allies and partners, is our first and foremost solemn responsibility. As such, the United States will continue to insist on having the flexibility to respond to evolving ballistic missile threats free from obligations or constraints that limit our BMD capabilities. Let me conclude by saying that we have made a great deal of progress on missile defense cooperation with our allies and partners around the world over the past several years. This was a key goal of the 2010 ballistic missile defense review. In Europe, implementation of the EPAA and NATO missile defense is going well. For example, the missile defense radar in Turkey has been operating since 2011, and the Aegis Assure site in Romania is scheduled to become operational later this year. In the Middle East, we are continuing to work bilaterally and multilaterally with our partners in the GCC to deploy effective missile defenses. For example, later this year, the United Arab Emirates will take delivery of its first FAD battery. Furthermore, we continue to work with Israel to expand its multi-layered architecture to protect it from missile threats. In the Asia Pacific, we are working actively with our allies to enhance our missile defense capabilities in the region. On that note, we recently completed deployment of a second missile defense radar in Japan, which will enhance both the defense of the United States and Japan. Finally, we continue to oppose Russia's attempts to impose limitations on our missile defenses that would limit our ability to defend ourselves, our allies, and our partners. Suffice to say, defense of our allies and partners through assistance on missile defense cooperation is and will remain a key priority for the U.S. Government. Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions. Great. Well, first of all, let me thank CSS for being on this panel today. It is a pleasure and honor for me to follow in Frank's footsteps here. He talked a lot about cooperation in the missile defense area between the United States, Europe, and Asia. I will talk a little bit about potential cooperation that might have worked out, but so far has not, and I'll pick up then on his last remarks about the United States, NATO, and Russia. If you look back over the last 10 years, missile defense has been one of the truly contentious issues on the U.S.-Russia relationship, and there have been attempts to explore the possibility to resolve the issue, to look at the possibility for cooperation either between the United States and Russia, or NATO and Russia, thus far without success. So if you go back to 2007, a conversation even between President Bush and President Putin about could there be a cooperative effort between Washington and Moscow when the George W. Bush Administration plan was to deploy 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland, variants of the missiles that are now deployed in Alaska, accompanied by a supporting radar in the Czech Republic. The Russians were opposed to this plan, and what you had was an offer from the Russian side to make available to the United States radar data from the Russian radar at Garball, actually now in Azerbaijan, and I think has been since closed down, and also a radar that was under construction at Armavir, both of these radars having very good views of Iran. But the problem, the nub of the issue was the U.S. government was interested in that idea in addition to American plans. The Russian proposal was providing the radar data in place of the plans to deploy missile defenses in Europe, so that never really got started. The second attempt came up at the end of 2010 at a NATO-Russia summit in Lisbon, where the summit concluded with a meeting between the leaders of NATO and then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, where they agreed to explore the possibility for NATO-Russia cooperation on a missile defense arrangement to defend Europe. And in early 2011, you actually had quite active dialogue, including between the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defense, but also dialogues in track two. The U.S. Security Initiative had a dialogue going on. At Brookings, we were running a conversation led by former Secretary Albright and former Foreign Minister Ivanov, the peer senator in Moscow was talking about this, and a lot of these ideas seemed to complement each other. And by, I'd say, the spring of 2011, there was actually a fairly rich menu of ideas out there as to what a NATO-Russia cooperative arrangement on missile defense would look like. And it included four or five central elements, which it seemed that most of these dialogues were talking about in one form or another. One was the importance of transparency, and that proceeds from a logical point that each side had to understand the capabilities and the plans of the other if you were in fact going to have a cooperative missile defense system. Second, the advantage of joint exercises, an area where there was actually U.S.-Russian experience going back to the late 1990s and even some NATO-Russian experience, joined exercises as a way to develop that cooperation. Third, sort of a sense on both sides that you couldn't have a single combined system, because Russia was not prepared to work for a NATO commander, and NATO was not prepared to work for a Russian commander. So the ideas seemed to evolve around two independent systems that would interact at key points. But with NATO retaining the control over a decision to launch a NATO interceptor, and Russia retaining control over a Russian decision to launch a Russian interceptor. But they would interact through jointly manned centers, manned by NATO and Russian military personnel. One was a data fusion center, which would take data information from satellites, radars on the NATO side, take information from the Russian side, bring it to a single point, combine it to generate a common operational picture. And then that picture would then be shared with both the NATO and the Russian missile defense headquarters, and give them presumably a better sense of what was happening in the missile defense environment around Europe. A second center also jointly manned would be a planning and operation center, where NATO and Russian officers would talk about things like threat scenarios. What sorts of attack scenarios that they worried about, and what would there be the rules of engagement? In the extreme, you wanted to have a situation where if there was a ballistic missile attack coming towards Europe, and both NATO and Russia chose to engage that target, you wanted to know enough about what the other guy was going to do so that your interceptors engaged the ballistic missile target, and not each other. But the official dialogue in 2011 bogged down. And then you had, as Frank mentioned, this Russian insistence on a legal guarantee that American missile defenses not be oriented against Russian strategic ballistic missiles. And that demand was accompanied by what the Russians called objective criteria, which when you asked for explanations, it meant limits on the numbers, velocity, and locations of missile interceptors, and effect a resurrection of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Make a couple of comments on this. First, I think in 2010, 2011, I actually, it might not have been hard to work out an arrangement of 10 years duration, 10 years duration, that would do two things. That would limit missile defenses in a way that would address stated Russian concerns, even if we did not think there was much basis to those concerns, but would still allow the U.S. over the succeeding 10 years to do everything it wanted to do in terms of addressing a roguelistic missile threat posed by a North Korea or Iran. But I think that agreement, which might have been possible, was simply not doable here in the United States for political reasons. The second observation I would make is that looking towards the future, if at some point we reach a point where there's some greater degree of equivalence between missile defense capabilities and strategic offensive forces, we may face a decision where we have to look at a missile defense treaty in parallel with a treaty that reduces and limits strategic offensive arms. But the point I would make is that that area or that time of equivalence is not now we are far from it. In fact, there's a huge gap now between offense and defense. In February of 2018, when the new start limits take full effect, Russia will have on order of about 1,500 deployed ballistic missile warheads on its intercontinental ballistic missiles and its submarine launch ballistic missiles. And a rate against that will be at most 44 American interceptors with the capability with the velocity to attack strategic ballistic targets. So I'd argue at this point in time a missile defense treaty is not necessary. There was an offer in 2013 from the United States government as a replacement to look at an executive agreement that would provide transparency on the two sides missile defense forces on current programs, but also looking at 10 years. And the essential philosophy behind that was to give each side so much information that the Russian military could look down and say, well, here's where the Americans are going to be on missile defense in 2021. Here's where we'll be. Is that a threat? My own view is that they would conclude that should looking at that objectively, they would include it's not a threat. But if a threat were to emerge, they would have ample time to react in advance. But at this point, there's been no sign of Russian interest in that idea. So the question is, where do you go next? It seems to me that arms control, particularly regarding further nuclear reductions and missile defense was fairly stuck already in 2013. And since then, you've had the crisis over Ukraine, the broader deterioration in relations between the West and Russia, and that's only going to make the atmospherics more difficult. The question is, at what point would the Russians be interested in any more serious dialogue on arms control? And there may be some possibilities there if the financial burdens, the financial difficulties in Russians continue. And at some point, perhaps, as you get closer to 2021, which is when the New START Treaty would lapse on its own terms, perhaps the Russians will then wish to explore a successor to New START. And then the question is, if you get to that point, will the Russians be prepared for a more serious discussion, a more successful discussion on missile defense, that perhaps could get back to an idea of NATO-Russia missile defense cooperation? Much is going to depend, first of all, on the Russian attitudes. And at this point, it's probably not easy to be optimistic. I try to understand where Russia is going on missile defense, and it seems to me that there are maybe two or three reasons that explain their reluctance to engage in a more cooperative approach, quite apart from the general deterioration in political rations. One is, I think the Russians have a certain fear about American missile defense capabilities and the potential. Even if they understand some of the limits of current American missile defense programs, the Russians give great credit to American technical proudness and our ability to do things. When I was assigned to American Embassy Moscow in 1986 and had the arms control portfolio in the embassy, I think it's fair to say the Soviets at that point were still somewhat panicked that the strategic defense initiative was going to put them out of the ballistic missile business. And there are still that lingers that the Americans can do a lot if they put their minds to it. I think a second point is also that there are bureaucratic reasons in Russia that argue against cooperation. I think there are some in the Ministry of Defense who don't want to cooperate because they can hold up an opposing American missile defense program as a vehicle to secure more resources for the Russian S300, S400 and S500 programs. And then finally an additional impediment to talking to the Russians about cooperation in Europe is that at one level that's going to mean the Russians having to accept that there will be American military infrastructure in Romania and Poland. And that's something that in general they've opposed since NATO enlargement began 20 years ago. But also the ability to reach some kind of a get back to a more cooperative discussion with Russia is going to depend on how far and how fast the U.S. proceeds on missile defense. I would argue that missile defense against a limited ICBM attack against the United States, such as might be mounted in the future by a North Korea-Iran is a sensible part of an overall American force mix. But it seems to be that when you look at dealing with a larger scale attack such as might be mounted by either Russia or China, offense still has the advantage over defense. And as one example, I would note that the plan to deploy 14 additional interceptors in Alaska is going to cost roughly $1 billion. My guess is either Russia or China could add 14 additional offensive missile warheads for significantly less. But at least until at some point there may be a technological breakthrough that changes that equation, but it's not immediately evident now. And therefore it seems to me that if you want to get back to something like a more cooperative discussion with the Russians on this, which is going to require moving past the very difficult point we find in the broader relationship, reassuring the Russians that our intention is not aimed at blunting a Russian missile attack is going to be key to a more productive discussion. Thanks very much. So we'll keep the conversation going. I think I'll kick it off actually with a comment about an article that you wrote this past, I think it was maybe 10 days ago or so, on the limits of missile defense, it was kind of the anniversary of the 32nd anniversary of STI. And you gave a history of, in a way, how the expectations are relatively modest for missile defense in the big scheme of things, the offense, defense, trade-off, and that sort of thing. Reminded to me of a comment by Condi Rice during the Bush administration where she said, you know, what we're pursuing is not, it's not Star Wars. It's not the Sun of Star Wars. It's not even the Grand Sun of Star Wars. It's so different. And so in a way, I'm struck by, you know, why is it that the Russia thing keeps recurring? Why do we need to worry about reassuring Russia when it is so limited after all? So let me throw that to you first of all. And should we be, should we in a way should we be even having that conversation? Like I guess I would say, I mean, you don't want to reassure Russia for the reason it would be to try to reassure Russia is to enable you to achieve other things. If you could find a way to diffuse missile defense as a problem, does that make it easier for Russia to address issues such as further nuclear reductions? You've had over the last three years, I think the Russians, in my view, have for whatever reason concluded they don't want to proceed beyond the New START Treaty at this point in time in terms of nuclear reductions. So they've linked missile defense, they've linked prompt global strike, they've linked third com-tree nuclear forces, three or four others probably, but they have these linkages and they haven't moved to solve any one of those problems. So it seems to be aimed at providing a pretext for why they shouldn't do more on nuclear reductions. And so if you could get this to a more serious discussion, could you find a way to remove missile defense as a problem? And I think that would be one reason for assurance. And again, there might be advantages that you could get back to a cooperative made of Russia. I mean, you could take an issue which has been contentious and as difficult as it would appear now, perhaps make it a cooperative element in the West Russia relationship. Yeah, I don't have anything too much to add to what Steve had to say. I think he's essentially right. But let me go back to a point that Steve mentioned in his remarks about Russian concerns. I would say that the Russians aren't especially concerned about the current level of US missile defense capabilities. They know that 44 long range interceptors are not going to negate their strategic deterrent. What they are really concerned about is what comes next and the fact that there are no legally binding limitations on numbers and more importantly, the potential for US technology to leap ahead. I remember an interaction I had with a very senior Russian general and he was giving a briefing showing US Aegis ships in the Baltic shooting down Russian strategic missiles. And I looked at him and I said, general, that's a very interesting slide. Can I ask you a question? And the question is this, how fast are you attributing that sea-based missile defense interceptor? And he looked at me in all seriousness and he said, well, I believe it has a velocity burnout of 10 kilometers per second. Now, there has never been a missile defense or any rocket that has a velocity burnout of 10 kilometers a second. And I said, well, general, if you can find me a sea-based missile defense interceptor that has a velocity burnout of 10 kilometers a second, please let me know because I want to buy stock in that company. And his response was very telling. He goes, you may not be there today, but you'll eventually get there. And that's really the driver of their concern because quite frankly, the Russians are much more dependent on nuclear weapons and their strategy and doctrine than we are in the United States. If you look at the history of US nuclear policy and doctrine over the last 25 years through Democrat and Republican presidents, the objective has been to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our strategy. It's been the exact opposite with regards to Russia. And from the Russian point of view, missile defenses and the potential for even more advanced missile defenses call into question, not just from a technical perspective but a political perspective, the viability of their deterrent. And that's fundamentally what the Russian concern is. I wonder if you might speak a little bit more in a way what, okay, put aside for a moment, where the technology might leapfrog to 10 years from now in that kind of world. But what more ought we be doing in Europe, in the Middle East and Asia? You alluded to some of that in a way, the activities. How much more can we work with allies in a way to alleviate our own burdens? We're putting a good part of our own budget towards regional missile defenses, potentially one might say the expensive homeland. What can we do to boost up our allies further? Well, I would say there are a couple of things. First and foremost, interoperability. I talked about this in my opening statement. It's one thing to have a missile defense system. It's another to ensure that we can share information amongst our systems and with our allies. So I think that has got to be a number one priority. And we're actually making a good deal of progress in that area. Second, we can encourage our allies to develop their own and purchase capabilities. I understand that we are in tight budgetary times, but I think there are useful things that we can do with our allies to leverage existing capabilities. For example, the Netherlands has what on their air defense frigate radar called the smart L. And they have announced a decision to invest several hundred million euros to upgrade that radar. So fundamentally, the more information we can share and take advantage of existing capabilities, I think that is really where the focus needs to be. All right, any comments on that? Why don't we open it up to the floor and please state your affiliation and ask in the interrogative sense. Well, I'm a retired DOD, former missile defense agency employee, but I have been working the last few years exploring this concept of interoperability. And you know, even in the DOD, interoperability is defined as more than just exchange or sharing of information. It's the ability to use that information for operational effectiveness. So since you mentioned it a number of times and you've alluded to it when you talk about things we've tried to do and even when missile defense, we've done a little bit in the C in the command and control area with Russia, as you know. Where is the champion or the center of gravity or the interagency effort that's looking at interoperability from the point of view of say, policy of processes, as well as the IT where you exchange and share information. And I might add an FMS to that as well. Yeah, you know, fundamentally, I think it's a partnership between DOD and state. I think there is a general recognition across most senior level folks who work these issues both in DOD and state that this is where we need to do a better job. And I think we have made some progress over the past couple of years. That said, is there a lot more work to do to make us effective in this area? Absolutely. But are we doing things to ensure that we can share more information? Number one and two, effectively use that information. I think the answer is yes. I talked in my remarks about the US Japan Defense Cooperation Guidelines. We hope to finalize that soon. And one of the key elements in there, we hope, is increased ways that we can work together effectively in the area of missile defense. Over here in the back. It's coming, just one second. James Kiesling, US AT&L and CAPE. I have a fundamental question. Is either the ambassadors aware that the Putin 2007 offer was actually a re-up of a US offer put together by Dr. Bill Frederick working for BMDO in 1997 and provided over to the Russians in 1998, specifically one major motivation on the part of the Russians maybe, that they felt that we disowned our own offer? Well, I have worked missile defense cooperation between the US and Russia in the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. And quite frankly, despite a lot of politics, there's a certain amount of continuity in US offers to the Russians. I'm not specifically aware of that specific proposal that you mentioned back in 1997. But what I would say is that across the spectrum of administrations on the US side, there have been very similar proposals to work with the Russians on missile defense cooperation. Unfortunately, none have worked because we always, at the end, come to the challenge of Russia wants guarantees in limitations on US missile defenses. And I think that makes cooperation very, very difficult. And I think that goes back to the problem that you had in 2007 was the Russian offer of data from both Darbala and Armageddon I think was very attractive. But the price of getting access to that Russian radar data would be foregoing the planned deployments of interceptors in Poland. And so you have to ask the question. And if you have the data that shows the missiles coming, but you've given up the interceptors, you really, I think, have negated the plan, which was to provide some missile defense capability. Richard, in front. And suddenly a microphone appears. Thank you. So I want to bridge between the points you were making and ask about the potential effect of having the EPAA deployments take place at the end of this year and then again in 2018 timeframe. And if we remain consistent with our principle of transparency and we say, hey, this is what we told you we're going to do. This is what we're doing. This is as far as we're going. Obviously, it's threat dependent. And over time, and I'm discounting the Ukraine mess right now because that's stopping everything from going forward, do you, Steve, or you, Frank, perceive the possibility that Russia's level of anxiety might diminish as they see that we are, in fact, doing what we said we're going to do and not going to 10,000 interceptors with VBOs of 10, et cetera? Or do you anticipate that the anxiety will not change despite the fact that we have been consistent and been transparent and told them exactly what we're going to do or is that a basis for maybe ratcheting down the anxiety and maybe thinking about something because this is really designed to avoid instability, miscalculation, drawing responses that we would not think are in our interest, et cetera? Well, I think the first question is do the Russians wish to have their anxieties relieved? And I think this is the distinction between the anxieties that they portray and the anxieties that they really feel. And my guess would be is that the smarter people in the Ministry of Defense who understand this have a fairly good appreciation for what our missile defenses can do and what they can't do, albeit, I think, Frank's exactly right, there is that fears, what will the Americans come up with 10, 15 years down the road? But there's that distinction between their real understanding of what we can do and what they have chosen to portray. Now, sometimes I think it's kind of interesting. I think they actually get themselves caught up a little bit where they begin to talk so much about missile defenses and then you have Deputy Prime Minister Rogozin and it comes out periodically and talks about their new ICBM which is the killer of missile defenses. So they're trying to modulate this message which is on the one hand a message, I think, targeted primarily, the Americans are doing things, they're making us concerned, it's contributing to a bad relationship and what is it really getting you in terms of missile defense protection? But then they have to go back and reassure the domestic audience that the Americans have these missile defenses and we're worried, but don't worry too much because we have the ICBMs that can penetrate it. So I think the real question comes down to is, are the Russians prepared to have those concerns allayed? And if they are, my guess is that it would not be hard to come up with ways to do it. The only thing I would add is that in addition to the technical concerns that the Russians have about the future capabilities of US missile defense systems, they're also concerned about the permanent presence of American military capabilities in Eastern Europe and a lot of their concerns are driven by this. Although what they've done over the last year I think it's pretty much they've taken care of that issue. I think the Pentagon term is that we now have, as I understand, four company size units in each of the Baltic states and Poland and the Pentagon explains it as a persistent deployment. My guess is persistent doesn't have much difference from permanent and that those deployments are going to be there until you see a fairly major change in Russia given the force that Russia has used in Ukraine, some of the rhetoric that's coming out of Moscow now and the fact that you see heightened military activities like Russian bombers flying all around NATO airspace. Let me say two things. One, I think we heard a lot this earlier this afternoon from both General Todorov and Dazdi Bun that missile defense is becoming less exotic. It's one piece of a much larger portfolio of capabilities, et cetera. It's also becoming very firmly entrenched in how we think about our national security. It's not going away. So even though it's not the silver bullet, it's key and critical. So in a way, notwithstanding the insincerity, you might say, strategic insincerity on the Russians and some of these things, what if you might speak, especially both of you, about in a way the changing perception among everybody else, among our allies, for example, about just the appetite for missile defenses. There seems to be a lot of it. In the Middle East, they're putting real dollars behind it. Certainly in Asia, NATO was part of the 2010 strategic concept. That is going to be rewritten sometime in the near future and it probably not giving me any less. So where do you see the appetite for all this going? Only up, especially as the threat continues to increase. Sometimes here in the United States, we try to separate missile defense from our larger national security strategy. And I think one of the things that the Ballistic Missile Defense Review from 2010 does a really good job at is putting missile defense at the heart of our overarching national security strategies. Quite frankly, effective missile defenses are a key enabling technology for our other defense in foreign policy goals, especially as countries try to keep and deploy capabilities to keep the United States out of regions. It is a key enabler. So I think cooperation is going to continue to expand and I also think that, again, missile defense is a key element of our overarching national security and defense strategy. Any thoughts on that? All right. Bruce, the back. Hi, again, Bruce McDonald, Federation American Scientist, Peace Institute, Johns Hopkins Science. Russia has said multiple times over the last several years that they're gonna develop more missile defense and that's of interest to us at work. We're doing on what's looking a little bit more, looking into the future is more like a multi-polar missile defense world, US, China, Russia, India. Of course they say that they will. So my questions to our esteemed guests here, that what have you heard Russians say about what they plan to do on missile defense and more importantly, what do you believe? What's bluster, what's beef, what are they up to? That's a good question. Maybe Steve has some more insights on that. I've been trying to ask myself this question for many years. Well, I think there's a disconnect you see between the way they talk about American missile defense and when you look at Russian missile defense programs. The S-300, the S-400, the S-500 are all basically designed to replicate capabilities that we have in PAC-3, that and the SM-3. So it's not unusual for the Russians to say one thing and do something else, but I think they're looking at these sorts of missile defense capabilities as a logical part of their force mix. In the back. Greg Tillman, Arms Control Association. Frank, you mentioned the importance of the SM-3 to A deployments in Poland by 2018 for providing territorial defense for all of Europe. There has not been yet an Iranian ICBM flight test. There's not been a North Korean ICBM flight test. That would by my calculations mean that this threat is 12 years overdue from the Rumsfeld Commission's prediction. When does the more slowly developing threat start to impact the adaptive part of the European phase adaptive approach? Well, that's a good question. I would say the SM-3 Block 2A, which will be deployed in Poland in the 2018 timeframe is not designed to deal with ICBM class threats, but medium and intermediate range threats. You may recall back in 2013, the administration just decided to restructure the SM-3 Block 2B missile for a variety of reasons. Technological challenges, financial challenges, and a number of other problems, but the bottom line is phase three of the European EPAA is designed to deal with medium and intermediate range threats. And I would note that despite the fact that Iran has not yet developed a ICBM today, they are continuing to develop medium and intermediate range class ballistic missiles. And therefore we are working with our friends and partners to deal with that threat. And presumably stay ahead of it. And presumably stay ahead of it. Gentlemen in the front. Edwardi of Georgetown University. I was the last US commissioner for the ABM Treaty, so I have mixed memories of all these issues. Let me come back to the question of why are the Russians being so obstinate here. The fundamental problem, it seems to me, is that all of the US assurances are in the present tense. We are not. But almost by definition, assurances have to be in the future tense. We will not. And that's what the Russians are asking for. And that's what we've been unable to do, find a sentence that begins with we will not and then finish it in some way that we can live with. Seems to me that really is our fundamental problem. Thank you. As you noted, it's been the administration's hard policy not to agree to any legally binding restrictions. Or other limitations. Exactly that way, yeah. Let me say a couple of things. One, we're not just looking at... Well, we're not looking at Russia when we're dealing with our missile defenses. We're looking at other capabilities. And quite frankly, sometimes we are surprised. For example, two years ago when we made the decision to deploy the additional 14 GBIs in Alaska, that was driven by the fact that North Korea had paraded a new mobile ICBM. And we had not seen that before. So I would say, number one, we need to have the flexibility to deal with surprises like North Korea's new mobile ICBM. Secondly, the US budget process is fairly transparent. You can, by reading the Missile Defense Agency's annual press release when the budget comes up, you can determine where and how many missile defense capabilities that we currently have and plan to have. And I would argue that the US missile defense levels have been very structured to the threat. You're not seeing hundreds of long range missile defense interceptors. You are seeing 44. So I think, quite frankly, we're not going to agree to limitations, but if you look at our budget projections as well as our deployments, I think it's very, very consistent with our rhetoric. Yeah, I think, I understand the dilemma as you describe it. But therefore it's a little bit surprising for me that the Russians didn't pick up more on this idea that the administration offered in 2013 a transparency, which actually would have put, at least as I understood the proposal, would have laid out here the plans looking out 10 years, here the numbers. So they would have had not limits, but they would have had a very clear picture at a time where I think the numbers of missile defense interceptors would still have been way below anything they would have posed to Russian strategic ballistic missile capabilities. And so you could have handled that problem that way. Now, later on, if you got into, defenses go up and offenses come down, then I think you may have to take a look at the question of legally binding trigger limits if you want to get further reductions. But the Russians didn't seem to pick up on that idea, at least have not so far. But we're not there yet. I think we're going to cut it off there. We're going to go in five minutes for another panel. Our final panel will be Mr. Rich Matlock. And also Admiral Archer Macy, and that'll be on future directions about technological and otherwise. So please five minutes and we'll be back for that. Thank you gentlemen, both of you. Appreciate it. Thank you.


BREED! Uh, Mr. President, thank you. At the end of such a momentous event, the word thank you seems kind of inadequate. But for all the millions whose lives will be saved, for the communities where life will be transformed, thank you. So thank you, President Biden, for your outstanding...  Clearly, Joe Biden is completely in control of his faculties, and anybody saying otherwise is obviously a right-wing Republican extremist. What's this mobilization of miscalculation? Thank you, guys. Thank you, guys. Thank you, guys. Thank you, guys. Was this mobilization a sign that Putin is losing the war? Thank you so much. Please continue moving towards the exit.


Hey, welcome back to Think Tech. I'm Jay Fidel. This is Global Connections, and we're connecting with Monty Condacar, who is our reporter, a global reporter, if you will, in New York, who covers things like this, what happened here in Surrey, in British Columbia, and it can help us understand what happened. What happened is Mr. Seng Nijab was assassinated, killed, murdered on June 18th of this year, and it, it ruined it around and then it got really exciting, excited in the, in the press. And most recently, it's become a diplomatic issue. So we have to have the history about the, what, on jobbies. We have to have the history of why India, people in India, maybe governments in India care about this, and what were the circumstances of the assassination. It's very important we know about what happened here. Welcome to the show, Monty. Aloha, Jay, and lovely to have the, and to meet you back again so fast. So let's talk about the Nijab issue, which has sensationalized the headlines and to know the history about it. So you can't take the issue on its face unless you understand what is the issue about. So let's go, Jay. It's going to be a fun episode. Okay, tell us about the history. We need to know, you know, the entire background of what happened so we can appreciate the circumstances. Okay, go. Yeah. So, Jay, when Justin Trudeau stands up in parliament and blames agents all through the Indian government to kill, assassinate Nijab, it was a direct attack on the government, isn't it? It was sensational that somebody standing up and blaming a democratic government for assassination. So now I'll just tell you in brief the history of the Kalistan movement. Now the Kalistan movement seeks to create an independent Sikh state. Now Sikh is a community in which they tie the turban. They have the five sacred caves, that is the Kirpa and the Keshe, the long hair. And they have these particular five feasts, which they follow. And so they are known as Sikh. Okay. But this Sikh, which is calling for the creation of an independent Kalistan state out of the Punjab state, already existing Punjab state of India. Now my mom told me this, that 70% of the Punjab state was given to Pakistan during partition. And 20, 30% has taken back in India. 30% only 54% are Sikh community in India. The rest of the different communities that live in India. Out of 54% Jay, there is a huge chunk of Sikh people who have given up their lives for India. Their gurus are held, held sacred by all Indians alike, you know, Modi has celebrated Vir Balandrivas for their guru. I mean, there is no discrimination between a Sikh and a Hindu. In 1970, this idea was given by Dr. Javjit Chauhan, a Sikh who was living in Canada and he called himself president of Kalistan and started printing out currency and passports. Now you see, when you talk like this, that it's my state, it's a Kalistan state in exile and I'm going to print my own passport and my own currency. That means you're starting a separatist movement. Correct. So now when you see this Kalistan movement finds very little resonance with Sikhs in India, there are no takers for this in India. That's why we don't have sensationalization of this issue as much in India as it is outside. For Sikhs in India, loyalty to the country is as important. They don't support this extremist issue of creating a state out of an existing country. How can you carve it out? And when you say they want to carve out the state, their history is painted with blood. Why? Because they were involved in the assassination of Chief Minister Biyan of Punjab. Assassination of Indra Ran, her bodyguard was of Sikh community and he supported the Kalistan movement and he shot her with, I mean, a flurry of bullets. Now Jay, a couple of weeks back, there was a float in Canada, in June, there was a float in Canada which showed the assassination of Prime Minister Indra Ran, the Indian government objected to this and wrote to Trudeau, no, stop this. So he replied that it is freedom of expression. Okay. And then, you see, Indra Ran was the one in 1982, she had asked for the extradition of a Kalistani activist known as Parmar. So this, Justin Trudeau's father, Pierre Trudeau, refused because he said allegiance of the Indians to the Kuwait was not enough. They were just recognizing her as the head of the state and not of the like, it was just a constitutional head, not a real head. So they did not have allegiance, so we will not extradite Parmar. And Parmar was the one who was involved in the hijacking of Air India. And that disaster was the biggest airline disaster before 1911 and it killed T28 on board 286 of Canadian citizens. So you see assassination of a Chief Minister of a state, assassination of a Prime Minister of a country, the falling of Air India, one entire airplane, they are not peace-loving movement, it's not a peace-loving movement. The movement was crushed in India by a Sikh himself, KPS Gill, and he was very shrewd in his encounters and he made sure that this movement does not exist in India. Now, when we see that Nijjar, the person who is killed, you know, Trudeau presents him as a plumber. So it's his day job, but he is visiting Pakistan and getting funding from the ISI of Pakistan. It's like always, he was the Chief of the band, Kalistan Tiger Force, TKT Ed. Now these are facts, it's like, you know, the port is all over the newspaper, it's like calling Osama an engineer. Same way, Nijjar was a plumber, but what is he doing? He's using the Gurdwara, which is a place of worship. I had explained to you in COVID times, Landar is used to help people. So a Sikh community and Indian community are no different, they are one and the same, but this Kalistan movement has taken a whole new meaning because they're using the same Gurdwara as meeting points and now it's a movement of profit, ego, and there is a lot of, what do you say, it's extremism and any man who's extremist or a separatist cannot be supported by a democratic government. Now let's bring in why Justin Trudeau is supporting this, you know, because he has 11 seat support from Kalistani Jagmeet Singh of Canada, who is very much a supporter of the Kalistan movement. Justin Trudeau's government is supporting because of this 11 seat support from Jagmeet Singh. So he is the one who drives Justin's support for the Kalistan movement. Now the National Security Agency of India, when it declares a one million rupee reward on Nijjar, I mean he is a terrorist, he is wanted, he is wanted by the Interpol in 2012, he's gone to Pakistan occupied Kashmir, he's collected Pakistan occupied Punjab, collected funds and come to India. You know, this is going on death years because he was just presented as a Canadian citizen, when did he become a Canadian citizen, he became after he was illegally staying in Canada for five to ten years. I mean, this guy has got a shady past and future and present. So leave that aside, okay, we agree. But the day Justin Trudeau says that Nijjar has been killed by agents of state and government, the very next day another Kalistani leader was killed, okay, and a rival guy from Lawrence Bishnoi came responsibility that we killed him. So immediately the very next day, a same killing of the same order takes place and it's rival gang. Now the investigating agency for Nijjar's killing had let out a call that to everybody, please if anybody has leads, please come and inform us. Is this credible enough that Justin Trudeau gets up in parliament and talks from government to government? It's not, I feel it's not. He should let evidence come up and then talk. Now he should have that he's got it from the Five Eyes Intelligence Network, that is US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada. These are the five countries who make up the Five Eyes Intelligence Network. But CJ, none of them are coming out in pure support of him. They all are asking for a thorough investigation. So as prime minister of a country, you have to wait for credible conclusions, not credible evidence before you point fingers at the government. And not only did he stand up and say this, he dismissed a diplomat, Indian diplomat. He issued a travel advisory. India replied in kind. And third was where he said that his statement India has now understood that it cannot, the Khalistan movement is in Canada. So their properties which are in India are the right of the Indian government. They sealed it. The bank accounts are sealed. The properties which were, you know, in flamboyant properties in India, they are taken away by the government and Canadians are not allowed to enter India. So India can do its best to protect itself from this kind of separatist movement. You cannot allow somebody who is capable of assassinating the head of the country to come in. I mean, they are violent. And it's a very minor minority which is dealing with huge funding, Jay, huge funding in the sense that I'll tell you when there was a farmer's bill that was passed. These guys gave three million dollars to Rihanna for a single tweet. So this is the kind of money that is flowing in. And Pannu, another leader who's over there, he's in America, but he talks about the next day that Trudeau says this, he gets up on an issue, blurt it out that all Hindus should leave Canada immediately. So there is no flamboyant down by the government on it. So what about Justin Trudeau risking the lives of the many Hindus that stay there? Now Indians are not just Sikh, Indians are not just Hindus. Indians are a huge community of different, different faiths and religions and everybody and they are working population. Now when India refused to grant visas to Canadians, Justin Trudeau cannot reply in kind and say, we do not issue visas to Indians. Tell me why? Because a huge chunk of Canadian economy depends on skilled Indian labour and Indian students. So it's a source of income for the Canadian government, this skilled labour and students in Punjab, they almost sell their land and they go over there. In many states, they go for a better life and everything, but now the taxation, the mortgage, everything is making life so difficult over there. You have skilled labourers who's going for cab driving and all that. So standard of living is not that high as it was portrayed to be. But still, making Canada to support the Kalistan movement is as good as going against the Indian government and when you are supporting the Kalistan government, opposite, overly you're blaming the Indian government that you killed this naja without any credible evidence J. They still do not have conclusive evidence. He is just saying, come into the investigation, but where? Where do you come in? I mean, there has to be a point in which you say that these people who are involved and diplomats are being threatened. The same situation happened in Australia. Our temples are being vandalized in Canada. The same situation happened in Australia. And when he had come in, the Australian Prime Minister had come in, Mr. Mopati had requested him to take care of the Kalistan movement. He cracked down on extremists. It doesn't mean you cracked down on everybody, but he cracked down on them and he gave protection to the temples, he gave protection to the council. That is the way to go about it. Not say that. And I told you, it is World Bank politics. Jagmeet Singh, the pro-Khalistani leader who's given 11 support, 11 seats support to Trudeau is the one who's driving his pro-Khalistan tactics. This is a little history on it. Well, you know, the only thing I saw in the newspaper that suggested it was the Indian government was this leap of logic about the fact that there were two automobiles involved in the killing and half a dozen people were involved. And I guess, you know, of course, the historical background here in crime suggests that India is not happy with this recession, its movement. However, that's really not enough to reach a conclusion that it was the Indian government that set it up. So this investigation is going to be pretty hard because it doesn't sound like there's any real evidence connecting it with the Indian government.  This is not something that the Indian government would do. The Indian government doesn't do this. No absence. The very next stage, the very next day Sukka, equal leader as Nijjar, he was killed.  It's it's up on Google. Just Google Nijjar and you see him with the AK-47. Is he a plumber? And what are you talking? It's very difficult to say that he's just a plumber and gang war and gang war.  There is a lot of profit which is being made. See, you can't say that I will carve out an Orthodox Christian state fictional name out of Texas.  I mean, you just you can't say, okay, I can't do that because that's a fully functional state with a democratic setup and it's working as a federal under the federal government. There is a lot of machinery in world interest. How can you carve it and give it? Already a state called Pakistan has been carved out of India during our independence. After that, it's a fictional motivation that is kept in front of youth. They're given a lot of money for it. And this extremism is jingoism in which you feel that maybe I can take part in it but it's not possible. I told you issuing passports and currency of a fictional state, it doesn't make any sense. No. So what I get is that there's an undercurrent of racism with Trudeau against and maybe others you know in Canada who just don't like Indians, period. Yes. And this is a way for them to express that racism. Surrey in British Columbia is largely Indian, all kinds of Indians, but all kinds of Indians and it suggests to me that Trudeau made a huge mistake here, a series of mistakes. Would you agree that his public statements and his actions on the act of the Canadian government were a series of mistakes? Absolutely, absolutely yes, yes, yes. And particularly yes because Jay, he is making the biggest mistake of his life by thinking that this Kalistani Sikhs make up the entire Indian population. Kalistani Sikhs do not make up even the Sikh population.  It's never, you cannot separate a Hindu and a Sikh. They're together. I mean there is no distinction in our style of praying, our style of eating, our style of living. It's the same. There is no difference. And see our army, and I told you the person who thwarted the movement in Kalista, in Punjab, of Kalistani movement in Punjab was himself KPS Gill, given the highest honours in India. Sardarji are respected with a lot of, they have, they're cherished in Indian society. And the gurus, we have the gurus which are revered amongst the Hindu community itself. So there is no distinction. But Trudeau is thinking there is such a massive support for the Kalistani movement that he can get away with this, but he doesn't understand. He's putting our Hindu population itself at risk over there. The rest of the population who are not supporting the Kalistani's are at risk. Now you see they have these yellow flags. They take the tri-colour and they kick it around. They hit Modi's effigies. So this kind of extremism is uncalled for, but you see on the opposite side of the road, you will see Indians with tri-colours trying to say that no, we support India. Kalistani is a separatist movement. It's a full stop on that. You can't say that a separatist movement is good or separatist movement is bad. A separatist movement which has tainted itself with extremism and violence is never important. In part, the press has created this because it's reminiscent of what happened to Khashoggi in Istanbul a few years ago. And in that case, Saudi was clearly responsible that the BMS organized it and they killed Khashoggi at his instructions. And that pretty much has come out. And although Trump bypassed that and forgave him, fact is that it's clear enough that Saudi did that. So the press is reminiscing on what happened in Turkey with Khashoggi. Furthermore, there's been all this criticism of the police. Now this assassination took place on June 18th. June 18th is a long time ago. And it was looking under the hood and there were those people who had an agenda and they were trying to make a claim that the police were burying this and the police did not respond and the police did not investigate. So you get a kind of reminiscence of the American issue about how the police are at fault for failing to investigate. And I think the press makes much more of that than they should. I haven't found anything to suggest that the RCMP or the Surrey Police are trying to bury this. But the press is making that that annexing. So what you would have is a whole bunch of factors that on cleaning through dough make a big thing of it. And that makes it political, doesn't it? He's willing us to satisfy some political group that is trying to animate the issue. Am I right? Right.  Modi is a pan India elected member of 1.4 billion people who were popularly voted him into power and Nijjar had no personal enmity with Modi. There was no one on one with Modi to equate Khashoggi's murder with Nijjar's killing. There's a big war in gang war between Nijjar's people and the opponents over there. The Bolivar, Lawrence Vishnoi, these are the names who who are the gang war people, rival gangs. You can't involve a prime minister who's democratically elected and present him to be a authoritarian because he's not. He has been popularly ill-tected by 1.4 billion people, majority democracy at its best at its peak. I mean, people have accepted him. People have chosen him. He works for the people. Nijjar has no personal vendetta with Modi that Modi will order agents of the government to go and kill him. NIA, the national investigation agency, declared him a terrorist in 2000, went to the Interpol there and got him declared. He was declared by the Interpol. He was declared a terrorist by the Interpol. So when Justin Trudeau talks about rule of the law and rule abiding states and order of the world, he should understand India as one who follows the rule-based global order. It has never gone outside the global order. And Jay, this happened in June. Trudeau was in Delhi a few days, a couple of weeks back. He could have spoken this to Modi, but you know the tantrums that happened with Justin Trudeau. It gives a big sign of his nervousness. He was allotted the lila hotlet for his entourage and he was given the presidential suite. He refused to take the presidential suite and he said, I want a smaller room. I didn't want to stay in the presidential suite, but the diplomatic logistics, they had given bulletproof glass and the necessary big baths about the welcome, but he refused it. And then when his plane broke down, he stayed an extra two days in India. Now a head of state who has got two days to while away in India, when Modi offered him Air India One to go back, he refused. I mean, it shows a lot of disrespect. It shows a lot of distrust. Well, where we are right now is in a low M in terms of diplomatic relationship, the national relationship between Canada and India. I never would have thought this would happen. I would have thought two democracies, they got to get along and appreciate and understand each other, not attack each other this way. So we've examined how Prudeau made mistakes in terms of dealing with this and his public statements about it and his actions about it. But what about Modi? I mean, is he responsible for the decline in the relationship between Canada and India? Is there anything else he could have done better to avoid this low M that we have now? In this case, Jay, Justin Trudeau made the statement, Justin Trudeau withdrew the diplomats and he issued the travel advisory. Three aggressive moves by Justin Trudeau. And India has not done anything aggressive against just given a tit for tat and issued an advisory that we will not issue any visa to the Canadians. And these OCI's which are given, you know why?  No, I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why. Because I'll tell you why. Because these people are capable of assassinations, sensational assassinations, because they need to grab headlines, they need to grab media attention. So now, driven by the support of a Canadian government premier, they are going to send people who will try to come in and create havoc with bombings, hijackings. So the entry of people in this phase has to be vetted very prominently. Otherwise, it's a it's a security hazard to India itself. Because we had so many people going and coming in. Now who will come in after this are going to be fueled by anger, by vengeance. They want to see something sensational happen. And Justin Trudeau has just given a right amount of gasoline to light up such a fire. So yeah, Shane. How is this going to play out?  Can't Narendra Modi do something to hold a situation to resolve this tension to explain to Trudeau and the people, you know, that this this is not an appropriate conclusion to make. And it's not appropriate in terms of diplomatic relations. We in the West cannot afford to have Canada arguing with India. And India can afford to be arguing with Canada, because Canada kind of represents the West. So what can we do to pull this off? Jay Mubali did the thing that he could that he has taken over there the land that they own in India. He has not done anything offensive against Canada. Now there but Trudeau has done something directly pointing fingers at the government of India. Here Modi in no words has said that I will this is the government of Canada has one statement, one line coming from Modi. No, because you have Justin Trudeau repeating his statement, backing his statement. Where is the credible evidence? I mean, there was two words which is very basic and they have to give the credible evidence before you point out at a country and of the West.  But Canada trying to garner the support of the other five states because Australia has faced a Kalistan movement in Australia, but they had cornered it very well. They gave it in control. Rishi Sona UK, they had cornered the Kalistan movement in UK. But Trudeau refuses to touch the Kalistan movement, acceptable that he is refusing ignore it, ignore it, but don't support them. When he supports it, he is going against the Indian government because it's a separatist government against the government of India. So Jay is taking very direct action, Trudeau is taking unparalleled for its non-diplomat. First part, first is non-diplomatic to talk about a country like that, that agents of the country, I mean, he could not make about a Jewish person.  I mean, he did not vet information about the Nazi who has caused, he was a big part in the Holocaust. So I mean, he doesn't vet his information. He doesn't think before he speaks. He still seems young, relative to Pierre, he still seems young. Is the press in Canada explaining this to him? Or is the press also pouring fuel on the fire? Pierre Trudeau was very mature when he made the decision not to extradite Parmar that time. He caused the assassinations. And Trudeau is also a mature man. He knows what he should do, but vote politics, everything. I mean, at one point of time, you understand that this man is not thinking a lot before he speaks today. He's causing a lot of problems, a lot of, there was a G20 which happened, global meet that happened. He could have easily raised it in a bilateral. JD, in October they have, Canada has a big trade agreement meeting with India. He could have raised it one-on-one that time. There are many avenues to raise this issue, but to raise it in this cannot be just nullified as immaturity. There is a lot of thinking to it because he is pleasing Jagmeet Singh. He's pleasing the Kalistan movement, thinking that they will support him, but Kalistan is not India. Kalistan is not Sikhs and Sikhs are part of India. Kalistan is not a part of India. Kalistanis can never be a part of India. It will fall soft soon, but you know, something that we talked about a few minutes ago troubles me and that is that, you know, this is not just between India and Canada. India is part of BRICS. You know, there's this whole movement in the world going on about dividing up, you know, the east and the west, and you and I have talked about that before. And so the question is, where does the US and US allies in Europe, for example, fit on this? Are they going to support Trudeau, however right or wrong he is, or are they going to support India and Modi? Are they going to get involved in the public conversation about it? Are they going to let these two guys think it out? Are they going to let this movement run rampant over western Canada? Are they going to get involved in some kind of solution? Or are they just not treating that as the global divisiveness that is growing among nations? Yes, the immediate reaction of the Indian government was that the Justin Trudeau statements are absurd and motivate. And the US said that we will wait out for the investigation to happen and India will be part of the interrogation of whatever they want. And nobody in issues, there's been no refusal from India to say that we will not be part of an investigation. But show us where we have to be part of. That was the statement. Australia, UK refuse to come in, Australia and UK refuse to come in between this. So the western countries are taking it on the prema facing, or rather they're taking the history to account and they are keeping the hands a little bit away from Trudeau right now for supporting Trudeau. Because just by using words like rule of the law and order-based system, these are not words you can use in front of the world's largest democracy, which has functioned very impeccably for as long as it existed. I mean, sure, like what you have seen, India going to violence in another country. We have faced wars inside our country, but we have never gone and you know, attacked any country. So this kind of top that India is the history shitter in assassinations or anything is, is absurd, really absurd. And in a matter of two weeks, he's up China, he's up Russia, he's up India. I mean, what is he trying to do? He's trying to divide east and west. What is he trying to do? So getting Zelsinski to Canada, getting a Nazi who martyred so many Jews into the house of compromise and giving him standing ovation twice, a convoy to support Zelsinski, which is larger than a Biden's convoy. I mean, he was the one who requested Modi to, he insisted not request, insisted that Zelsinski be part of the G20. But Jay, the G20 was such a big agenda, this time they wanted to resolve it. They wanted to, you know, there were, there were already so many invitees. So, and the statement was unanimously passed. So getting Zelsinski could have caused a bit of hustle in that. So they refused his insistence and he made it very clear that he was not accepting of the G20. He was very grumpy the whole time. Did you see his videos? So I mean, Justin Trudeau was carrying a grudge against Cynthia for a very long time. He needed to vent it out. But he went it out by supporting an extremist, violent, highly dysfunctional movement, which is not Indian, which is not sick, and which is not supported by anybody he's putting life up. Hindus, Indians who are not sick in Canada at risk. And Canada's biggest income of skilled Indian labor and students is definitely going to be closed.  And his statements, his statements he made will linger. Whatever happens in this investigation they're doing, and I suspect the investigation is going to go nowhere. But the state that leaves the relationship of Canada and India and the east and the west for that matter is an ongoing problem that you're right. Putin is happy to see this kind of device. So that means that you and I have to follow this. There are implications yet to come. There are solutions, hopefully, in the wings. And you and I will examine them going forward. Thank you so much, Rootbody. Rootbody Kandekar, our reporter that covers global issues and so well. We'll see you next time soon, Rootbody.


What's up everybody? It's Jason here for jazby's case brace.com This feels top chrome hobby Pikachu number seven with this little one pack break of 2020 top chrome jumbo It's a one pack break around in teams number nine and again The way this works guys randomized customer names teams distribute the hits out of the first pack here that we have here Then at the end of the break we'll randomize the customer names again and a separate dice roll a randomizer And if you match up with a team You win that team numbers one through eight. We'll get a team So randomizer for the pack break first teams and names do the pack break Then we'll go team winners here round of my customer names again Customers in the top eight will get a team from the Phillies down to the Royals So there you go. Let's roll the dice into the pack break first. It's a three and a two for five times one two three four and five ASA One two three four and five Boston Red Sox down to the Philadelphia Phillies You miss one free to us those types ASA with the Red Sox Sean with the Dodgers Christopher freeze with the Angels Margaret the Astros come with the National Sean with the Orioles travels to the Pirates Mike and the Cardinals draw the Rays It's Sean with the Giants Padres travels with the Mariners then with the Marlins Jack with the D-backs Mike with the Rangers Christopher the Tigers travels to the Twins Christopher with the Mets Robert last one module Royals Great with the Indians Cubs ASA with the Reds Come with the Braves Jacob the White Sox Jack with the A's come with the Yankees Michael the Rockies You're all with the Brewers power the Blue Jays and ASA with the Phillies Yeah Rex that all shipped out. It's It's it's crazy because that specific week We've had so many packages and so many customers say where's my stuff at because it's stuck It's that specific week The one you're talking about and you know it sucks because we've had customers tell us who like I've got in packages after that and you know, but Thankfully though one person today message is saying that their package was finally delivered today So maybe it's finally on its way out, but that specific week Rex. Everybody has some stuck packages that week So I don't know what happened with that fulfillment center with that batch that they picked up but Hopefully it gets delivered quickly and no scanning. No, nothing. No, I know that's the one thing Everybody thinks that like we are lying or we forgot to scan them and you know This and that but it's like dude. Oh Who's my head of three? The point for but yeah, it's only gonna get worse, but I mean I Guess we'll just have to do this was how to deal with it tonight and I Gavin Lux All right guys now, let's see I know dude honestly, it's Christmas Townsend be crazy It's like we can't break that month, but we have to you know. All right, so good luck guys Let's see who gets teams now. Remember top eight get a team. Let's roll it and it's a two and a six for eight times one two three four five six seven and eight Sean at the top, so I know Sean's in but who else is in with him? So Sean down to mark congratulations guys So Sean you have the Phillies ace over the Cardinals and Red Sox Christopher You have the raised jack with the Brewers Christopher the Rockies Travis of the Twins and Mark with the Royals And there you go guys the rest of you guys all the way down to Mike Unfortunately, you guys are not part of the break, but appreciate it coming up next. Oh guys is Chrome hobby he went to number seven