السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته. Welcome to Echqam SOS to show that discusses Islamic duties and practices by His Eminence, the Grand Artist of Saeed Sadik Sharazi Hafathullah. I'm your host, Mohsin Shah and joining me is Sheikh Ali Maal, السلام عليكم Sheikh Na. السلام عليكم ورحمة الله ورحمة الله. شيخنا نقل لأقل الثلاثة أسوأ ونحن نتحدث عن خلاصنا. دعنا نضع نفسنا لنقوم بشكل جيد في نظام الثلاثة هل تستطيع أن تخبرنا أمام الثلاثة ونقوم بشكل جيد في نظام الثلاثة؟ أعوذ بالله السميع عن عليمنا الشيطان الرجيم بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله رب العالمين وصر الله على محمد وآله الطيبين الطاهرين زكات تقريبا يعني أنها تقريبا تقريبا ومن المشاكل أن تقريب بشكل جيد في نظام الثلاثة ومن المشاكل أن تقريب بشكل جيد في نظام الثلاثة ومن المشاكل أن يعمل حصوله في منظمة أمام الثلاثة ومن المشاكل أن تقريبا تقريبا ومن المشاكل أن يعمل حصوله��이 والذي يساعد الناس to pay the zakat ومشاهدة for those who have farms and cattle those who deal with farming and cattle and so forth so most of us don't have to worry about the zakat issue but however in some cases some people might have cattle and farms and so forth and of course with the cuts if they reach threshold ونصاب كما تفهم ، فالزكات يجب عليهم أن تساعدها ، إذا كانت فقط إذا كانت فقط كتول فقط أكثر من الزكات ، فلن يجب عليها أن تساعد أي شيء ، لا شيء يجب عليها أن تساعد دعنا نرى what the Holy Quran states with regard to the Zakat الله سبحانه وتعالى ، يسمى الرحمن الرحيم إنما صدقات للفقراء والمساكين والعملين عليها The Zakat is paid for the poor people and those who are in need and those who work for it, who gather and bring the Zakat, the collectors والمؤلفة قلوب of those who hearts our boats in other words, those who do not believe in the faith but we can attract them through buying their hearts towards Islam وفرقاب والغاومين وفي سبيل الله وبن السبيل فريضة من الله والله علم وحكيم to the end of the ayah that there are certain groups that we have to pay Zakat to so that's the verse of the Zakat the narration the Imam عليه السلام states with regard to the Zakat for those who do not pay the Zakat the consequence of not paying the Zakat قال الإمام الصادق عليه السلام ماضا عمال في بر أو بح إلا من منع الزكات there's no money or wealth lost in the sea or on land except from those who do not pay the Zakat sometimes some people lose sometimes entire wealth or part of their wealth they try to find a reason for it why did I made such a great loss in my business for example why did I for example lost let's say my assets there was a fire for example they caught a fire for example and so forth the Imam says one of them is for those who do not pay the Zakat when people don't pay the Zakat then this is the consequence and the consequence of the Akhira is even worse and of course the Zakat as I mentioned in the beginning that it brings the khair and the blessing to the wealth increases the sustenance and so forth so the one should be able to stick with the narrations and the Holy Quran statements with regard to paying the Zakat as it is wajib on every individual so Shaykhna like you know Choms was on different sort of categories is it the same with the Zakat I mean is it on different types of items as well of course the Zakat should be paid to nine items which are wheat barley dates raisin gold silver camel cow and sheep nine items in which the one should pay the Zakat but as I've mentioned in the beginning there's an Asab threshold which must be met so he can pay the Zakat otherwise there's no need that's why we for example ourselves at home for example we buy dates we buy wheat we buy raisins but very small amount so we don't have to pay Zakat but instead if we have used them we pay Choms different method of payment but this one Zakat if you have reached that stage and level of threshold of the Zakat payment then you're exempted you can enjoy them use them or eat them their food without worrying about paying the Zakat but if they reach a certain amount let's say you have a filled farm in this case when it reaches that threshold then it becomes wajib to pay a certain amount of Zakat so it's really based around agriculture and farming what are like the circumstances and the liabilities for paying Zakat as in who is the person that has to pay Zakat well when the Zakat item reaches the threshold or the Nisaab as mentioned and in addition the owners are adolescents in other words they are baligh and they are sane they are free and not slaves for example and be able to execute and dispose the Zakat in this case it becomes wajib for them to pay the Zakat but these are the conditions so they have to meet these conditions to be able to pay the Zakat حسنت ما شاء الشخص شخص how much roughly is the Zakat on those crops if these crops were irrigated and in other words were given water naturally in other words by rain stream and so forth the Zakat of these crops will be around 10% and if they were irrigated by the buckets the pumps you know sometimes you bring a motorized pump to bring out water from the well or let's say artificially for example so if you manually give the water to these fields and lands in this case it would go down to 5% so naturally godly if they were given water and rain and so forth then it's 10% manmade that's it or given by water manually in this case it becomes 5% شخص what about golden silver because you mentioned that how much is the Zakat on golden silver for golden silver both if they reach in Nisab which is the threshold if they reach that amount of grams of Nisab and threshold in this case it becomes Wajib to pay the Zakat which is around 2.5% 2.6% of the total of that golden silver so if the one reaches that amount of threshold in Nisab that he owns that amount of gold and silver then they have to pay 2.5% to 2.6% with regard to the silver an amount of Zakat ما شاء الله شخص with Zakat how is it distributed amongst the people the disposal of the Zakat as mentioned in the صار عمالية in 8 cases so number one is the poor so you give it to the poor number two the destitute the one who is in need number three the collector of the Zakat and number four those who whose hearts are to be won as mentioned المؤلف قلوبهم those who are enemies of Islam but you can buy their hearts so they won't wage war against Islam as the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم I did with أبو صفيان and others of بني أمية and ورايش who the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in some occasions he gave them 100 camel each number five for buying slaves and setting them free and again if you have the issue of slaves you want to free them then you take the money of the Zakat to free them number six the debtors who are unable to pay their debts okay so those who can't pay their debt exactly they have huge debts they made a great loss in their business they lost their job their job less now for example they had huge debts for example from the banks from people and so forth they can use the Zakat as a means of paying their debts number seven in the cause of الله سبحانه وتعالى whatever comes under this title the cause of Allah سبحانه وتعالى and in some cases some of them allowed to spend this money of the Zakat for the cause of Islamic centers and so forth it depends on some situations exactly the cause of Allah سبحانه وتعالى what comes under it then you can spend and number eight is the stranded traveler the one who loses his wealth his money while he's a journey so he's also paid so he can go back home safely so those eight are the main ones in which the Zakat can be given to and as I've mentioned in the Khoms episodes that you cannot pay these Zakat these eight the Sayyid the Sayyid cannot receive these payments of Zakat because they have their own payments which is 10% share of the Sayyid from the Khoms the total Khoms which is the 20% so they get the half share the 10% goes to the Sayyids we cannot pay them Zakat it's not allowed and who's actually qualified to receive the Zakat those who qualify to receive the Zakat are number one the most important is that he must be 12 and we have this issue that those who are converted to other schools the school of Ahl-e-Bayt and they're from different schools the Zakat must be paid only to those who follow Ahl-e-Bayt that's a debatable issue in the Fiqh that do they have to pay the Zakat they paid in the time in which they were known as Shi'a for example that's another debate they have so if you pay the Zakat to non-Shi'a then you have to repay it back to the Shi'a for Ahl-e-Bayt you cannot pay it to any other others who does not believe in the life of Ahl-e-Bayt so that's the main and the core condition with regard to those who qualify for the Zakat payment the second point and to qualify to be paid we have to make sure that we pay the Zakat to the poor they should be the ones in which do not pursue towards committing of sins so you know that if you pay him the Zakat he'll buy drugs with it or he'll buy alcohol that God forbid in this case you're not allowed to pay so only the ones who are spending the Zakat to the right destination and direction you cannot pay the Zakat for those for those who pay the Zakat to buy forbidden items and of course it is not permissible and allowed to give the Zakat to the ones dependents I'm sure if somebody is living in a difficult and hardship situation and he can manage to run his life so he's not a poor person but he's finding difficulty in living he's not allowed to pay his children for example or his wife Zakat because he can't buy them for example specific items or clothing for example but he's not a poor person so no you can't use the Zakat to pay your dependents that's another issue and the fourth one as mentioned that the states cannot receive the Zakat and they have of course but if the situation was worse and difficult and they are living in hardship in this case they can receive the Zakat as a final option for them that even the Khamas money is not enough or is not given to them but we have we have enough savings with Zakat we have the the the treasury for example they have enough money from the Zakat but not from the Khamas in this case we can give them to the say it's Zakat in such hardship conditions that there's no way they can get money and wealth from any other sources masha'a Allah شخصاً my final question is do we need to have any intentions prior to giving Zakat with regard to the intention as we mentioned that Zakat is part of the Ibadat so and wajibat and obligatory acts in which they become wajib on the individual to practice them and perform them and they're in line with the Salah and the fasting and Hajj and Khamas payment of course and Jihad and other wajib acts in for ad-deen so in this case for such act of course you have to specify and make the intention that you're paying this item or this amount of money as Zakat otherwise you're paying money for nothing just no mortality or even Khamas for example so you make sure that you keep in mind that this money I'm paying is Zakat or Khamas or Zakat or Fitra not Zakat of cattle for example because we have another type of Zakat which is Zakat or Fitra in which you pay the Zakat on the day of Eid of Al-Fitr after the month of Ramadan which is wajib of course now these payments you have to specify them at least keep them in your mind and burn the mind that I'm paying this with the title of Zakat or Fitra for example or the Zakat of the crops for example or if it's Khamas then it's Khamas so you can actually have achieved and attained and fulfilled the obligation and the duty of paying the حقوق and the wajib of Zakat or Khamas Thank you very much for that discussion and thank you to all of you for joining us on this season of Ahqam SOS Insha'Allah I will see you in a brand new season with new discussions and new topics Insha'Allah and until then why not check out where we have different different programs and different languages broadcasting in five languages Farsi Arabic Turkish Urdu English why not check it out See you soon السلام عليكم رحمة الله وبركاته


This is your Current Ops Report. USS Jason Dunham exited the Baltic Sea July 28th after operating in the region since May. The ship conducted port visits to Poland, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Among other maritime exercises, the ship also took part in Baltops 2015, which included 40 other ships and a large contingent of air, ground, and maritime forces from 16 other nations. I'm Petty Officer Corey Hensley and this has been your Current Ops Report.


This is global connections, where we examine the dots and we put the dots together in a world that's changing while we watch. And one big change that could happen, maybe likely to happen, is that Trump gets elected or finds a way to occupy the Oval Office again, and he destroys NATO. He's made that very clear that he will do that if he gets a chance.  This is actually just another important reason not to vote for it. We can't afford that. But let's look at it as a sort of a political experiment, a geopolitical experiment. What happens without NATO? We've been examining what happens if Trump is elected, how our world will change. This is a very scary story. But let's do the Emil Zola-esque kind of political experiment and ask, what happens without NATO? So for this discussion, we have Dr. Roopmati Kondakar. She's one of our esteemed guests, skilled, experienced, and thoughtful about geopolitics. And we'll see what she has to say about the implications of a world without NATO. Welcome to the show, Roopmati. Aloha, Jay. And thank you for having me on this show. And it's nice to talk about what happens without NATO. I wish we could talk about, if Trump was not running for president this time, isn't it? That would be a much better topic. It would be a happy topic. So let's talk about it. I mean, there's all kinds of implications and things, you know, and we have to speculate at least to some extent. But NATO has been the 800-pound guerrilla of Europe, of the Western world, not to say that NATO has been involved in violence or war, but just deterrence for a long time since World War II, except on one occasion, you know, only one time, Article 5 of the NATO agreement has been invoked. And when was that? It was right after 9-11 when NATO came to the aid of the United States after it was attacked on 9-11. That's the only time that NATO and Article 5 have been invoked. But it has stood as a huge deterrent to other regression until now. So let's talk about what would happen. What would happen if there were no NATO? You can address this from any side, any perspective you want. Yeah, NATO was formed as a deterrent, and it was formed as a counter to Warsaw. So we know that this is the only viable military defence cooperation that the world has at its disposal. And NATO acts on world affairs with the international system as United States as hegemon. NATO carries a very prime role to play in the international system. And this notion is known as Collective Defence Day. And this notion of collective defence is very important. It's a transatlantic cooperation between Europe and America, Canada, Turkey. These people get relevance of a military stature through NATO. And NATO stands to be very vital in international relations day because of the infrastructure that it possesses. It only takes about 15 percent of U.S. military spending. But see the overwhelming impact that NATO has on international relations day. Because with NATO, there's a defence for those 41 European nations. What about collective security?  Can they afford a nuclear deterrent for each of the countries? They can't. They cannot simply, I can tell you one thing, they can't afford it. And America through NATO provides Europe that security umbrella that it gets. And biggest, biggest deterrent and biggest, biggest bear in the room is Russia. NATO is a shield for European nations against Russia. Ukraine, the whole issue of Ukraine trying to get into NATO and Russia opposing it, the rush to get inside NATO's protective umbrella is because of the response that NATO gives to crisis abroad. And their implementation of military strength does not require the infrastructure bureaucratic impediments like the UN. They act in the interest of the self-defence of its members. It's simple. You attack one NATO member and all the NATO members have to come in. So their collective defence logic is very simple. They don't have to go through resolutions. They don't have to go to veto. No, nothing. So this kind of quick action is only available to the world, say, privileged NATO members only through this infrastructure. So they simply can't afford to give it up. And the European nations stay, besides not affording it, they would have a defence policy like East European nations would concentrate only on Russia. West European nations would concentrate on the transatlantic. They would not have this comprehensive defence strategy. So that is why NATO players are very important role in foreign policy also when all the nations come together and frame their policies. Well, you know, it's already weakened, isn't it? I mean, for example, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. And it was only half a dozen countries at the beginning. But over time, they all wanted to have the benefit of that mutual defence. And a lot of countries came in and you think, maybe that wasn't so great that they came in, because they pulled the other way. And I'm thinking specifically of Turkey, which I don't think is a good member of NATO. I'm thinking of Hungary and autocracy, which I don't think is a good member of NATO. They'll pull the other way.  It has weak members or members who are not loyal, as we would wish. We have people who don't, countries that don't pay their freight, although most of them do. Trump lied about that. Most of them do pay the freight. On the other hand, their political will may not be the same as it was. You know, three weeks ago, a month ago, Olaf Scholz and Jen, what's his name, Stoltenberg in NATO and the EU, said that they were going to get $60 billion, $52 billion together to support Ukraine. I'm waiting for that to happen, hasn't happened. And meanwhile, Ukraine doesn't have ammunition, and it effectively lost another battle like yesterday. So this is very problematic already. Trump's comments are having an effect on the resolve of NATO, on the deterrent effect of NATO, and on Putin's approach. Putin is taking advantage. So gee whiz, it would get worse, wouldn't it? What would Russia do if there were no NATO? Say, right now we are in a hegemonic system that is one leader at the helm of the ship. But all critics, all the vocalists of the international system say that we are moving towards a multipolar world. And multipolar world means China and Russia cannot compete with the US. But together they are trying to come together. Together they are trying to come across as a viable option collectively against the United States. And when they come together, they are trying to get through NATO, the diminishing of the reliability and relevance of the NATO. There's a big factor in pushing China and Russia at the top chain to bring them to the top two players is, you know, giving a seesaw balance to the power of the US. And this, you know, when they operate, there's a regionalization of security rather than an internationalization of power, you know, of power politics, there is a kind of, you know, you'll have allies slipping away. And the US actually has does not have burden-sharing allies. Does not really, US bears the burden of most of the costs of most of the security-sharing arrangements of the trade-sharing arrangements. The US takes the lead. And NATO is one such institution where you provide military support. So that kind of is a very big factor, Jay, in stamping US authority in the international system. And when you undermine this, you're going to give Russia and China the chance to come up with alternative viables. And for them to, they do, they do get scared. The deterrent is true when Ukraine happened. You know, they were careful to say no, nothing of NATO is coming in. The countries are supporting on their own. If NATO had come in, it would have been a full onslaught of Warsaw versus NATO. But that is the kind of importance that NATO holds. So this, when you say that NATO is coming into help, that means they're going to deter Russia completely. And that kind of, we don't have any alternative to NATO. If there was any alternative NATO, and then we're talking of giving up NATO, it was a difference. But without having any alternative, you're giving up a military structure. And that is the problem. I think Putin would be more aggressive. And he would take greater advantage of Ukraine the moment he was sure that NATO was no longer in place. He would try to take more territory. He would try to take, it depends on the circumstances. He might try to take all of Ukraine, all of it. And really, one of the, as you said, one of the big, deterrent features is NATO, big feature. And if he was not blocked by NATO or the deterrent effect of NATO, he might try to take the whole Ukraine. And if no support was coming from the U.S., and if NATO wasn't supporting them, because it didn't exist, and the EU decided it was more to their advantage not to do anything, then what we would have is peacemen, I mean, appeasement out of Munich in 1939. It would be right the end of the West, so to speak, as a hegemonic force. So there's very great concern about Putin because he would see this as a big opportunity and all his predatory instincts would come into play. And he would be attacking weakness, weakness across the board. And that means weakness as far as Poland is concerned, which is a member of NATO. Weakness as far as the Baltics are concerned. Weakness as far as Scandinavia is concerned, Finland, Sweden. Weakness as far as the Balkans are concerned. That whole border would start moving, would be at risk. He's already pushed those countries, not by kinetic war, but by cyber war and by insidious undermining of the government there through crowds and protests that were working for him, paid protesters. I know he's done that in Romania. So what's happened here is that he's already moving, this would let him move much faster. And I think for this discussion, if we are assuming that NATO isn't there, we're also assuming that the U.S. isn't there. Right now we're nine months going on eight months away and Congress is locked up not going to do anything. There's no money for the Ukraine. And if Trump gets into office, there'll be no money for NATO. Or the U.T.U. would be in isolation. One of the things you mentioned as we were preparing for this is that the nature of borders would change. The nature of togetherness in Europe of a union of working together would change. And how would that work? If we say that there is no NATO, how would to change the relationships at the borders among all the EU countries? The most effective partnership in international relations is always about the might, the power, the military, the strength, and the operability of your ammunition. So this kind of transatlantic partnership which is spanning military operation operability is because of NATO. And when you have that missing and you lose the link, don't tell me markets are going to unite the countries the way military does. Europe has a feel-good factor or they come under the security blanket of the U.S. under NATO. And this missing would literally, Europe is in shambles right now looking at prospects of immigration, economic recession. These things are going to play a big factor in the coming years for European foreign policy and to not have a military operation and they will have the individual prospects, like we spoke about, the borders will implode. The end of globalization, like we discussed, becomes nearer and nearer. And they do not have international, you know, if America talks about markets, the factor that they do help militarily plays a very big role in considering all interactions. And if that was not an operation and you had to just consider market costs and, you know, assets, that would have, that would be a totally different ballgame. So this way, when you undermine NATO's credibility, you leave aside these factors also, the impact that military plays on these other factors of keeping globalization alive. This is the only legitimacy that NATO gives to the countries to operate. I mentioned that there'd be a certain amount of fragmentation among the countries of Western Europe. And for that matter, the Baltics and the Balkans as well, Scandinavia. And they wouldn't necessarily go in the same direction. You know, one logical possibility is that if there were no NATO, the members of the EU would create an alternative NATO. They would say, listen, we're going to pool our resources, we're going to come together. You know, we're going to meet in Strasbourg or somewhere.  What do you think the possibilities are of that versus the other possibility is they would all be fragmented, all be weak, and some of them would seek special deals with Putin just to stay on his right side. But what's going to happen in terms of the solidarity of the former members of NATO and the EU? The second option seems more practical, Jay, because the first half of Europe can't afford a security blanket over it at all. 41 countries don't have the military spending that NATO does. And I'll tell you, NATO gives this operational military advantage. Anything happens under the banner of the NATO. Europe can play politics.  So this kind of blanket operational military is not possible for European countries. It's only because of the courtesy of the US that this is possible. The United States is such a vital player in international relations. And you know, you have critics, you have a force which undermines this situation day in and day out. Tell me a world where you don't have European American decision making. And then you let me know what would be the state of affairs. There's a monitoring going on. There is a supervision on Putin would be on a mad run if there was no fear of NATO coming in and any moment of time. NATO operates in Brussels, but that kind of proximity that NATO has, it's right in the center of the world, like you said. Brussels is the cockpit of Europe. So America having a vantage point in Europe is a big factor for American politics, but it's a much bigger incentive for European countries to have a military shield from America. And Jay, more of interest to European partners than to America. Let's talk about the US for a minute you mentioned. Let's assume no NATO. Let's assume this fragmentation of Europe, isolationism begins to prevail. And we'll talk about autocracy in a minute. What happens in the US? One thing is I tell you, I would be very unhappy. I know you would be very unhappy. What can I do? What can we do? What can the Democratic Party do if the Republicans continue to block aid to Ukraine and allow a guy like Trump to pull the plug on NATO and effectively also on the EU? What happens here in this country? What's the echo effect? They went, or if and why, Trump should come to power.  And that becomes a big, big issue because not only then Russia comes to close proximity to Europe, they do get a more challenging voice to now because of the supplying oil and gas. Such a big effect you could have.  They were in shatters, they were shambles, and then they funded Israel war. This kind of implications that the cascading effects that every decision has, you know, you'll have put in, you know, jumping on the doorsteps of Europe and dictating terms of the oil and gas. You'll have so many other the and America House inside its borders. It is a global leader. So that kind of foreign policy domination has to be sustained because you can't have the dragon or Russia at the helm of international politics because like it or not, US has always played a benevolent role rather than a selfish role. But we are sure China or Russia as head of the international system would never play such a role of having a kind of balanced. They are very, very like we talk about selfish and they only talk about their motives and they are more interested in self propaganda like the Communist Party itself just talks about itself in China. The same way they would do in international politics. It's just about me, myself and I. And the US besides thinking of me, myself and I would also think about a small country. So that is the difference that the benevolence is the difference that the hegemon would needs to have. And the US has been successful because of this strategy. And NATO is a military wing of the US foreign policy. So for America to let go of NATO is also a big folly for American national interest.  Well, with a failure of NATO and the fragmentation of Europe and all that with that, do you think that would remind us of our true morality or would we be further still away from it? Because I think part of the model we're designing here is that Trump would be president and this is going to happen if Trump is president. If Biden were president, it wouldn't happen. We would continue to support NATO. But if Trump were president, gee whiz, would the failure of Europe, of Western Europe, of the West, so to speak, would that, do you think, change the politics in this country? Yes, Jay. Too fast it would change the politics of the country. Because Europe as a transatlantic ally, a conglomeration of 41 countries together is a big asset for US politics. And for them to have a big brother in the US is an advantage for them too. And you see, club them together, it's half of the world, more than half of the world. So that kind of market, that kind of industry, that kind of trade, and those number of borders open. They play a very important role in all this change. And when you have these kind of restrictions which would come in, or isolation politics that come in, it would not help American national foreign policy. And that is why we have to always look outward. That was the way, going outward was never the part of American policy. They never interfered in the world war. When World Harbor was attacked, then they came into the world war, right? So America has always been pushed to do things, rather than they're coming into action. So this NATO came in because Russia had formed the Warsaw Pact. So this kind of sustainability of the might is, naturally, it's a leader, the US. You remind me of this possibility that if the United States is no longer supportive of Europe, and the United States is the one that brought the sanctions, it's not just support for Ukraine now. It's not just support for NATO. It's the sanctions that we imposed on Russia, however effective and whatever we did to escape good part of those sanctions. It seems to me that if we had a fragmented Europe and a country that wasn't supporting NATO or the EU or Ukraine, those sanctions would be meaningless. They would go away in a moment. And the sanctions to the extent that Europe had imposed them on Russia, they would go away in a minute. In other words, the whole thing would be rolled back in Putin's favor. But you talk before the show about regime change, and you mentioned that a number of countries would suffer regime change, or maybe they're on the way to suffering regime change right now. Can you talk about that, Rupati? Yeah, Jay. NATO is a military operation mostly. The sanctions, economic, everything is fine. But the fear of the sword of military hanging on every neck is very important. And when you don't have this kind of thing, there will be regime changes because there'll be no supervision. And Jay, like in any human personality, unless you have a monitoring entity, they go, hey, why? The same happens for countries where you don't have a monitoring entity. They will play havoc in politics. And NATO operates in so many different areas of international system. Civil wars, they come and operate. Even in the responsibility to protect the United Nations, Libya, NATO was the first one to be there. If the UN doesn't operate NATO would. So that kind of reliability that NATO offers is a big factor in the regimes that operate. And Jay, in every country, we know politics is always unstable. And everybody's always waiting to take over. There's a coup happening. There is a mutiny happening. There's a civil, everything is very unpredictable. And without having the fear Europe would be Russianized, is it? So that kind of domination that we see, the entire regime could change Finland, Sweden, they would have a hard time in keeping their borders. They are very safe under NATO's umbrella. NATO, Finland. So now when you see these, without NATO, can the Scandinavian countries stand the might of Russia? It's a big question that they would have had, they would have to face. And the kind of role that Russia plays in regime operations is huge. They do dictate terms to all these regimes. They have these fighters. They have these operatives that take place and dictate terms to the politics of a country, which would go haywire if there was no NATO. Well, there always is the UN, I'm joking. There always is the UN. What effect would the end of NATO, for that matter, the EU have on the UN? Would it be able to step in? Would it be able to reorganize things and develop a mutual alliance of some kind, mutual defense arrangement? Or would that be possible? Jay, UN has been non-functional in the entire Ukraine-Israel episodes. They don't have any credibility left in international relations right now because of the lack of military operations and the overburden of bureaucracy. We don't have any decisions made. We have resolutions pending. We have books being written. We have everything done, but operation and implementation is missing. And NATO is the only military institution in the world which does that, leads and operates instantly. Without any, we have such burdens of veto. We have burdens of resolutions. We have voting. We have anti-war. Nothing. There's no alternative to it. You know, the Western Alliance has come together behind the U.S. in the name of NATO and in the shadow of NATO for a number of controversies and, you know, incidents around the Middle East. So, for example, there were NATO countries with the U.S. during the Iraq war. There were NATO countries with the U.S. in Afghanistan. There were NATO countries. There are NATO countries now. Maybe it's limited to the U.K. and maybe France. There are NATO countries now in the Red Sea. I'm trying to deal with the impediments to shipping by the attacks, by the Houthis.  Would they go away? Would we still see support for American presence, the American presence in the Middle East? I think we have to look at the Middle East separately. It's much more complex in a way. What would happen to our friends and partners when NATO was gone? Yeah, Jay. NATO, you know, the importance of NATO would be felt in all these points, like Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia, where you have China and all coming in. Individually, if America goes to forge partnerships, it's fine. It does all that all the time. But that collective response, which happens at the blink of an eye, would be missing. That's the only thing that would be missing that if we had to get into any military operation, there is no existing structure that would be present to just get into implementation. They would have had to again have to be bilaterals, multilaterals, and then get into an agreement. Here it is that simple notion that I told you. If anybody attacks a NATO member, all NATO nations are obligated to come together and to support this collective security that there is. And more than a setback for the U.S., it would be a huge, huge setback for Europe and a big boost for Russia and a celebrating point for China. So this kind of comprehensive impact that the end of NATO would have is overwhelming, because it would change geopolitics in a very hard way. Well, let me ask about the elephant in the room as far as the Middle East is concerned is the war between Israel and Hamas. And Israel is making its way down to the south of Gaza. But at a cost of propaganda, Hamas has been very effective at convincing the world that Israel is the aggressor. And so we have a war that may not end right away. We have a war where a lot of countries have spoken and are still speaking in the International Court of Justice and in the media. And it's very hard on Israel because have hundreds of thousands of young people in the service and away from the economy. People don't realize the traumatic effect of all of that on Israel's economy. And all with the backdrop is that if Israel doesn't solve this problem, it's going to get worse, to be more attacks, more atrocities, and so forth. And the drumbeat for a two-state solution is, you know, it's, I don't know if that helps or will help. But my question to you is, although Israel is not a member of NATO, and although Hamas is not a state and the Palestinians are not a state, the fact is that it's on the front page every day, all of this. And if there were no NATO, if there were no defense alliance among the Western countries, how would that affect this ongoing war between Israel and Hamas? Jay, Israel and Hamas was an episode where you saw very strong American foreign policy and the power with which they come to help the Allies. The strong bond that America shares with allies and the advantage to have America as an ally was evident in this war. As soon as Israel had, we always talk about the six antagonistic neighbors waiting to pounce on it. America did not wait for any, yes, from anybody. The warships were right at the Israel door and helped arrived at the right time. Otherwise, you would have had a very explosive event after the October 7 attack on Israel, Jay.  So American foreign policy was at its best when it came to the aid of Israel. And that is when independent foreign policy talks, NATO would have had to have a little bit of discussion whether they want to go for Israel or whether they want to support Hamas.  So that kind of independent foreign policy, NATO to an advantage for America is there, not there. It doesn't matter. America will always have a very strong foreign policy and they don't make two faces about. But for NATO, for Europe is very important. American foreign policy will never, never be weighed down by NATO implications. They have a very strong independent policy. Well, let me ask you this, though, and this is my last and perhaps my most challenging question to you today, Rupati. Okay, so it's hard to define war these days, because you can have a cyber war that destroys a country and its economy without any kinetic war, without any guns, actually. You can have various controversies and confrontations all over the world. But that may not be in the old definition of world war. It may be a lot of wars that are around the world. So it's hard to get our terms defined. But given the fact that the loss of NATO, the lack of NATO would embolden Russia and China to be more aggressive, and would fragment Europe not only militarily, but economically, and would probably have an effect on all of the countries that are connected, that are in Europe, the Baltics, they would be really afraid, the Balkans, and for that matter, Africa. And the likelihood is that the Middle East would somehow become even more of a hotbed for the lack of NATO. So with all of that, if we take NATO out of the equation, are we closer to world war? Most definitely.  Russia is on a rampage right now with no reigning in power. They are literally doing what they want. And a nuclear war would erupt between a small trigger would give rise to this, because Putin, when right now he's in a comfortable position, he thinks he's doing good. But just imagine if he was in a compromising situation. He is not that kind of a person who would surrender. If he was going down, he would go down with the whole world with him. And he would, you know, he would not let, it would not be like Hitler in a bunker. It would be Putin with the world himself and taking everybody with him.  And Ukraine would be the first one to do it. I mean, this kind of unpredictability of the minds is so evident because neither did he have any considerations of international strategy, nor did he have any considerations of what would happen if he would transgress Ukrainian borders. He has just done what he wants in the Ukraine war, and nobody has been able to shut him. Or, you know, nobody has been able to contain him. And as he moves on day by day, he gets more powerful.  He goes for diplomatic visits to countries which do not have him as a war criminal. So that kind of maneuvering that he's and the comfortable level that he's reached in international politics today is very fine, Jay, because after attacking our country, you are still getting that kind of legitimacy and those kind of welcomes and that kind of support from your allies all over the world. Well, they want your oil and gas. They want your oil and gas. They want to make deals with you. And they come at this from a point of dismissing the United States and dismissing Europe and the West. So it's a fertile ground for him. The other point that comes out of what you're saying is that autocrats don't care, just as you said, robotic, autocrats don't care about humanity. They don't care to be humane. They care about themselves and their own power. And that's also a definition of Trump. So if the idea of an autocrat cares only about his own power and who has nuclear weapons and the button handy, then Trump is as much a risk as Putin. And the idea of Trump with the magic suitcase and the buttons on the nuclear weapons is really, really, really scary because he is an autocrat in every way. Well, here we are hoping that none of this will happen. But thank you for joining me in this inquiry into what would happen if we take out NATO. It's like having your teeth removed and you have to deal with a predatory monster without any teeth, that's what it's about. The word that comes to my mind is, I've heard this word a long time before, megalomaniacs. So we'll be having two megalomaniacs in the world soon. But whatever happens, Romani, we will keep on talking and inquiring and investigating and sharing our thoughts. Thank you so much. Thank you for having me, Aloha. Aloha.


All this month get any smartphone 32gigand under for 50% off regular price at Appalachian Wireless. Better service, bigger savings. That's today's Appalachian Wireless. While supplies last, two-year agreement required. Police here in Jenkins are investigating after a child and a grandparent were struck by a school bus this morning. The accident occurred in the Smoky Row area of Jenkins where Smoky Row intersects with Highway 805. The Letcher County School District bus was loaded at the time of the accident. There were 10 passengers, students on the bus. None of those were injured in any way, shape or form. The grandmother was with the child, the student at the bus stop. The bus stop was not a scheduled one. The driver was not aware he was supposed to stop. Apparently they missed the stop or they missed the bus. He stopped to pick him up and somehow during that time they came in contact with the bus. At this time we're still trying to figure out whether the bus hit them or whether they actually walked into the bus. Both the child and the grandmother suffered non-life-threatening injuries. The student, about 7 years old, was injured minor with some scrapes and cuts. He was taken to White'sburg Hospital, ER just for precautions. We're still not sure whether he sustained injuries from contact with the bus or contact with the guardrail or ground as the grandmother tossed him out of the way of the bus. The grandmother did sustained serious injuries. She's got a leg injury, she was flown to Holston Valley. Jenkins Police Chief Jim Stevens said charges are not likely to be filed against the bus driver, and the bus driver is cooperating in the investigation. The bus driver is extremely upset. He stated that he did not see them. Our investigation has borne that out, that he didn't see them. No charges at all are going to be forthcoming. The investigation into the accident is ongoing. In Jenkins for EKB News, I'm Chris Anderson.