Ukrainaz, oraindik ere! (15)

eka. 18

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: “What we’re seeing is exactly Ukraine becoming the Afghanistan of Europe.”

@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu·

13 h

Covering Ukraine https://open.substack.com/pub/scottritte

Ukrainian President Yanukovych decided to chose Russia’s offer, so Washington instigated a coup, ousting Yanukovych.

The new Ukrainian government accepted the IMF loan and conditions: austerity and privatization

Multinational consortia with US capital have already bought 1/3 of Ukraine’s farmland….

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1803417550794981645

oooooo

oooooo

oooooo

oooooo

It’s the end of the world as we know it

The American-NATO rush toward nuclear war with Russia

(https://scottritter.substack.com/p/its-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know?publication_id=6892&post_id=145878246&isFreemail=true&r=1vhv3f&triedRedirect=true)

Scott Ritter

Jun 21, 2024

Russian Iskander-M nuclear missile

America’s addiction to nuclear weapons does not lend itself to deterrence-based stability. It only leads to war.

“That’s great, it starts with an earthquake…”

There’s nothing like a classic 1980’s rock song to get one’s blood up and running, and REM’s 1987 classic, It’s the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine), fits the bill just right on this hot and muggy summer day.

The only problem is, the song might as well be prophesy, because from where I sit, taking in the news about the rapidly escalating nuclear arms race between the United States and Russia, it very much looks like the end of the world as we know it.

And I don’t feel fine.

Scott will discuss this article and answer audience questions on Ep. 170 of Ask the Inspector.

The news isn’t good. Last month, on May 6, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced that it would, on the orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin, conduct exercises involving the use of non-strategic nuclear weapons. According to Russian officials, the exercises were a response to “provocative statements and threats from certain Western officials directed at the Russian Federation.”

The Russians were responding to statements made by French President Emmanuel Macron to The Economist on May 2, where he declared that “I’m not ruling anything out [when it comes to deploying French troops to Ukraine], because we are facing someone [Putin] who is not ruling anything out.” Macron added that “if Russia decided to go further [advancing in Ukraine], we will in any case all have to ask ourselves this question (whether to send of troops).”

While Macron described his remarks as a “strategic wake-up call for my counterparts,” it was clear not everyone was buying into what he was selling. “If a NATO member commits ground troops [to Ukraine],” Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said after Macron’s words became public, “it will be a direct NATO-Russia confrontation, and then it will be World War III.”

French President Emmanuel Macron greets French soldiers

The Russians conducted their exercises in two phases, with the first taking place in late May. There, the tactical missile forces of the Southern Military District practiced “the task of obtaining special training ammunition for the Iskander tactical missile system, equipping them with launch vehicles and secretly moving to the designated position area to prepare for missile launches.”

The Iskander-M is the nuclear-capable version of the Iskander family of missiles and can carry a single nuclear warhead with a variable yield of between 5 and 50 kilotons. (By way of comparison, the American atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of 15 kilotons.) The single-stage solid rocket missile flies at high hypersonic speeds, and possesses a maneuvering warhead, making it virtually impossible to shoot down. With a range of 500 kilometers, the Iskander-M, when fired from locations in Crimea, would be able to reach French bases located in Romania, which ostensibly would be used to surge forces into Ukraine.

The second phase of the exercises took place on June 10, when the Russian and Belorussian forces practiced the transfer of Russian nuclear weapons to Belorussian control as part of the new Russian nuclear sharing doctrine put in place by Vladimir Putin and his Belorussian counterpart, Alexander Lukashenko, earlier this year. The weapons involved included the Iskander-M missile and gravity bombs that would be delivered by modified Belorussian SU-25 aircraft. The weapons would put all of Poland and the Baltic States under the threat of nuclear attack.

Belorussian SU-25 aircraft

Around the same time that Russia was carrying out its tactical nuclear drills, several NATO nations, including Germany, announced that they had given Ukraine the green light to use weapons it had provided to strike targets inside Russia. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, speaking on the sidelines of a NATO foreign ministers meeting in Prague on May 29, said Ukraine had the right to strike legitimate military targets inside Russia. “Ukraine has the right for self-defense,” Stoltenberg declared, adding that “we have the right to help Ukraine uphold the right for self-defense, and that does not make NATO allies a party to the conflict.”

Putin took time from his visit to Uzbekistan to reply, warning that NATO members in Europe were playing with fire by proposing to let Ukraine use Western weapons to strike deep inside Russia. Putin said Ukrainian strikes on Russia with long-range weapons would need Western satellite, intelligence and military assistance, thus making any Western help in this regard a direct participant in the conflict. “Constant escalation can lead to serious consequences,” Putin said. “If these serious consequences occur in Europe, how will the United States behave, bearing in mind our parity in the field of strategic weapons? It’s hard to say,” Putin said, answering his own question. “Do they want a global conflict?”

On June 5, speaking to an audience of senior editors of international news agencies while attending the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum, Putin observed that, “For some reason, the West believes that Russia will never use it [nuclear weapons]. We have a nuclear doctrine,” Putin noted. “Look what it says. If someone’s actions threaten our sovereignty and territorial integrity, we consider it possible for us to use all means at our disposal. This should not be taken lightly, superficially.”

But the US and NATO were doing just that. In an interview to the British Telegraph newspaper given at NATO’s headquarters building in Brussels, Belgium, Stoltenberg said that NATO members were consulting about deploying more nuclear weapons, taking them out of storage and placing them on standby in the face of a growing threat from Russia and China. “I won’t go into operational details about how many nuclear warheads should be operational and which should be stored, but we need to consult on these issues,” Stoltenberg said.

American technicians with a pair of B61 nuclear bombs

The only nuclear weapons currently in the NATO system are some 150 US-controlled B61 gravity bombs stored at six NATO bases: Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Büchel Air Base in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi Air Base in Italy, Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands and Incirlik in Turkey. NATO officials later clarified Stoltenberg’s remarks, saying there were no significant changes to the NATO nuclear posture, noting that Stoltenberg’s comments referred to the modernization of NATO’s nuclear deterrent, including the replacement of F-16 jets with F-35 stealth fighters, and the modernization of some of the B61 bombs currently deployed in Europe.

Stoltenberg’s comments to the Telegraph came 10 days after Pranay Vaddi, the senior director for arms control at the National Security Council, announced a “new era” for nuclear arms in which the US would deploy nuclear weapons “without numerical constraints.”

Stoltenberg’s statements, when viewed in the context of Vaddi’s declaration, points to a dangerous shift in focus within both NATO and the US away from the concept of nuclear weapons representing a force of deterrence, and instead increasingly being seen in the West as a usable weapon of war.

United Nations General Assembly

The concept of deterrence as the sole justification for the existence of nuclear weapons dates back to 1978, when the United Nations General Assembly held its first Special Session on Disarmament. One of the main ideas to emerge from this event was the notion of so-called negative security assurances, or NSAs, in which the declared nuclear-armed states committed to not using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states that were in good standing with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and not otherwise aligned with a nuclear-armed state.

These NSAs furthered the notion of nuclear deterrence as a formal binding doctrine among nuclear-armed states, operating on the idea that since nuclear weapons could only be used against a nuclear-armed state, and that any such use would lead to the mutual destruction of the involved parties, therefore the only rational purpose for the existence of nuclear weapons was to deter those nations that also possessed them from ever using them in the first place.

From this foundational understanding emerged modern concepts of nuclear disarmament which framed the arms control policies of the United States and the Soviet Union that emerged in the 1980’s and 1990’s—since the sole purpose of nuclear weapons was deterrence, it was in the best interest of all parties to a) significantly reduce their respective nuclear arsenals and b) implement policies designed to normalize relations to the point that nuclear arsenals became moot.

Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev sign the New START Treaty in 2010

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, however, ushered in a new post-Cold War reality which saw the notion of a nuclear “balance” where the US and Soviets operated as equals being replaced by a doctrine of “managed supremacy” which saw the US use the mechanisms of arms control and disarmament to promote and sustain its position as the world’s dominant nuclear power. Arms control ceased being a concept premised on equitable deterrence, and instead became a tool designed to subordinate the nuclear capabilities of the Russian Federation that emerged from the ashes of the Soviet Empire to those of the newly-minted American hegemon.

The US began deconstructing the foundation of arms control treaties that had been negotiated on the premise of sustaining a nuclear deterrence-based balance of power, first by using the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) process as a mechanism to promote the unilateral disarmament of the Russian strategic arsenal, and later by withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty that had served as the foundational agreement around which the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD) was framed.

Deterrence theory is viable only so long as MAD is viewed as the inevitable outcome of any nuclear conflict. By re-embracing the notion of viable ballistic missile defense, the US undermined the premise enshrined in MAD, namely that to use nuclear weapons was to invite your own demise. The US now operated in a world where it embraced deterrence theory only in so far as it deterred other nations from attacking the US with nuclear weapons. From the US perspective, assured destruction was a dated notion, one that was replaced by the concept of a “winnable” nuclear war.

The proactive utility of nuclear weapons form the standpoint of US nuclear doctrine, as expressed in the US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) of 2010, where the US, while continuing to commit not to “use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons against [NPT-compliant] non-nuclear-weapon states,” declared that “there remains a narrow range of contingencies in which US nuclear weapons may still play a role in deterring a conventional or [chemical and biological weapons] attack.”

Subsequent NPRs have expanded on this notion, incorporating the possibility of US nuclear retaliation against cyber attacks and other non-WMD linked events. The proactive nature of the US nuclear posture was such that when a senior Trump administration official involved in making nuclear policy declared that the goal of the administration of President Donald Trump was to have the Chinese and Russians waking up every morning not knowing whether of not “this was the day the US nuked them,” one simply could not write off the statement as ill-conceived hyperbole, but rather recognize it as part and parcel of ill-conceived nuclear policy.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, however, is not one to wake up in the morning afraid of a potential US nuclear attack. Speaking recently from Hanoi, Putin said “They [the US and NATO] seem to think that at some point we will get scared. But at the same time, they also say they want to achieve a strategic defeat of Russia on the battlefield.” Putin then ominously remarked that, “It means the end of the 1,000-year history of the Russian state. I think this is clear to everyone. Isn’t it better to go all the way, until the end?”

Accusing the West of “lowering the threshold” for the use of nuclear weapons against Russia, Putin declared that Russia must now reconsider its own nuclear posture considering NATO’s apparent willingness to make operational tactical nuclear weapons—a clear reference to Jens Stoltenberg’s June 16 comments. Russia last published its nuclear weapons doctrine, formally known as “Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence,” in 2020. This doctrine declares that Russia could use nuclear weapons if an enemy “threatened the existence of the Russian state” in response to an enemy’s use of weapons of mass destruction against Russia or its allies, or if Russia received credible information that a nuclear strike was being planned or about to take place.

Putin, in his Hanoi remarks, downplayed the notion of Russia embracing a policy of nuclear preemption. “We don’t need a preventive strike,” Putin said, “because with a retaliatory strike the enemy is guaranteed to be destroyed.”

When asked by reporters whether Ukraine’s use of Western long-range weapons against Russian territory could be considered an act of aggression and a direct threat to the Russian state, Putin replied “This requires additional research, but it’s close.”

US Hydrogen Bomb test, July 8, 1956

Too damn close.

The United States and Russia are drifting closer and closer to all-out nuclear war. It is high time that the people who would pay the ultimate price for such folly decide, to borrow from the poetry of Dylan Thomas, if they want to go “gently into the night” of nuclear Armageddon, or instead “rage, rage against the dying of the light” by demanding better policy from their respective governments.

As for me, I choose rage.

There will be an event dedicated to stopping this mad rush toward on September 28, in Kingston, New York. Gerald Celente is putting this together, along with a coalition of like-minded citizen patriots.

We hope to organize sister events in cities across the country.

We want to put more than a million Americans into the streets that day, focused on one thing and one thing only—stop the madness of nuclear war.

Will you join us?

Or will you stay at home and listen to the music of the collective versions of modern-day Nero’s, fiddling while America and the rest of the world burns.

You vitriolic, patriotic, slam fight, bright light

Feeling pretty psyched

It’s the end of the world as we know it…

But not if I can help it.

eka. 20

eka. 20

Romanian MEP Cristian Terheş rips Ursula von der Leyen to shreds over her multibillion euro Pfizer vaccine contract.

Ursula signed a €71 billion contract with Pfizer to buy 4.6 billion vaccine doses (10 doses per citizen).

We need more politicians like this man!

Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil@ivan_8848

Jeffrey Sachs: The West Has Repeatedly Invaded Russia.

The US and Germany had said to Gorbachev and to Yeltsin, we won’t expand NATO one inch eastward

. Like always with the United States, they lied, they cheated, and they started the expansion.

I know about in detail, which is get NATO all the way to surround Russia, because that was the plan of Zbigniew Brzezinski and Dick Cheney and others going right back to the 1990s.

Russia, throughout its history, has always believed in keeping some safety from the west, which has repeatedly invaded Russia.

And after the end of the Soviet Union in 1991, the US and Germany had said to Gorbachev and to Yeltsin, we won’t expand NATO one inch eastward.

But then, like always with the United States, they lied, they cheated, and they started the expansion.

And then the Russians. I was observing this all along. The first expansions, which were in central Europe, didn’t come too close to Russia. And they said, ugh, we don’t like that. You cheated. You told us no, but okay, that’s Hungary. Poland and Czech Republic. That was 1999 under Clinton.

But then it just kept coming and kept coming and kept coming. And they said, with rising decibels and rising fervour, stop coming closer. And their ultimate red line has been consistent. It is Ukraine and Georgia. Why?

Well, it goes back Piers to the British Empire, to 1853, to 1856, actually to Lord Palmerston. He had an idea, surround Russia in the Black Sea. Render Russia’s fleet in the Black Sea in Sevastopol, which was there in 1853, just like it’s there in 2024, render it essentially inoperable. Control the Dardanelles. This is a long story.

And then Russia is a second or third rate power. And President Putin is responding to what has been a british imperial attempt for 175 years and a us attempt since 1991, basically to surround Russia with NATO. And what Putin has been saying is, dont do that. Stop, leave Ukraine as a kind of buffer zone. And Ukraine was perfectly happy with that, and public opinion was perfectly happy with that, and they didnt want to join NATO.

And in 2009, they elected Viktor Yanukovych, who promised them neutrality, which was the promise that Ukraine itself had made in declaring its independence, that they would be permanently a neutral country because they’re in between west and east, they’re in between Europe and western Europe or the European Union and Russia. So they wanted just, okay, we’ll be neutral.

But then the United States did team up to overthrow Yanukovych in February 2014. And that’s when this war started. That’s when Russia stopped saying, well, we’ll lease a base in Crimea. Rather, we’ll take back Crimea. We don’t want it to fall into NATO hands, just like the Tsar did not want Sevastopol to fall into Palmerston’s hands.

So this is basically a long, long story. I think the rest is negotiable. I basically think either the US and Europe dont understand what theyre doing, which is not impossible, or theyre still on what has been a 30 year neocon agenda, which I know about in detail, which is get NATO all the way to surround Russia, because that was the plan of Zbigniew Brzezinski and Dick Cheney and others going right back to the 1990s. They still want to do it and they think they can still accomplish this.

Bideoa:https://x.com/i/status/1803729263641698386

eka. 21

The West’s plan to destroy Ukraine was apparent a decade ago already.

22 h

“NO EXTENSION OF NATO’S JURISDICTION FOR FORCES OF NATO ONE INCH TO THE EAST of a unified Germany” – US Secretary of State Baker to Gorbachev, 1990.

eka. 21

Russia FM Lavrov: “If Ukraine had not broken the 2014 Minsk Agreements, it would now be at 1991 borders – the same borders it so passionately dreams of. Ukraine itself, by the hands of those who came to power through a bloody coup… destroyed its territorial integrity.”

0:00

here is this is going to get us all blown up if we don’t have a little bit more common sense NATO hadn’t actually

0:06

encroached he is preemptively doing this you seem very reliant on accepting

0:11

Putin’s world view Russia throughout its history has always believed in keeping

0:18

some safety from the West which has repeatedly invaded uh Russia it’s good

0:26

for superpowers to keep a little distance United States they they lied

0:32

they cheated and they started the expansion it’s an argument you’ve espoused on Russian State tv yeah I tell

0:37

it everywhere why are you not as censorious about Putin doing the thing you feel so angry about what you say

0:44

America’s done if they took uh Ukraine as a member of NATO we will end up in

0:50

nuclear war President Putin wants peace at least that’s what he wants you to believe the

0:56

Russian dictator has for the first time outlined his terms for CE fire ceasefire in Ukraine he’s demanded the complete

1:02

withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from four regions which are currently occupied by Russia which it claims to have annexed

1:08

Italy’s Prime Minister Georgia Maloney speaking this weekend’s peace Summit of world leaders said he’s effectively

1:14

telling Ukraine to withdraw from Ukraine but if Putin’s real aim was to feain innocence for his apologist and score

1:20

another propaganda Victory he may have been successful what the debate all this I’m joined by Professor Jeffrey saaks re

1:26

returning to uncensored Professor great to see you oh it’s great to be with you thank you

1:32

so much purus we had a great reaction to our last debate uh which was as Lively and provocative as I hoped it would be

1:38

so I hope we’ll get get the same again now um I just want to ask you this Putin

1:43

peace plan isn’t really a peace plan what he’s saying is all the land I have illegally stolen I want to keep isn’t

1:51

that what it boils down to well there are two issues uh one is

1:58

no NATO enlarg M and the second is this territorial issue it involves Crimea and

2:07

what they claim is the four regions of Russia to my mind this is overwhelmingly

2:14

about the first issue is about NATO because that’s been the issue on the table for 30 years territory was not on

2:22

the table until two years ago but for 30 years NATO was on the table I think the

2:28

territorial issue if I may say uh are probably negotiable

2:35

at least in part of course there’s been a war going on for 10 years now and an

2:41

escalation during the last two years I think the non-negotiable parts of what

2:46

Putin is saying I would guess really non-negotiable so we have to think about them is that NATO will not enlarge to

2:55

Ukraine and I think Crimea is non-negotiable for

3:00

uh Russia’s uh core security uh interests and perceptions and uh history

3:09

so I think what’s really absolutely core to what President Putin is saying is he

3:15

would like to stop the war he doesn’t want to take over Ukraine he doesn’t want to take more of Ukraine uh on the

3:24

combat line right now on the contact line he doesn’t control all four of

3:30

these provinces and I doubt uh that he would insist on that I do think that he

3:36

would uh uh hold out for Crimea almost every Western analyst and expert agrees

3:44

with that and there are many reasons for that but what I do think is at the core of this all along was Russia throughout

3:53

its history has always believed in keeping some safety from the West which

4:00

has repeatedly invaded uh Russia and after the end of the Soviet Union in

4:09

1991 the US and Germany had said to gorbachov and to yelson we won’t expand

4:17

Nato one inch Eastward but then uh like

4:23

always with the United States they they lied they cheated and they started the expansion and then uh the Russians I

4:31

was observing this all along the first expansions which were in Central Europe

4:38

didn’t come too close to Russia and they said we don’t like that you cheated you

4:44

told us no uh but okay that’s Hungary Poland and Czech Republic that was 1999

4:50

under Clinton but then it just kept coming and kept coming and kept coming and they said with

4:57

Rising decb and uh Rising fervor stop

5:03

coming closer and their ultimate red line has been consistent it is Ukraine

5:11

and Georgia why well it it goes back peers to uh the British Empire to 1853

5:20

to 1856 actually to Lord Palmerston he had an idea surround Russia in the Black Sea

5:28

uh render Russia’s Fleet in the Black Sea in sasto which was there in

5:35

1853 just like it’s there in 2024 render it essentially inoperable control the

5:42

Dells this is a long story uh and then Russia is a second or third rate power

5:50

and President Putin is responding to what has been a a British Imperial

5:56

attempt for uh7 75 years and a US attempt since

6:04

1991 basically to surround Russia with NATO and what Putin has been saying is

6:10

don’t do that stop leave Ukraine as a uh

6:16

a kind of buffer zone uh and Ukraine was perfectly happy with that and public

6:22

opinion was perfectly happy with that and they didn’t want to join NATO and in 2009 they elected Victor yanukovich who

6:29

promised them neutrality which was the promise that Ukraine itself had made in

6:34

declaring its independence that they would be permanently a neutral country because they’re in between West and East

6:42

they’re in between Europe and Western Europe or the European Union and Russia

6:48

so they wanted just okay we’ll be we’ll be neutral but then the United States

6:55

did team up to overthrow yanukovich in February 2014 and that’s when this war

7:01

started that’s when Russia stopped saying well we’ll lease a base in Crimea

7:08

rather we’ll take back Crimea we don’t want it to fall into NATO hands just like thear did not want uh sast stopel

7:16

to fall into Palmer’s hands uh so this is basically a long long story I think

7:23

the rest is negotiable uh I basically think either the US and Europe don’t

7:31

understand what they’re doing which is not impossible or they’re still on what has

7:39

been a 30-year neocon agenda which I know about in detail which is get NATO all the way

7:47

to surround Russia because that was the plan of big new binski and Dick Cheney and others going right back to the 1990s

7:55

they still want to do it and they think they can still accomplish this

8:00

say I’m GNA take all all right with respect you’ve given a very very long answer but I come back to my initial

8:07

question which is ultimately you know I I’m listen you’ve

8:12

been through a lot of the history there and some of the points are arguable but a lot of people I’ve heard Express

8:18

similar sentiments about some of the background to this and about Russia’s concern about the encroachment of NATO

8:24

and so on but it it doesn’t change the fact that Russ Russia illegally invaded

8:31

a European Sovereign Democratic country that has helped itself to vast sways of

8:36

the land and the latest polls show that the vast majority of Ukrainian people do

8:42

not want to seed an inch of the land that’s been taken to Vladimir Putin or

8:47

the Russians and yeah he can say I was concerned about NATO encroachment but

8:53

NATO hadn’t actually encroached so he is preemptively doing this and if

8:59

ultimately he’s allowed to take this land what message does that send the rest of the world rest of Europe the

9:05

other neighboring countries to Ukraine why should we have any confidence after Crimea after Georgia after Ukraine now

9:12

that he wouldn’t just carry on attacking and invading other neighboring countries that’s where I find your I wouldn’t say

9:19

trust I don’t think that’s the right word but you seem very reliant on accepting Putin’s world view rather than

9:26

perhaps the Stark reality of the barbarism with which she’s executed this

9:33

war yeah may maybe because I know too much about the United States because the

9:39

first war in Europe after World War II was the US bombing of Belgrade for 78

9:45

days to change borders of a European State the idea was to break Serbia to

9:54

create uh Kosovo as an enclave and then to install bondas steel which is the

10:01

largest NATO base in the Balkans in the southwest Balkans so the US started this

10:09

under Clinton uh that we will break the borders we will illegally bomb another

10:15

country we didn’t have any un Authority this was a quote NATO mission to do that

10:22

then I know the United States uh went to war repeatedly illegally uh in uh what

10:29

it did in Afghanistan and then what it did in Iraq and then what it did in

10:35

Syria which was uh the Obama Administration especially Obama and

10:41

Hillary Clinton tasking the CIA to overthrow Bashar al-assad uh and then

10:48

what it did with NATO illegally bombing Libya to taple morar Gaddafi uh and then

10:56

what it did in Kiev in Fe February 2014 I happen to see some of that with my own

11:03

eyes the US overthrew yanukovich together with

11:08

right-wing Ukrainian military forces we overthrew a president and what’s

11:14

interesting by the way is we overthrew yanukovich the day after the European

11:21

Union Representatives had reached an agreement with yanukovich to have early elections a

11:29

government of national unity and a standown of both sides that was agreed

11:37

the next thing that happens is the opposition quote unquote says we don’t

11:43

agree they stormed the government buildings and they deposed yanukovich

11:50

and within hours the United States says yes we support the new government it didn’t say oh we had an agreement that’s

11:57

unconstitutional what you did uh so we overthrew a government contrary

12:03

to a promise that the European Union had made and by the way uh Russia the United

12:10

States and the EU were parties to that agreement and the United States an hour

12:16

afterwards backed the coup okay so everyone’s got a little bit to answer

12:22

for in 2015 the uh Russians did not say we want

12:29

the donbas back they said Peace should come through negotiations and

12:36

negotiations between the ethnic Russians in the east of Ukraine and this uh new

12:44

regime in Kev led to the Minsk 2 agreement the Minsk 2 agreement was

12:52

voted by the UN Security Council unanimously it was signed by the

12:58

government of Ukraine it was guaranteed explicitly by Germany and

13:06

France and you know what and it’s been explained to me in person it was laughed

13:12

at inside the US government this is after the UN Security Council

13:17

unanimously accepted it the ukrainians said we don’t want to give autonomy to

13:22

the region oh but that’s part of the treaty the US told them don’t worry about it Angela Merkel

13:29

explained in desite in a notorious interview after the 20202 escalation she

13:38

said oh you know we knew that Minsk 2 was just a a a holding pattern to give

13:45

Ukraine time to build its strength no uh Minsk 2 was a un Security Council

13:51

unanimously adopted treaty that was supposed to end the war

13:56

so when it comes to who’s trustworthy who to believe and so forth I guess my

14:01

problem Piers is I know the United States government uh I know it very well I I don’t trust them for a moment I want

14:09

these two sides actually to sit down in front of the whole world and say these

14:15

are the terms then the world can judge because we could get on paper clearly

14:20

for both sides of the world we’re not going to overthrow governments anymore

14:26

the United States needs to say we accept this agreement the United States needs to say Russia needs to say we’re not

14:32

stepping one foot further than whatever the boundary is actually reached and

14:38

NATO is not going to enlarge and let’s put it for the whole world to see you know once in a while treaties actually

14:45

hold there an argument okay listen I hear I listen I hear you and it’s an argument you’ve espoused on Russian

14:51

State TV for as well I’ve heard you do that yeah um absolutely I tell it everywhere right so and that’s fine

14:58

you’ve been consistent I I get that but actually isn’t this if you look at it a different way a perfect illustration of

15:05

why there should be NATO encroachment actually because if you go through the

15:10

history since the start of World War II in 1939 it was Nazi Germany and the

15:16

Soviet Union that invaded Poland 1940 Soviet Union invaded the baltics 1940

15:22

Soviet Union annexed parts of Romania 56 Soviet Union invaded Hungary 68 Soviet

15:27

Union invaded Czech Sakia now Poland Estonia Lithuania lvia Romania Hungary

15:34

or Czechoslovakia did not invade Russia or the Soviet Union no threat emanated

15:39

from those countries but they were attacked by the USSR St Russia and that’s why these countries wanted to

15:46

join NATO and since they joined NATO none of them has been attacked by Russia again so if you were putting all that

15:53

into the mix here you might say that’s a perfect illustration of NATO power

15:59

deterring Russian aggression and that actually if Ukraine had speeded up uh

16:05

its membership of NATO uh which many of the people in Ukraine were actually Keen to do if it had done that it might have

16:12

had the protection against the illegal Invasion by Russia so in a way you could

16:18

flip your argument on its head and say it almost proves the opposite which is that by by not being part of NATO

16:24

Ukraine was vulnerable to the very attack that then happened just as it lost crime uh and my fear with Putin is

16:32

I don’t trust him as far as I could throw him I take your point about russan about American uh military activity I

16:37

was the editor of the Daily Mirror newspaper in England which led the campaign against the Iraq War which I

16:43

thought was a senseless illegal uh Invasion as well and I I’ve been very critical of America yeah so you know

16:50

it’s not like I’m a great U cheerleader for for what America’s done on the military stage but purely looking at

16:57

this situation with Ukraine I just I just don’t see why allowing Putin to

17:02

keep all this land is a good thing yeah i’ I’d ask you to consider uh

17:07

a couple more dates uh one is uh 1955 fascinating date because in

17:16

1955 uh Austria very cleverly uh agreed to permanent

17:25

neutrality on the basis that the Soviet Union would go home home and in the

17:30

state treaty they adopted neutrality and the Soviet Union went home and that’s

17:35

why Austria wasn’t part of the Iron Curtain for the decades that followed because they adopted neutrality and

17:43

non-nato membership now it’s fascinating and I don’t want to take us uh into a

17:49

long digression but the idea of the Soviet Union then was actually not only

17:56

with regard to Austria but it was more strategic what they were saying was do

18:02

the same with Germany which just killed 27 million of our people after all this

18:07

was 1955 was just 10 years from the end of World War II neutralized Germany

18:14

don’t make Germany a rearmed Cornerstone of something called NATO but make

18:21

Germany neutral and then we can end the Cold War and this was no less

18:29

the recommend or the recommendation of no less I should say than George Kennan

18:35

himself the author of containment George Kennan for years in the second half of

18:41

the 1950s said we’re missing the most obvious point a neutral Germany the Cold

18:47

War could end he went on wreath lectures in BBC to say this I think it was 1957

18:55

if I remember correctly and this is fascinating we missed the opportunity to end the Cold War decades earlier the

19:03

other date that I would urge you to think about is 1962 when the Soviet Union came close to

19:12

the United States uh in Cuba the US said

19:17

Monroe Doctrine you don’t come anywhere close to our hemisphere we nearly had

19:22

nuclear Armageddon in 1962 the Soviet Union was doing nothing

19:29

different from what the United States was doing in Turkey it was placing nuclear

19:35

offensive missiles or weapons near the border of the adversary I actually

19:42

kushev said I don’t want war with them I just want to do what they’re doing to us it nearly led to nuclear Annihilation

19:49

it’s good for superpowers to keep a little distance the United States is

19:56

expansionist if you say the Russians are expansionist or the Soviet Union is

20:01

expansionist keep a little space between them and that’s what President Putin has

20:07

been saying for more than two decades keep a little space be prudent we don’t

20:15

want the United States right up against our border and the US has really

20:21

provoked it not only overthrowing a Ukrainian president bad judgment in my

20:27

opinion but also so unilaterally walking out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty

20:32

in 2002 unilaterally placing ages missiles in Poland and Romania and when

20:40

Russia say what are you doing you’re breaking the whole security architecture the US says and I quote it’s none of

20:48

your business what we do NATO’s none of your business Russia that’s the formal

20:54

literal position of the United States of America America that we can go anywhere

21:01

with any Third Country including Ukraine or Georgia we can put our missiles wherever we want it’s none of your

21:08

business Russia well come on purs this is going to get us all blown up if we don’t have a little bit more common

21:14

sense okay but here’s what I’m struck by here’s what I’m struck by Professor talk

21:19

to you a couple of times I find you fascinating to talk to you by the way and I I know you have a deep knowledge

21:24

of all this albe it you have some interpretation of of what’s going on that’s different to what I have but I

21:30

respect your knowledge um and your scholarship on this but I’m just struck that your language towards Russia and

21:36

Putin is nowhere near as censorious as it is about uh America about your own

21:43

country it’s true and I but I but I think that you know what I sit here in England and think it’s so weird to see

21:50

such a learned American Professor who seems to think that a Russ that that America is the real problem here not

21:58

Vladimir Putin and Russia when many other people would think the complete

22:03

opposite Piers the problem is uh I I was

22:08

born in 1954 and I’ve seen nothing but us Wars

22:13

of choice and CIA Ops my whole life and since I became a International

22:19

Development specialist more than 40 years ago I’ve seen many of them up close and I’m tired of them you know a

22:28

very good book written in 2017 by a professor at Boston College

22:33

named Lindsay oor has the title covert regime change she studies peers no fewer

22:43

than 604 covert regime change operations by

22:49

the United States almost all of them CIA LED 64 During the period

22:56

1947 to 19 89 I’ve had heads of state say to me personally

23:04

Piers they’re going to they’re going to take me out was the term that one of

23:10

them used and I assured them this president in uh it was Haiti Haitian

23:17

president there no no no no we’re going to get all this sorted out in my naive way they walked this President this was

23:25

arist out to an unmarked plane flew him 23 hours in this coup

23:33

that the US arranged to Central African Republic and in a broad daylight

23:40

launched a coup and when I tried to get the New York Times to at least cover the story I wanted to read it read about it

23:48

I was told by the reporter on the beat oh our editors aren’t interested in that

23:53

so you can have coups in broad daylight I’ve seen the United States launch Wars

24:01

all over the world that Americans and others don’t even know were caused by

24:07

the United States it was only decades after the fact that Z big

24:13

binski told us that he had urged successfully Jimmy Carter to support the

24:20

jihadists the mujahadin to try to overthrow the government in Afghanistan

24:27

in 1979 to lure the Soviets into a trap that would be their Vietnam we messed up

24:34

Afghanistan for more than four decades in that little typical us regime change

24:40

if man okay but Professor look here’s my question if you feel so angry about so

24:46

many as you put it illegal military operations invasions whatever you want

24:51

to call them by the United States why do you not also feel that same level of anger When Vladimir Putin for whatever

24:59

political reasons he wants to come up with about fears of NATO encroachment blah blah blah when he launches a

25:06

fullscale invasion of Ukraine which is now a sovereign Democratic European

25:12

country and well it’s not a democratic country but it’s a it it had a

25:17

democratic election far more democratic than Russia it did it did a while ago it did a while ago under martial law it was

25:25

certainly far more of a well before the War Began it was certainly far more of a democracy than Russia has been in recent

25:31

decades you would certainly accept that wouldn’t you look I I think the point is so my

25:38

point here’s my my point is why why are you not as why are you not as censorious

25:43

about Putin doing the thing that you feel so angry about what you say America’s

25:50

done all I want is when Putin says we’ll negotiate and here our terms I want the

25:57

United States to say we’ll negotiate but we have different terms but we’ll sit down with you that’s

26:03

all I’m asking but his terms his terms is reported by Russian State media on Friday the complete withdrawal of

26:09

Ukrainian troops from the territories of donet Lans zapara and kerson after which

26:16

peace negotiations can begin I mean that’s just you know what I I don’t

26:22

believe that’s just taking taking a quarter of the country or even a third and saying I want to keep it

26:29

okay yeah so what are our terms for negotiations come on this is

26:35

negotiations you don’t get to keep any of it would be my terms well fine but the bottom line is

26:42

something else the bottom Line’s really about NATO so this is you know if if the

26:48

plan okay but that’s my point my point is if the plan if the if the plan of Biden is of course we’re going to keep

26:56

pushing NATO then there’s no peace then we’re just in in open War and the one that dies is Ukraine in the end but if

27:03

the maybe or maybe rather like all these other countries that the Soviet Union invaded maybe if Ukraine becomes a fully

27:11

paid up member of NATO it actually stops Russia from being so aggressive

27:17

constantly whether it was crime here in 2014 or whether it’s all these areas now in other words you you know power in

27:24

power in I’m just telling you yeah I I I’m

27:29

telling you the following in my assessment yeah uh if uh first of all it

27:35

can’t become a member of NATO in the midst of a war this is anyway NATO Doctrine but if they if they if they

27:42

took uh Ukraine as a member of NATO uh we will end up in nuclear war uh just

27:48

like we nearly ended up in nuclear war over the Cuban Missile why would we why would we for the same reasons we didn’t

27:55

because for in the Cuban Missile CR Comm sense prevailed right no it did it

28:02

by the way it almost didn’t Prevail every everyone was for war except for a very small handful of people including

28:09

thank God uh John F Kennedy and Nikita kushev and that was just about all that

28:15

saved the world but the reason is for Russia Ukraine is their 2,100 kilometer

28:22

border and they view this as an existential issue I can tell you for the US this is is a game this is the game of

28:30

Risk if you know that board game this is big briny’s game spelled out in

28:38

1997 in his article in foreign affairs called a strategy for Eurasia let’s

28:44

Corner Russia this is their game for Russia this is existential this is right

28:51

on their border they don’t want the United States right on their again sorry to jump in but again again this is your

28:57

inter ation of that but the other interpretation could be the other interpretation is that to stop Russia

29:03

invading its neighboring countries that’s what NATO is about and it’s proven very successful all those all

29:10

those countries that attacked before haven’t been attacked since because they’re part of NATO so this is this is

29:16

it could be it’s the other argument could be but it no you’re right you’re

29:21

right but then it could be nuclear war that’s all I’m saying but why would why would okay why would Vladimir Putin who

29:28

is apparently Elon Musk says he’s the richest man on earth and loves his

29:34

material things whether it’s Shadows or super Yachts or whatever it may be why would somebody with that mentality in

29:40

other words not an Islamic fundamentalist who has nothing who wants to kill himself for the cause and believes he’s going to you know meet 70

29:47

virgins up in in uh in wherever they end up going um why is somebody with Putin’s

29:54

materialistic capitalistic mentality why would he even contemplate Armageddon and

30:00

losing everything that’s that’s not what he’s about he hasn’t got that mentality he’s not someone he’s not a suici b

30:07

he well I I think it it’s useful for all of us uh and you and uh everybody

30:15

listening to go online and read a a memorandum by one of our best diplomats

30:24

William Burns who happens now to be CIA director but in 2008 was the US ambassador to Russia and

30:33

he wrote a secret memo back to condalisa Rice Secretary of State uh Julian

30:40

Assange enabled all of us to see the real discussion not The Superficial

30:47

patter and narrative and he explained this isn’t about Putin this question of

30:52

NATO this is the entire Russian political class everybody

30:58

and the the N the memo famously is called net means net that for Russia

31:05

this isn’t Putin this isn’t one person this isn’t a lark this is viewed by

31:11

Russia as existential this is viewed by Russia as do not stand on our borders

31:20

period especially now that the United States has abandoned unilaterally the

31:27

anti-ballistic missile treaty it has abandoned the international nuclear force now stoltenberg is

31:35

who’s well anyway he’s just parting the US saying we we are going to stock up on

31:42

our nuclear armaments they’re not going to accept it’s not Putin it’s Russia and

31:50

by the way you would feel the same way in their position and the United States

31:56

absolutely felt the same way when that was tested

32:01

and we have this Doctrine by the way which is even more remarkable since

32:09

1823 we’ve said no foreign powers in the entire Western Hemisphere not just on

32:15

our border but the entire Western Hemisphere and that doctrine that Monroe

32:20

Doctrine was reiterated I was sitting there when Donald Trump reiterated that in the UN General Assembly that was for

32:28

the whole Western Hemisphere so it’s perfectly understandable and it’s not

32:33

about Putin this is it’s about Russia’s absolute core National Security don’t

32:42

come up to our border perfectly sensible Professor sex great to talk to

32:48

you again I I find our conversations fasc wonderful to be with you I really really enjoyed thank you really

32:53

appreciate it thank you very much