Israel, AEB eta NATO zale estatu guztiak errudun, Palestinaren genozidioan (22)

Mohamad Safa@mhdksafa

Palestine is the most well-documented genocide in history, yet the most denied.

Don’t stop talking about Gaza

oooooo

@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu

ooo

Taiwan will be the next Ukraine a Compromise is needed to stop Neocon Escalation by David T Pyne

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MR4grH67ac)

The US seems dead set on going to war with China. What the neocons have learned from Ukraine is that you can fight a very profitable proxy war without sacrificing a single US soldier. This model has been highly beneficial for Washington—according to their own generals. It is highly likely that the US will try to duplicate the approach with China by pushing Taiwan into an open knife. But what would be the end game? And how can this be averted if a less sanguine administration came to power? Listen to this talk by David Pyne and Pascal on the potential for deescalating the conflict along realistic lines and a compromise.

David Pyne is a former U.S. Army combat arms and Headquarters staff officer, who was in charge of armaments cooperation with the former Soviet Union and other regions. He currently serves as Deputy Director of National Operations for the Task Force on National and Homeland Security.

Transkripzioa:

0:00

foreign

0:07

this is Pascal from neutrality studies and I’m here again with David Pine he

0:15

currently serves as the deputy director of national operations for the task force on National and Homeland Security

0:20

and he has been on this program several times so I won’t say much more thank you

0:26

David for joining me again thank you it’s a pleasure to be back in your show

0:31

um David so let’s talk today about Taiwan in particular and then later also

0:38

about Ukraine uh some colleagues on YouTube have been noticing a shift in

0:45

the narrative when it when it comes to Ukraine and one of the uh one of the

0:51

theories is that actually in connection with the U.S presidential campaign and

0:56

so on the Biden Administration would like to kind of dial down what’s happening uh what’s going on in Ukraine

1:02

especially looking at the fact that the counter-offensive has failed at this point it’s just utterly obvious after

1:08

three and a half months that it this this one’s gone so um there there’s also the idea that

1:16

maybe Taiwan and China will become way more important than that actually a shift is happening

1:22

um do you interpret it that way and what does the the ongoing U.S presidential debate how does that impact the

1:29

discussion about War and Peace in the United States well I mean as far as what um you know

1:36

what the buy administration’s trying to do and and how to frame it it does seem like there there may have been some administrative Administration leaks uh

1:43

about about the war um to try to change the narrative because we do have a pretty very kind of state compliant

1:49

media you know mainstream media is is uh kind of gets its talking points from the

1:54

bite Administration and rarely deviates uh from it particularly on big issues

2:00

such as uh you know climate change and uh of course the War uh the war in Ukraine uh being the big focus at this

2:07

point um so uh you know I can’t really speak to speak to with uh to that with any

2:14

certainty um in terms of how they’re trying to frame it um you really can’t spin it as you said

2:19

you really can’t spin the war and you create the counter-offensive as a victory for Ukraine uh Ukraine is has

2:25

suffered immensely as we can discuss later and is I would I would assess the biggest loser in the war

2:31

um and I think China is the biggest winner of the the war in Ukraine um but uh yeah in response to your

2:37

question um the situation in Taiwan uh this is a crisis that has been building uh over

2:44

many years uh um communist China of course has been uh wanting to reunite with Taiwan uh either

2:52

peacefully or by force uh for over 75 years I think and uh it’s uh it’s something that’s um

3:00

you know I I feel like it’s kind of it’s a tender Tinder Box it’s a flash point it’s kind of like Danzig in 1939. uh

3:07

it’s gonna happen uh I don’t have any doubt that uh This is Gonna escalate to war unless we can find some kind of

3:14

peaceful compromise agreement it’s unclear to me uh to be honest whether president Xi Jinping would even accept a

3:21

peaceful compromise agreement that falls short of his objectives uh for uh you know a full full Union

3:27

um however what I propose in my latest uh piece on uh Taiwan is perhaps an EU

3:33

solution uh where it wouldn’t be uh you know a full Union it would be a confederation uh based on kind of the EU

3:40

model uh in which there would be some kind of supernational Institutions uh perhaps uh

3:46

what I what I would call uh the Chinese Union instead of the European Union uh with its own uh you know Chinese Union

3:53

president presumably uh Xi Jinping um you know maybe a CU Congress a CU

3:59

Council uh obviously um you know to a large extent uh you

4:04

know communist China be in so much Huger uh so much larger than Taiwan uh

4:10

certainly would have to have would be overrepresented represented in those

4:15

institutions but at the same time uh would have very limited powers uh you know uh would break it would kind of set

4:22

a joint uh national security policy and a joint foreign policy whereas uh you

4:30

know along the lines of what Dane xiaopin proposed way back in the 80s um you know Taiwan could could be uh

4:37

still have its own Armed Forces uh of course he envisioned them being part of China formally

4:43

um that’s something I’d like to see devoided if possible because you know we know with the Hong Kong model

4:51

um you know it’s just a matter of time I think before uh China uh fully

4:56

assimilates uh any country that uh or any entity such as uh Hong Kong and

5:02

Macau um uh and uh you know kind of uses uh um

5:09

counter counterterrorism as an excuse to try to uh pass kind of uh you know the

5:14

National Security Law we saw in um in uh in Hong Kong so uh that’s why I

5:20

proposed this Middle Ground um uh I’m really amazed actually that there’s no one else that has proposed

5:27

any kind of compromise with China um and it’s really I think kind of it’s It’s almost like an unspeakable thing

5:34

you know it’s like appeasement it’s like you know the idea that we would compromise with China over Taiwan it’s

5:40

it’s kind of uh something that uh no one really wants to get into and so I’m

5:46

known for you know kind of bold Compromise type solutions that uh might

5:52

kind of blackball me in terms of mainstream media but I just out of an interest to to secure World Peace uh and

6:00

prevent world war three uh that’s kind of been my focus wait it’s very

6:05

interesting because these ideas for a Chinese Federation Confederation a

6:11

Chinese Union the way you put it those ideas have been around there but they are not popular in the United States

6:17

they come from from Taiwan itself the former vice president Lou julienne she

6:23

proposed a concept called a Chung hwa Union or Chung Hua Federation and Chung

6:29

Hua being of course the Chinese word for Chinese in the sense of Chinese food or Chinese ethnicity not not in the sense

6:37

of of of China China but but the one the thing that even uh Chinese Ethnic

6:43

Chinese in in the US or in Singapore and the Philippines would agree we are part of that form of being Chinese but we are

6:50

not we’re not part of China of course we’re not Nationals of the of the Chinese of the People’s Republic of

6:57

China but in the United States to uh this doesn’t happen often and we’ve

7:02

discussed this before you’re a realist I’m I realized we try to think of ways

7:08

uh to actually achieve and a possible outcome based upon political realities

7:15

right so the question to me is um of course

7:21

in in this in this constellation just as with the constellation in Ukraine we know that it’s not just the the two

7:29

countries in questions or in this case the People’s Republic of of China and Beijing and the Republic of China uh

7:35

Vietnam uh sorry Taiwan of course um but we know that the United States also has a very heavy role to play

7:42

because it is the security guarantor of Taiwan uh it was the United States that

7:48

uh that that kind of put its um uh aircraft carriers into the Taiwan Strait

7:55

back in the 50s stopping the the two sides from fighting it was the US who intervened several times in order to

8:01

keep uh fighting from happening but we’ve seen over the last 20 years how this approach has changed and any kind

8:09

of agreement between Taipei and Beijing would necessitate somehow also a nodding

8:16

off from the United States so my question to you

8:21

um as an American and and also somebody who’s involved in the in the in the presidential uh campaign of Vivek

8:27

ramaswami and so on um what do you think would the United States be willing to kind of contemplate

8:35

as a non-violent end to the conflict that would not be a 100 Independence of

8:42

Taiwan well I mean first I want to clarify that uh the U.S has no uh current security

8:48

guarantee over Taiwan has not since uh 1979 uh perhaps the earlier 1978

8:55

um President Jimmy Carter um of course um decided to bring an end to that we did

9:03

have a security agreement Mutual Security pack with Taiwan uh but that is

9:08

uh that’s been gone for 44 years um and uh President Biden unfortunately and dangerously I think he he makes

9:15

frequent reference the fact that we’re obligated to defend Taiwan militarily and that’s that’s something that’s a

9:21

Chinese red line it’s a nuclear Red Line essentially that um if we were to actually do that it would likely uh

9:29

almost uh invariably result in a nuclear conflict with with China and so

9:34

um that’s something we really need to avoid um but uh you’re absolutely right so uh

9:40

the U.S despite not having any formal guarantee for for Taiwan uh you know

9:46

it’s been this vague uh strategic ambiguity that we’ve had where uh we won’t say for sure whether we defend

9:52

Taiwan but at some point you know in some ways it seems implied uh and so they cut they kind of have relied on

9:58

that and they’ve uh you know not spent a lot in defense uh you know their defense preparedness has been pretty low they’ve

10:05

spent uh two percent or less of their GDP on defense kind of relying and assuming that the

10:11

status quo will be maintained and the status quo is actually it served Taiwan quite well

10:16

um in terms of the straight strategic ambiguity um it hasn’t been too provocative for China uh to to make them uh want to go

10:25

to war uh you know immediately then it’s preserved time when he’s Independence and so

10:30

um unfortunately that is proven in unsatisfactory for Xi Jinping um you

10:36

know my sources say he’s set a goal of 2025 uh to reunify with uh Taiwan uh if

10:42

by military action if necessary and so um uh you know Nick’s present Nixon wisely

10:49

stated that uh you know it’s important that we we accommodate uh Russia and China in terms of their vital interests

10:55

uh to avoid uh you know uh potential world war or nuclear war and so that’s

11:01

kind of the Spirit uh kind of the rationale that I that I had in trying to formulate um this solution now obviously

11:08

uh you know any kind of Confederation which with the PRC between the PRC and

11:14

Taiwan would be uh you know not a desirable Solution by any means uh it

11:20

could could be viewed as a stepping stone you know for China to take over Taiwan at a later date uh but I I really

11:27

do uh believe that uh you know that would be unlikely to happen uh you know for some time it could be could be 20

11:33

years um but my main focus is to is to avoid uh you know a World War which could cost

11:40

A Billion Lives if it were to to you know lead to a full-scale nuclear exchange while at the same time trying

11:47

to preserve taiwan’s uh um autonomy and self-rule

11:52

um as if not a separate entity uh you know in terms of that they would be able

11:58

to preserve their freedoms uh both political religious um and economic and do so backstopped by

12:06

uh you know maintaining their own uh military forces yeah and just let’s be

12:11

clear I mean we are talking about an island uh half less than half the size of Switzerland and with 24 million

12:19

people on it that’s that’s a mind-boggling number of people in a very very small uh space so

12:26

anything short of a very very quick Chinese Victory would be an absolute humanitarian Slaughter like you know in

12:33

in Ukraine people at least can like run the other way and go go go to Europe in in Taiwan that that there’s the water

12:40

right so this would be this would be an absolute horrible humanitarian

12:45

catastrophe that needs to be prevented at all costs the question is what can work

12:51

um this especially because the um I fear and I feel that in the west

12:56

the complexity of this of this uh conflict is not appreciated enough I

13:02

mean even the fact that the island of Taiwan the government of the island of Taiwan still officially calls itself

13:09

Republic of China this is something that is constantly left out of the discourse

13:15

in the west because it’s it’s inconvenient with the narrative because it would require to explain that the

13:22

government of Taiwan is actually the government that fled from mainland China and you know that in the past the

13:28

conflict was about who is China right that’s as long as as chunkai-shek was

13:33

around the question was who is China and who has the legitimate right over over claiming to be China I mean the Taiwan

13:40

the government there in Taipei was occupying this the seed in the security Council of China right and only once

13:48

they were kicked out and communist China was was led in that changed but by now

13:54

the conflict is about is Taiwan independent or not now in your proposal

13:59

um you’re trying to to lay out a middle ground in which Taiwan would still have

14:05

de facto its own uh independent government and legal system uh insulated

14:12

from the Chinese Mainland system because the biggest problem with that we’ve learned through Hong Kong is that if you

14:21

actually give China political sway over a territory that is that’s connected to

14:27

it but but different that there was the one country two systems framework at some point they will just breach the

14:33

legal bounds and then basically switch off the the the independence of these of

14:38

these territories and Taiwan would have to expect exactly the same as you correctly say it would be irrational to

14:43

think that China would act in a different way so how do you think that under a under a different political

14:51

framework you could still maintain Taiwanese uh de facto in the uh

14:57

Independence yeah like I said I mean the only the only way to do that would be to

15:02

um to retain Taiwanese control over its Armed Forces now its armed forces are vastly outnumbered and overmatched by uh

15:10

the prcs you know the pla military um but uh you know what they would say you

15:18

know what they’d have to give up or you know kind of um you know seed most of the influence would be again on foreign

15:25

policy uh you know kind of a joint foreign policy Joint Defense policy there might uh might be a joint air

15:31

defense system but no permanent uh Chinese milk you know uh PRC military

15:37

presence on the island um so yeah it really would be a compromise solution in answer to your

15:43

your previous question would that be something that would be acceptable to in U.S political circles I don’t think it

15:49

would be unfortunately um I think there’s you know certainly uh

15:54

perhaps a Donald Trump or Vivek Rama Swami they might be open uh more open to that although they they come under they

16:01

will come under tremendous political pressures as president uh to uh you know

16:06

kind of clamp down on that but as I see it you know there’s um uh you know if we want to avoid a

16:13

conflict there’s only two possible ways to do it one is the way I propose the other way is is simply strategic Clarity

16:20

that we will not defend Taiwan and then Taiwan will be forced to negotiate a peaceful solution but without U.S

16:27

mediation uh the solution would likely be a Hong Kong you know fully full Union situation uh where they probably would

16:35

not have any of their uh control over their military that would it would be merely assimilated into the pla

16:41

so that’s why I’ve advocated this solution as something you know the U.S has tremendous diplomatic clout and I

16:48

think China would I think China would accept this uh this uh solution I think it would view it as a step towards uh

16:55

kind of a full a full Union but you know just a few cosmetic things you know like

17:00

Pauline at the Chinese Union um replacing all international maps showing

17:06

them as the same country called the Chinese Union um having a joint flag with uh that has

17:12

uh the red star uh you know the red star flag is is kind of a joint flag on on a

17:19

Chinese Union Flag it would also have time we need symbols um and then of course having uh Jinping

17:27

as as the president of the uh this Con Chinese Confederation um I think a lot of those things uh you

17:35

know could go a long way in terms of uh you know I think it would greatly increase Chinese uh Prestige while at

17:42

the same time as you said um you know uh preserving if not de

17:48

facto Independence then uh you know at least their their freedoms uh you know political economic and religious

17:54

freedoms and you know again backed up by control of their own Armed Forces yeah and you know the the interesting thing

18:01

is we do have a precedent to build something like that and that’s actually

18:06

you know the the union between Russia and Belarus they are currently in a so-called Union State but that doesn’t

18:13

mean that that Belarus is not is not its own uh actor actually Belarus is way

18:19

more independent than than Taiwan so in a sense uh proposing a Russian belarussian uh Union State model would

18:27

actually be quite flattering to Taiwan too um but we we there are these there are

18:32

these moments now one of the questions I had in the past um is what you do with Taiwan as a

18:40

strategic Outpost and wait I need to show you something so there is there was

18:46

um a a activity in Taiwan by by Lou julienne so this former

18:52

this former uh vice president of Taiwan and she even held two conferences and

18:58

let me show you this so this is a nail clipper on my on my on my keys and it has this symbol on here it says peace

19:05

neutrality the dream of Taiwan uh Liu Julian was for a couple of years

19:10

uh after her vice presidency advocating for neutralizing Taiwan in not in the

19:18

sense of making it a neutral country but make it a neutral Island because neutrality is not the same as India as

19:23

Independence and it might actually solve this uh security conundrum saying like

19:28

Okay we are part of a larger Confederation but we are uh Taiwan is is off the is

19:37

just off the table for pla forces and for U.S forces so it’s kind of No Man’s

19:42

Land but everybody can go around it Etc but we are just we are not a forward position for the Chinese nor are we an

19:49

Unsinkable aircraft carrier for the United States um you told me in an email exchange that

19:55

you don’t believe that that could fly with either China or the US well I mean I think again with the right

20:02

U.S leaders I think that could fly and I think they would uh you know someone like Trump would be more amenable you

20:08

know Vivek ramaswamy potentially uh could you know could find that as a more amenable long-term solution than if than

20:15

uh you know an actual formal Confederation uh but but um uh I do think that would be I mean

20:22

the Chinese have literally they’ve clearly stated that uh neutrality for Taiwan would not be acceptable to them

20:29

because it implies that they’re a separate political entity uh able to chart a separate course from China so

20:34

essentially you know any any long-term solution I think would have to minimally concede that Taiwan is part of the

20:42

Chinese sphere of influence and that they have uh to one extend or another a dominant say in its foreign

20:48

policy and perhaps defense policy as well uh but you’re right I mean the absolute uh you know the first step I

20:55

think the first step to ensure that uh we avoid war over Taiwan uh could be

21:01

this neutrality proper position it’s uh you know some I I lay out a number of kind of preliminary confidence building

21:08

steps that would be short of the Confederation that we could actually stop there uh where we you know we um

21:15

uh you know they Proclaim neutrality uh we stop we clearly stated to uh uh to

21:22

Beijing that uh you know we’re going to stop our uh Taiwanese uh you know Naval sorties uh Taiwanese Straits Naval

21:29

sorties which are very provocative and really accomplish nothing at all I mean all they they don’t serve to increase

21:35

U.S or Taiwanese security and uh in fact I would argue that uh you know they

21:40

could provoke a war and in fact if you read um I think that the book name is

21:45

2034 by Admiral uh stavares I’m not sure if I’m pronouncing his name correctly

21:51

but um he’s a former NATO Supreme Commander he actually in his book the war starts

21:58

with the Chinese um attack a Cyber attack on a couple of uh you know like U.S Navy destroyers or

22:05

frigates uh you know that are transiting the Taiwanese Straits

22:10

um so that’s that’s you know the for that’s how the war starts uh a war between the US and and China over Taiwan

22:18

so um even neoconservative or liberal or nationalists can see that that is a

22:25

potential uh you know provocation that could lead to war

22:30

um what I’m what I’m very concerned about you know in here in the National Security circles that I that I run in

22:35

here in the U.S is they have you know they have a number of webinar webinars uh they’re typically

22:41

um you know war games for example uh over over Taiwan and they rigged the

22:46

game so that you can’t use neither side can use nuclear weapons you know that’s completely unrealistic you can’t put the

22:51

nuclear Genie back in the bottle it’s not you know we’re not going to re-fight the Battle of Leyte Gulf no matter how

22:58

much uh you know the Robert O’Brien’s and other other neoconservatives of the world might might want to do that and so

23:04

there’s a complete disconnect you know a very dangerous uh disconnect between uh the

23:12

prevalent uh US foreign policy Elite um and the reality of what a war I think

23:19

a war uh with China would look like and it would be a global conflict it would uh probably escalate to the the Cyber

23:26

and Space level on the first day of the war it would probably escalate to EMP or nuclear within a few weeks and

23:34

um you know it could destroy the US and its allies um I think Japan would be one of the first

23:39

countries uh to uh to be attacked obviously we with U.S military bases there’s no possible way that uh Japan

23:47

would not be attacked uh in the event of uh on Taiwan War uh potentially the

23:53

Philippine spaces Australia uh South Korea uh as well so the way that we

23:59

guarantee the security and safety of not only uh U.S citizens but that those of

24:05

our allies as well our treaty allies I’m talking about uh would be to uh to reach

24:11

some kind of compromised solution or else uh again uh declares strategic Clarity and clearly state that we will

24:18

not defend Taiwan militarily that that alone would save us from conflict and uh

24:24

would would uh Stave off a Chinese Invasion because uh you know no Taiwanese leader would uh you know with

24:31

that Clarity no time when he’s leading would refuse to negotiate with Beijing as as they’re doing right now hey I I

24:38

agree with you the just to be clear also for Japan war in and about Taiwan or

24:45

would be an absolute worst case scenario because of the uh the the islands in

24:51

Okinawa and so on and Japan does feel very vulnerable this is something that that also the Japanese tried to prevent

24:57

at all costs um for the Taiwanese of course even more so it’s this is this super existential

25:04

question but among all of my Taiwanese friends that I have they agree that uh

25:11

being incorporated into China is a bad outcome but being a fighting a war with

25:17

China would be an even worse outcome so rather incorporation without without fighting than uh than actually having a

25:25

war because it’s it’s just will be so catastrophical

25:30

um now the the question to me is why is

25:35

it that there seems to be a bipartisan and consensus in the United States that you know the the war with China is not a

25:43

question of if if but a question of when I find this extremely Troublesome when I

25:49

hear these kind of statements and also the kind of getting ready you know even Tucker Carlson who is very much against

25:56

the war in Ukraine and and rightfully and justly puts a good chunk of the

26:02

blame on the on U.S policy even he is very much saying that because he says we

26:08

have to get ready for the war with China um is there a way in your in your in your

26:14

view to de-escalate this war rhetoric inside the United States

26:19

well I mean um you know my view I’m a lifelong anti-communist um and uh you know I was I was a

26:26

consummate cold warrior in my 20s uh I was in the military um when the cold war came down as as uh

26:33

you know soon to be commissioned officer in the army um so uh I don’t view I don’t believe

26:39

that China can ever be a friend of the U.S I don’t believe that China could ever be a strategic partner in the US I

26:45

do believe Russia as a non-communist country can be a strategic partner and a friend or an ally for peace not a

26:52

military ally but uh you know an out someone that a country that we can work with um for peaceful outcomes because I don’t

26:58

believe they have any aggressive intentions uh China you know is always you know communist China has always

27:04

believed that Taiwan is part of China and uh that is their number one

27:09

geostrategic objective it’s not to take over the world economically uh it’s

27:15

actually to uh uh to you know end this idea of like you said a a competitor uh

27:22

in Taiwan uh calling themselves the Republic of China that uh really has been

27:28

um you know at least historically was a um you had a claim to to uh control of the

27:36

Mainland uh and that’s just not it’s never been acceptable to to uh the CCP

27:41

leadership and it’s certainly not acceptable to Xi Jinping who’s uh considered a hardliner and even in

27:46

Chinese Communist circles so um you know I think uh the sooner we wake up to the

27:52

fact that um you know we have to we have to look for a peaceful solution the better uh you know just rereading

27:58

history I’m a constantly World War II historian um and uh you know Nazi Germany is evil

28:06

and horrific as as Hitler uh was and he became of course with the evil genocide

28:11

and mass murder of the Jews and the Holocaust um he did not walk war with Poland he did not war with uh what war the UK and

28:19

France um he wanted Danzig and uh and you know a

28:25

real railroad Corridor between Danzig and the rest of Germany is you know the

28:30

Riverside treaty had broken broken it in half um but the polls simply refused to talk so what I’m saying is we need to have

28:38

discussions you know we don’t we don’t need to agree to everything that China is saying uh but what I’m saying is if

28:45

there had been negotiations there could have been a successful outcome that could have averted World War II wouldn’t

28:50

have averted war between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union because that was Hitler’s primary objective uh but in

28:56

this case it we we if we just had the Taiwanese speaking to China about uh

29:02

some kind of compromise uh you know agreement that would be mediated by the U.S

29:07

um even if if it took years it took a few years uh but we were able to come up with kind of a general timeline that’s a

29:15

near-term timeline I think China would hold off um it’s the very fact that Taiwan has

29:20

refused to even discuss any you know form of Confederation or any you know

29:27

anything regarding to reunification and the US has also refused to discuss it’s it’s the failure of diplomacy that will

29:35

lead us into a war uh within the next couple years uh based on my assessment well the I mean one thing is that we

29:43

know that China is willing to discuss right we’ve had a meeting between Xi Jinping and maing Zhang the previous uh

29:51

president um who was president of the of the uh the kuamindang government I

29:59

think it was in 2000 2014 or 15 when that meeting took place in Singapore between the leader of the

30:08

People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China right and they were actually shaking hands so we know that there is

30:15

there’s possibilities right now we’ve got another party in power and um saying

30:21

when the current president um it looks as if though in next years in January Taiwan is going to have

30:27

elections so she cannot stand for election because she had her two terms but it looks as if though her

30:33

um her current prime minister might actually become the next uh the next the

30:39

next president so no change in party and this party is a pro-independence party

30:45

but on the other hand we don’t know how that election will will come out so January is actually a very important

30:50

moment then to watch for for Taiwanese internal uh uh uh politics

30:56

but um I just would like to challenge you on one thing that you said about the Communists because because of recent

31:03

events you know um why is it that there’s no cooperation possible with communist China but we’ve

31:10

now seen that as a cooperation with communist Vietnam is no problem whatsoever you know handshakes Biden in

31:16

Hanoi and this is even more surprising because you know 50 years ago there was a huge huge War very horrible with like

31:23

millions of dead Vietnamese and it’s that Vietnam not South Vietnam but North Vietnam that that the the United States

31:30

is now elevating its security relationship with um so do you think it is really the Communist factor that makes an

31:37

accommodation impossible or is it more the great power factor that that will stand in the way

31:43

I think it’s definitely the aggressive nature of of the uh the Beijing regime

31:48

um you’re absolutely right I mean we’ve we have a history of allying with and cooperating with communist regimes that

31:53

we don’t view as uh opposing our national interests or you know for example Nixon’s trip to China I mean

31:59

communist China was always viewed as the quote-unquote bad Communists or the ones that were more you know pushing

32:06

immediate war or revolution versus uh the Soviet Union which was more of a satisfied power they had a huge amount

32:13

of a huge Empire and they were a little bit more cautious about risking it you

32:18

know with some kind of you know World War III scenario trying to take take over Western Europe whereas uh you know

32:24

China was kind of pushing a near-term uh you know war with with the US so

32:31

um no I think I think if we uh and that’s where you know spheres of influence can come in you know I think

32:37

uh it’s it’s uh in the U.S interest to negotiate some kind of severe influence

32:42

agreement with with uh China over the South China Sea I think their 11-line it is uh is too you know I don’t think we

32:49

should accept that but we could I would say that we could accept Chinese control in the parasail Islands perhaps the

32:55

Western half of the spratly the islands I don’t think it’s I don’t think the U.S should ever agree to uh you know

33:02

um allow you know Chinese uh dominance or control of the Seas up until you know

33:08

like 20 miles away from the Philippines which is a U.S treaty Ally um but I think that I think that’s where

33:14

we can compromise you know these are islands um you know that are and you know like

33:19

reefs and stuff that are essentially almost uninhabited you know so that’s that I think is is

33:27

um and of course they’re strategic there’s a lot of resources um and and they uh get close to uh you

33:34

know this closer to the straight to block and whatnot and they you know become I guess more of a threat to uh to

33:42

uh the Nations that the border on the South China Sea including communist Vietnam

33:48

um but you’re absolutely right if we can go if we can uh you know seek out communist Vietnam as an ally essentially

33:53

you know almost a de facto Ally and try to align with them um then uh there’s I think there’s

34:01

um should be less uh reluctance to seek out peaceful coexistence with China you know

34:07

because we’re nuclear superpowers and I believe based on my assessment they they

34:13

have a nuclear Arsenal that’s as large or even larger than America’s I know

34:18

that’s not the Prevail at you uh Russia of course has even more and they’re

34:23

they’re they’re treaty allies and we need to we need to pry that Alliance apart now I I re I read an article I

34:29

think it was this morning in the National interest that talked about how you know we could pry pry the alliance

34:35

apart by aligning more with China you know cooperating more with China I I think

34:40

it’s the exact opposite but I you know I think we should be aligning more with Russia and then that would uh preclude

34:47

that there perceived need to to be a close military ally of China uh but

34:52

regardless you know we live we share the same world you know we’re both uh you

34:57

know they’re arising uh nuclear superpower uh we’re we’re kind of a status quo power that might be a little

35:04

bit uh you know receding and we need to recognize um the fact that uh you know we simply

35:11

cannot allow a nuclear war over a nation uh a little bit larger than Moldova I

35:17

mean this is a very tiny Island it’s very strategic uh but the US has no security agreement with uh with Taiwan

35:24

uh it’s not a you know it’s not a kind of a NATO member or it’s you know it’s not a Japan or a Philippines or a

35:31

uh you know South Korea and we just need to have a more realistic uh view of

35:37

what’s possible you know you and I believe are both foreign policy realists uh you know realism is is

35:44

just like politics it’s about the art of the possible what we can actually achieve we see the world as it really is

35:49

and that that includes uh a willingness to accept some unpleasant realities and

35:55

unfortunately the US is currently controlled by a foreign policy establishment uh which is not willing to

36:01

see you know to to view the world as it really is but uh they like to believe that the U.S can still bully itself

36:08

around uh whether it’s in in the Taiwan Straits or in Ukraine and uh exert what

36:14

I what I refer to as overlapping spheres of influence that infringe on the vital interests of our uh to nuclear

36:21

superpower adversaries so that’s that’s really the key uh that we need to avoid is is we need to not infringe on their

36:28

vital interests so anything that we would just we wouldn’t allow that uh them to do that to us if they were to

36:34

occupy Mexico exactly so I mean that’s the difference between us and these people I mean this neocon P people who

36:42

still pretend that it’s all about democracy versus autocracy which is

36:48

absolutely dumb we don’t need to repeat while that is stupid it’s just dumb it’s not what it’s about it’s a this is a

36:54

great power uh rivalry pure and simple and accepting that there are spheres of

36:59

Interest spheres of influence whatever you want to call it it’s just a necessity of life

37:04

um but last question about exactly that point these neocons in the in the US the

37:09

people in the driving seats the blinkens and the Newlands and the boltons unfortunately and the pompeios you know

37:16

this these this group is large now what we’ve seen with Russia is that they have

37:22

and with Ukraine that they have fantastic ideas of how weak the enemy is

37:28

and what you can do with them we’ve read all of these articles right that say oh the end game has to be to break abrush

37:35

into 15 successor States right make them very small and then make Moscow Moscow whites pay for the war blah blah so the

37:42

end game with Russia for these lunatics was to break Bianca from Russia for

37:48

these lunatics was to break Russia up now what would be the end game because I’ve never read that what would be the

37:54

end game for the neocons in China uh because fighting a war for defending

38:00

Taiwan and even being willing maybe to go all the way to the nuclear level just to not lose Taiwan is a dumb proposal

38:07

it’s about as dumb as the idea of the Japanese in the second world war to

38:12

fight a war with the US just in order to kind of have a come come to an agreement to to divide the Pacific right that was

38:19

the best case scenario for the Japanese that was a dumb idea to make a war but we know that people do dumb things uh

38:26

when they believe that you know oh it’s not that difficult now what what’s the neocon end game with China have you ever

38:33

heard an end game has that ever come to you yes I have and actually I’m a part of an

38:39

organization I won’t say what that uh that has that very view so the end game

38:44

for China for the neoconservatives is regime change it’s regime change with

38:49

with uh you know the US essentially helping a non-existent Chinese resistance

38:56

movement to overthrow uh the con you know the Communist Chinese party and liberate China uh for you know I guess

39:03

the forces of democracy and uh that’s really that that’s really what the end game is they they want to overthrow the

39:10

CCP that’s the the end game is exactly they believe that what you know I

39:16

actually think they do believe they believe that we that they can do um you know another Soviet Union

39:24

collapse that’s essentially what they’re what they want to do they don’t want to divide China into multiple pieces but

39:29

they want to overthrow communism and China just as as occurred voluntarily on

39:34

the part of Gorbachev and the Soviet Polo Bureau at the fall of the Soviet Union that’s the end game they see the

39:41

fall of the CCP ending the cold war with China people are so dumb and David because

39:48

like I’m not laughing because there’s no resistance movement to speak of in China that’s one thing I’m laughing because

39:53

even if you do that you’re gonna have exactly the same issue because if China

39:59

Remains the way it is it’s always going to be a gray power competitor because of the sheer size it has and of the army it

40:06

has and I mean Russia is not the Soviet Union anymore Russia is actually at

40:11

least on paper a democratic State uh and and Putin is democratically elected and

40:18

he actually does have the support of a large part of the Russian population the uh

40:24

if you look at the policies of Chiang Kai-shek you know this guy was as much a

40:30

dictator and a horrible Beast the the way that uh Mao zadong was we would have

40:35

exactly the same problem in mainland China even if he had remained in power that’s just it’s it’s just it’s great

40:44

power politics it’s not it’s not that the regime type so this this idea of the

40:50

neocons is just crazy well I do agree with them on on one level I I think uh you know obviously

40:57

with the uh you know the Republic of China on Taiwan um you saw a mellowing that you know the

41:03

marshall law ended in 1975 uh Democratic elections soon followed

41:08

um I think in the 80s and it’s been Democratic ever since so I I do think if

41:13

it were possible and I don’t believe it is for uh you know for the CCP to be overthrown I think the whatever

41:20

uh form of government replaced it unless it was of course Hardline you know Chinese generals pla generals uh would

41:28

be less aggressive and would be more willing to uh uh to work with the U.S

41:33

productively um certainly there would still be the you know economic dominance I think

41:39

they’d want to keep pursuing that but in terms of actual military confrontation I I don’t think we’d see that and I don’t

41:45

think they’d even want to you know assuming it was a different regime type from Taiwan

41:51

I don’t think they would be uh be willing to resolve the Taiwan issue by

41:56

force so I do think there was some sense you know there’s definitely a logic that if we were to replace the CCP would be a

42:04

much more uh peaceful oriented regime it would all it would still be the great power you know be the economic uh you

42:11

know they still try to exert economic control I think that’s the ccp’s main objective they I don’t think they want

42:18

direct war with U.S I think they’re willing to go to direct War the U.S over time one but if we can resolve the

42:23

Taiwan issue I I think we can avoid a great power war with China they’ll

42:28

continue to try to use the Bri which now includes I think a hundred and um uh over 150 countries 155 countries

42:36

about 80 percent of the world’s countries thus far um but that’s something we can work with we I think we can you know I want to try

42:44

to fight that economically I think we should have a trade block against uh Chinese dominance economic dominance but

42:52

the fact is we can live in a world we are we exist in a world today with Chinese economic dominance we can live

42:58

peacefully without a great power War keep maintain the great power peace

43:03

avoid a nuclear war uh in a world with uh with Chinese economic dominance uh

43:08

but we we just have this flash point I I view it as almost uh you know a ticking Time Bomb which if you know if both

43:15

sides and I’m blaming both sides in this case I support I stay with the people of Taiwan I’ve always loved Taiwan I think

43:22

we owe them uh great uh moral obligation um to defend the to the extent that’s

43:29

possible without a nuclear war but both sides need to give you know and that’s what you and I are about we’re about you

43:35

know whether it’s neutrality or some kind of duck power diplomatic Solution that’s the only way you know short of

43:43

what I what I said was strategic Clarity and saying we won’t defend Taiwan militarily I I think that’s the only way

43:48

we avoid war either near-term or median term yeah and it there needs to be some

43:54

sort of compromise the question to me is because one thing I can imagine is a compromise and unspoken one you know the

44:00

amazing thing is that Taiwan has been peaceful and stable for the last 60 65

44:06

years uh ever when the bomb being stopped right and this has been peaceful

44:11

not because there was an agreement but because or an assigned agreement but because there was an implicit agreement

44:17

between the two of how to structure their relations and that’s why Taiwan de facto is doing fine de jure it’s in a in

44:25

a huge huge Gray Zone right but it works it works so any form of compromise uh

44:32

signed and ratified or implicit but accepted would work but there needs to

44:37

be in and uh a mindset that this is what we want and what I’m afraid of is that

44:44

we are we’re running out of that agreement and and both all sides are hardening toward okay let’s let’s settle

44:52

this by force uh I hope we don’t go there

44:57

um but that’s how World War started and we we saw uh you know peaceful options diplomatic compromises were available

45:03

for uh you know the great the great power protagonists of both world wars in the case of World War One if

45:09

Austria-Hungary had simply accepted the Stop and Belgrade option that Britain offered uh I think you know Russia

45:15

wouldn’t have liked it but they would have accepted it um but us you know instead Germany felt

45:21

like it had to give a blank check to Austria because it was his only only Ally

45:26

um you know so uh you know we’ve already already talked about the situation how

45:31

World War II could have potentially been avoided as well so you’re absolutely right you know um we can’t allow our

45:37

position to harden to the extent that uh you know we forego um The Diplomatic negotiation process

45:44

that’s how we got the war in Ukraine you know Putin was absolutely willing he actually drafted a Mutual Security

45:50

treatment essentially a comprehensive the peace agreement with the West to resolve all of our major disputes in one

45:57

agreement and December 2021 that’s right and uh January 25th 2022 uh The Binding

46:05

Administration rejected it uh you know in its entirety you know if you want that if they had said we could accept

46:11

these you know five of the ten points Russia would have you know Putin would have been like fine you know we’ve got a

46:17

deal and uh no Invasion necessary yeah we negotiate this was this was not an

46:22

end product this was at the beginning this was a starting point it’s like this is our position so is yours but it’s

46:28

right and said no we are not negotiating Russia sit down shut up and you better know your place and well yeah and that’s

46:35

what the war in Ukraine is all about it’s about uh demonstrating uh continued uh U.S Primacy you know the idea that

46:42

we’re again the biggest as Colin Powell stated former secretary of state of the United States uh we’re the biggest bully

46:49

on the Block and we need to teach other countries a lesson if they they try to do what we’ve done which is invade other

46:54

countries unprovoked and illegally and I said this before but I’m pretty sure at some point somebody will ask Tony blink

47:01

and do you think half a million uh Ukrainian dead soldiers was was worth it I’m pretty sure he will answer yes I

47:08

think we it was worth it you know in Madeleine Albright’s style right that’s because that’s the thinking of these

47:13

people anyhow it’s good talking to you it’s good to know that there’s there’s um like a realist in the United States

47:20

sane people and peace oriented um realistically peace oriented so David Payne thank you very much for today

47:27

thanks so much Pascal have a great night [Music]

oooooo

ooo

This TRUTH About NATO Will Blow Your Mind. Only Argument You Need. | Dr. Jan Oberg

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-8HrXfnyxg)

NATO is a criminal organisation according to its own charter and it‘s belligerent ideology is build on a pile of ideological nonsense. Listen to Dr. Jan Oberg, a prolific and outspoken Danish conflict researcher. In this straight forward talk, Dr. Oberg completely obliterates both NATO and the Collective West war-derranged hypocrisy.

Dr. Oberg holds a PhD in sociology from Lund University and an honorary doctorate from Soka University in Tokyo. He held teaching positions in Japan, Spain, Austria, Burundi, and Switzerland, and he is the co-founder and director of the Transnational Foundation for Peace & Future Research.

Transkripzioa:

0:00

if countries and organizations could just follow the laws that would be nice NATO is a criminal organization since

0:06

the bombing of Yugoslavia where it had nothing to do according to its own Charter it has been violating its own

0:13

Charter secondly why have we accepted that self-defense means offensive

0:19

deterrence the main thing we need to change is the idea that we deter

0:25

somebody and we do it offensively that means as far away from ourselves responsible when I if I say to you my

0:32

defense here will be able to Smash Up Japan where you sit I’ve already said that I consider you an enemy what I’m

0:40

saying is the whole concept that we call defense today and security politics is

0:47

wrong because it is by definition offensive it cannot but lead to Arms races and warfare everything NATO is

0:53

built on is intellectual [Music]

1:03

hello everybody this is Pascal from neutrality studies and today I’m talking to Dr Yan orber a Danish and Swedish

1:10

peace researcher Dr orber holds a PhD in sociology from Lund University and an

1:16

honorary doctorate from Soka University in Tokyo he held teaching positions in

1:21

Japan Spain Austria Burundi and Switzerland and he is a co-founder and director of the transnational foundation

1:28

for peace and future research he’s also an outspoken critic of the current War mentality in Europe and the US so today

1:35

we want to discuss the big picture of War peace and maybe neutrality as well Dr OBC Yan welcome thank you so much I’m

1:44

guilty of much as you here well um let’s start with yourself because you’ve been

1:51

researching conflicts for over 40 years I think if if I saw that correctly can

1:58

you tell us a little bit about your work and what you what this led you to over

2:04

the years you know in terms of insights about how conflict and Wars actually work what’s the framework that you’re

2:10

using to understand what’s going on well um let me just quickly say that

2:16

we are all inspired and standing on the shoulders of someone else and I had a Headmaster in my high school who was a

2:23

10 mark leading pacifist and he was one of the the leaders of bringing seven ,000 Jews

2:31

during the second world war in safety to Sweden which was a dangerous thing to do and then I studied sociology came to

2:38

Sweden and there I had my first Mentor hawen verberg who was a professor of

2:43

Sociology here and gave a little course in peace research and then I ran into Johan gon who sadly died earlier this

2:50

year at the age of 93 and I was a friend of his over 50 years so I’ve been in

2:56

very good hands when it comes to the Academia and I’m strong believer in the

3:02

idea that peace research means to exactly like medicine reduce the

3:09

baddies and in this case it is to reduce all types of violence um and that is what Johan would

3:17

call the negative peace uh get rid of war and things like that but also gender

3:23

violence and violence against nature and all that and then the freed resources from that goes into positive peace what

3:29

kind of potential do societies have when they kind of put you know violence behind them because we

3:36

we we waste incredible sums on violence today particularly in the western world

3:42

and particularly in the US NATO system so I’m committed to uh if you will

3:47

nonviolence and uh believe that uh the biggest curse the Western world has at

3:53

the moment de developed itself because it has no enemies it makes enemies it

3:59

makes others enemies like China and Russia Etc by its own behavior but I’m a

4:04

stonch Believer in learning peace peace can be learned peace can be learned in

4:10

the sense that we could teach each other how to deal with conflicts conflicts are okay there will always be conflicts in a

4:15

lively Dy dynamic system whether a marriage or school or a political party or a democracy but we must get rid of to

4:23

survive as humanity and spend our resources better is to get rid of violence reduce violence so the parallel

4:30

I see is medicine you do diagnosis prognosis and treatment and what most

4:36

peace researchers and most peace people and other good-hearted ones that don’t get to is what are we going to do about

4:42

it so you have a lot of people who are sitting now crying about in the third world war and it will blow up and blah

4:48

blah blah we don’t know and I believe in not believing in

4:53

that because people in power wants us to give up and be you know become deist and

4:59

take another wine instead of working for Alternatives there are only Alternatives that people once

5:05

said well said well said there are and there there are ideas of what to do now

5:11

one of the ideas and you talked about this in another talk was is the United Nations the idea of top down enforced

5:17

peace pyramid like like a like a Central State it’s the dream of Emmanuel Kant right the Perpetual peace under a world

5:26

government um a lot of people now are saying like that that dream is not only over it’s a nightmare and we should get

5:33

rid of the UN in generally because it’s obviously not working I’ve seen you in another talk where you argued look it’s

5:41

not perfect but we can work with it can you maybe tell us about like what do you think of how we could work with this

5:47

imperfect institution of the UN well I wonder why we don’t have

5:53

similar discussions about NATO which doesn’t work etc now and most governments that don’t work I according

6:00

to people’s wishes um I am totally against those people who say we just

6:06

closed down the UN because if there’s nothing else left there is the normative

6:13

the nor normative power of the UN and international law that is embedded with the UN and that is a charter and the

6:20

charter has wonderful things such as and this most gandan document that governments have ever signed it says

6:27

that war shall be abolished in the Preamble and in article one it says that peace shall be established by peaceful means

6:35

and third chapter 7 says that when everything has been tried with civilian

6:40

nonviolent means then the UN can organize a military force let’s say to

6:45

get an aggressor out of a country or prevent the genocide or whatever now that to me is a brilliant piece of paper

6:53

and if we don’t have that if we scrap the whole thing then we are you know I

6:58

wouldn’t say in the J because the jungle is a more beautiful system a well organized organic system but you know what I mean we will have a US World

7:05

instead of a un world so you can go back to the first Secretary General of the

7:11

United Nations the Norwegian TR V and he said what he’s probably in my view the

7:16

most fundamental about the UN the UN will never be stronger or better than the member states wants to make it so

7:23

those who would want to have a discussion about the UN I tell them let’s have a discussion of how how your

7:29

country is a UN member how much it every day 24/7 violates the UN Charter do what

7:36

you should as a UN member and the UN will be a brilliant organization give it 100 times bigger budget because as you

7:43

know as a final part of of answering your question we spent the world spent

7:49

three to 400 times more money on the militarism and warfare than it does on

7:56

the UN now I worked with the UN here and there not been employed but I’ve worked with a for instance in former

8:01

Yugoslavia they always get blurred mandates they all get some very bad soldiers from member states they all get

8:09

some kind of you know we can cancel the whole thing if you don’t do what we want and they got this stupid agenda for

8:15

peace which said that peace could be enforced by violent means Etc I worked against it behind the scenes but they

8:21

did get that there are lots of problems with the UN but for Christ’s sake before you have something better make it better

8:29

until you have something better don’t scrap it I would support that and people

8:34

people say uh you know international law is just as outdated as the UN because it

8:40

doesn’t work but I need to ask you so the problem that it doesn’t work as it is intended to what do you say about

8:46

that and secondly you are right the UN Charter is a wonderful document and it Outlaws war and so on and so forth but

8:54

it brings it back in it sneaks it back in through article 51 through through the back door by saying that you know uh

9:02

it’s you’re still allowed countries are still allowed to violently defend themselves and even worse collectively

9:08

defend themselves which is what all the NATO countries right now are preaching from their pulpits right we are only

9:15

helping Ukraine to defend itself in accordance with the UN Charter article 51 um and every goddamn War since the

9:21

second world war has been fought basically more or less on uh with the excuse of article 51 how can we Rectify

9:29

that one that is a difficult one I agree and of course this is the um the jumping ground

9:38

that they are using that is article 51 about the right to self-defense you even hear Israel argue that about that of the

9:45

moment when it does a genocide in the name of selfdefense but the long story short about this is who said that we

9:51

should have self-defense the way we have it now question mark If you read the NATO

9:58

treaty I think you and I could sign that tomorrow or today it is totally

10:04

defensive it’s a copy of the UN Charter it says in paragraph Article Five of the

10:10

NATO treaty that our only extra obligation is to support a country which

10:18

a member state of the alliance who have been attacked now that is a defensive

10:24

thing that’s the first thing if again if if countries and organizations could

10:29

could just follow the laws that would be nice uh NATO is a criminal organization since the bombing of Yugoslavia where it

10:35

had nothing to do according to its own Charter it has been violating its own Charter and somebody somewhere in the

10:43

international uh system should investigate NATO for you know for 25

10:48

years having broken its own um agenda its own statutes that’s a serious thing

10:55

secondly why have we accepted that self-defense means of defensive

11:01

deterrence most countries argue today that my defense consists in being able to kill you 5,000 kilm away within my

11:11

missiles that’s not defense if you want to deter it must be

11:18

defensive if you want to have defensiv and as long as it’s a democracy where some people want to carry weapons we

11:25

have to accept that there are some people who carry weapons and therefore you must have a compet defense but the

11:30

main thing we need to change is the idea that we deter somebody and we do it

11:37

offensively that means as far away from ourselves as possible when I if I say to

11:42

you my defens will be able to Smash Up Japan where you sit I’ve already said

11:47

that I consider you an enemy if there if instead I built a Chinese wall you know with modern

11:55

technology and I’m not saying the wall physically but it’s a it’s a symbol of of defensive defense it only works when

12:01

somebody comes to you and try to do something bad to you then we’ll give you hell so defensive defense is a

12:09

combination of smaller destructive power short range density and Mobility if you

12:15

want to talk military terms I don’t mind that I would like to see a world only with nonviolent defense and non

12:21

nonviolent conflict resolution and all that but in a democracy you know some people want to carry weapons so we have

12:27

to accommodate those people on until everybody comes to their senses and decide that we don’t need a military like Costa Rica or whatever but I I what

12:35

I’m saying is the whole concept that we call defense today and security politics

12:42

is wrong because it is by definition offensive it cannot but lead to Arms

12:47

races and warfare everything NATO is built on is intellectual it

12:52

cannot make peace by that theory of offensive deterrence and then adding you know that

12:58

every country around the world is our enemy because as they say about China at the moment at its homepage it’s a it’s a

13:05

challenge because they are different from us and have different values from us I mean in that case there are many

13:10

many countries where your enemies so this missionary idea is sick

13:16

but it’s it suits the idea of offensive deterrence and that creates enemies

13:22

where as self-defense according to article 51 could be constructed so that

13:28

it was only self-defense until we can face out Military completely finally let

13:33

me quote youran galon don’t start out with security leading to

13:39

peace start out make peace and secure it by alternative defense civilian and

13:45

Military you know we have a security discussion all the time in the western world today you cannot mention the word

13:51

peace you cannot say the word peace you cannot ask a prime minister how does that make peace because the answer will

13:57

be in that it was also St B’s of NATO’s argument the road to peace is

14:04

Warfare I mean we’re in a sick sick culture that things like that but there are lots of Alternatives but we’re not

14:09

supposed to discuss them there are lots of ways of securing and making peace in the world that we could do but the

14:16

military industrial media academic complex mimac prevents us from doing

14:22

that also because of the influence they have on the media to make you believe that the only way to solve Ukraine is to

14:27

bomb and to OCC and to even risk a nuclear war very well said very well said the

14:35

the thing that doesn’t that that I cannot explain to myself is how it is

14:42

that within that framework that you just laid out for us which a lot of people in

14:47

the collective West if we want to use that term um certainly in Europe in in

14:53

in North America in especially in the universities where they teach international relations security studies

14:59

what doesn’t get into my mind or what I don’t understand is like why is it that in this environment It is Well

15:06

understood and it’s a basic tenant that the security dilemma is a real thing and

15:12

the security dilemma is of course what gives rise to this my offensive defense

15:17

is your is your uh uh threat and and that threat perception will lead you to

15:23

one up the other one and you land up in an arms race and you you you end up in

15:29

um well in in in in great great danger of great Great War right and this is

15:34

understood and the same people who research on who then tell you but we need the bigger bombs than the other one

15:41

and if the other one builds a new bomb they they they say like but they are evil they’re evil but they teach it and

15:47

i’ I’ve seen that I’ve heard that in Japan people who teach the security dilemma and do not understand that if

15:52

Japan upgrades its military it its military forces that then China will

15:58

perceive that as a threat they keep arguing but China should know that this is just self-defensive

16:03

we do does this can you explain this okay maybe this is too much of a question of psychology but maybe you’ve

16:08

come across yeah but that’s see oh it’s very much a matter of

16:14

psychology because you built up the image with citizens that we are

16:19

threatened that there are enemies all over the place I mean let me just quote you one of the more bizarre absurd

16:25

theater arguments uh the couple of weeks ago the Danish Prime Minister had the

16:32

guts to say she’s she’s a Social Democratic woman she had the guts to say that if we don’t stop Hamas in the

16:38

Middle East they will come to Denmark too you know that’s the level we’re at

16:43

so there’s psychology to it if you I mean it’s called furology if you make

16:49

people through the media through the you know concerted efforts of the mimac I mentioned the military industrial media

16:55

academic complex make people believe that they are threatened they will accept whatever you look at you look at

17:01

all the taxpayers in Europe now whose money are being being wasted in the billions the hundreds of billions of

17:09

Euros on a war that is already lost and which should never have happened because

17:14

it would not have happened if NATO had not tried to expand first of all you know 10 countries and then trying

17:19

Ukraine also against all the promises we gave goach it’s that’s a long story but

17:25

the idea that you can threaten people make them feel

17:30

You Know The Enemy is coming around the corner Russia is terrible they’re going to eat us all right now I’ve been living

17:37

since 51 and I’ve been hearing that the Russians are coming there’s not one example of Russia having invaded a NATO

17:44

country or a neutral State it’s all invention it’s all you know it’s it’s

17:50

it’s it’s um narratives that have taken over reality these guys don’t live in the reality anymore you have top leading

17:57

Swedish people where I say said Swedish military top brass who says we must prepare for Putin Putin Vladimir Putin

18:06

Russia Russia invading and doing a partial occupation of Southern

18:13

Sweden you know I’d like to see the scenario there’s no media people who even ask the question excuse me what is

18:19

the scenario that leads Russia to to land on the coast of Southern Sweden where I Happ to basically

18:25

say there’s nobody answering the question because you have the media

18:30

academic complex you have the media as part of the Warfare and the

18:36

furology and that’s why it’s very difficult we’re just small Corners around the world where we’re discussing

18:41

alternatives to this because you can’t get through with it you can’t do that at state finance Institute you could look

18:48

at cpri in Stockholm the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute they don’t do peace research anymore if they ever did but they certainly don’t

18:55

do it they do security studies you can even see it on top of their homepage it now says that it’s it’s a it’s a leading

19:01

Source on International Security the peace has been dropped and they are working with the Munich security

19:07

conference Etc I mean Alva MLL who was the brain behind it when starting it whom I had the honor to meet a couple of

19:13

times must be rotated in in in her grave most of the peace Research Institute in Scandinavia don’t do peace research in

19:19

the sense I defined it as reducing violence so it’s not so strange that this is difficult because they have a

19:26

monopoly on telling you citizens that you must fear and we take

19:32

care of your security if you pay us your taxpayers money and enough of it and now you have a situation because we have

19:38

made history’s biggest blunder in trying to make Ukraine a member of NATO you

19:44

spend more and more and more on a war that will not succeed and you will not

19:50

succeed in breaking up Russia and all these kinds of bizarre ideas but who

19:56

pays the bill that’s why I think a very effective movement would be a peace

20:01

movement that um refused to pay that percentage of the country’s National

20:07

budget that goes to the military put it into a a fund and said when you behave yourself and you do people

20:14

security um security that we can see a result of then when you make peace we’ll pay out what isn’t that and until then

20:22

the military can go and make you know bake sales and sell coffee and things like that to finance the wars they want

20:28

to have you know we we we’re talking about something which is a

20:34

fundamental uh what do you call that or is Lessing called is shikasta you know

20:40

the the great civilization of malaise that we believe in

20:45

militarism and now it’s come because the us is going down um and the Empire is going down it’s it’s now coming to the

20:53

top because that is the last thing the West is good at that is to produce weapons we’ve lost all the wars but but

20:58

we are very good at at developing the military-industrial media academic complex so I’m not so surprised that

21:04

it’s difficult but it’s going to happen at some point I would say when the US Empire Falls NATO Falls and then we have

21:09

all opportunities to create a globally Humanity security

21:16

system but we Europeans have been screwing it up for the last 500 years I mean we have a history of screwing on

21:23

peace time and again we managed to lose the peace after the call wall and we we

21:30

it didn’t just it didn’t just slip through our fingers we we threw it on the floor we stepped on it and then

21:38

anyone and then we shunned anyone who who pointed out that that we we are not acting responsibly here um it’s just I

21:46

can’t wrap my head around the fact that so many people go along with this that

21:53

okay I understand that you and I we we have these professions and we we we think about these matters on a on a

21:59

daily basis but that it is so easy to feed such dumb narratives such stupid

22:06

versions of reality like the Russians are the baddies and the ukrainians are the goodies and and and the Americans

22:12

are the other other white the white knight on a shining on on the the The

22:17

Shining Knight on a white horse or whatever you know this this this victimhood narrative The victimhood Narrative of the Israelis of like no no

22:23

this genocide is necessary because they’re just protecting themselves against evil that just wants to randomly

22:29

kill uh poor Jews is it’s so dumb and is so transparently dumb and actually a

22:34

large part of the world sees it and the Europeans we just they they like not everybody I mean 25 30% don’t go along

22:42

but 70% just nod and say like yeah that’s what we need why you could add to that which is

22:51

new I totally agree with you NATO should have been abolished in ‘ 91 because well the wara

22:58

pack and Soviet Union disappeared and I remember when I excuse me when I wrote

23:03

my dissertation in the 70s um I went down to Nato as a young student and

23:08

interviewed people there not at the very highest level but reasonably high level they all said the same I come from a

23:15

generation my parents knew what war was I’m sitting here at NATO because we don’t want it to happen again there must

23:21

never be War again and the main thing is or the reason we are here is the Soviet

23:27

Union and the wara and so I logically drew the conclusion that NATO would disappear when the waro

23:33

back and Soviet Union disaar and these FS of course around

23:43

particular the clle called not one inch uh 550 Pages uh I’m just right now

23:52

forgetting sorry the author but is called not one inch and they say oh well

23:58

Dr ented that what we did instead was to do exactly what we promised gasa not to

24:03

do that was to expand NATO and NATO of course it today the only resonet of NATO

24:09

is expansion it has nothing to give the world anymore its concept its philosophy

24:14

it’s theories and concepts are totally as I said intellectual but that

24:20

cannot it’s a church it’s for people who believe it’s not for people who have an intellectual mind and look at what is

24:25

would be useful for the world so um the banality of this let me say this at a

24:32

deeper level Pascal has also to do with the fact that we are Christian culture

24:37

everything is divided into dichotomies good and bad left and right and you can

24:44

go online women or men or whatever you know and that applies to the Russia also

24:49

which is basically Western culture or Western World and want to by the way be part of the West now long story short

24:55

when you have those underlying social cosmology or what you would call

25:01

it and you add to that the ability to dominate by military means because you

25:07

have been the leader of the world you have a very dangerous cocktail and you

25:12

don’t see it you know cosmology is defined by something we operate on but it’s not that easy to see it you can see

25:19

it from the outside now if you take the Chinese they build on the five principles of peaceful coexistence that

25:25

Jan Li and and Nero put together uh 70 years ago and that’s a completely

25:31

different way of thinking that is noninterference in somebody else’s political system that’s why you don’t

25:37

see the Chinese exporting today the idea of you know one party systems or mixed

25:42

economies or confusion ISM they simply say we don’t care what kind of people

25:47

you are but can we do some business together and can we do benefits can we do win-win with a kind of equal sharing

25:53

of the benefits it’s a completely different way of going it’s a much more defensive way of thinking the the

25:59

Chinese have not built bases around the world the Americans have 650 bases in

26:05

130 countries you can go on like that I mean we I think to answer your question

26:10

about how is it possible it is possible because what we do is so much inside the

26:16

ways we think in western civilization if it is a civilization but the cosmology is it’s natural what we do it’s natural

26:24

that we go out and dominate everybody and go and go make

26:31

anybody our consumers of Coca-Cola or democracy or human rights

26:36

or whatever and that is now coming to an end because things like the like the

26:42

different Wars the war on terror um the Gaza genocide the Ukraine war the

26:49

destruction of rstream are all Nails in the coffee of that Western dominance I’m

26:57

not so pessimistic about the future because the West is unfortunately into a self-destructive

27:04

process we do all the things and we are 12 11 12% of humanity all the other 88%

27:12

see what we do in gasa and they say they cannot lead the world in the future it’s

27:17

very sad it’s very very sad I’ve never been anti-western I’m a product of the western culture and cosmology and I see

27:24

only self-destruction the Chinese are the Russians are not going to be destroyed by this we are going to destroy ourselves because we have all

27:30

these enemy images we waste our money on militarism and our societies will break apart there’s nothing that works in the

27:37

western world anymore I don’t I haven’t can’t remember having been on a train in Sweden that goes on time it did when I

27:43

came to Sweden 52 years ago that was an order and things work it doesn’t work today the fear that I have we

27:50

undermining our own strengths the fear the fear that I have is that um the Western cosmology itself

27:59

and I think that’s a good expression of it is although highly violent and and

28:05

quite destructive and even to a good degree self-destructive it it is extremely good at creating the very

28:13

environment that it itself uh conjures up you know to create your own enemies

28:19

right that that’s part of what this cosmology needs right it’s it’s you need an enemy you need a significant other

28:25

and and unfortunately it’s quite good at forming those and just like as we see

28:32

now you know um the West basically okay attack attacks on uh on Russia and then

28:38

Russia shoots back a new a new kind of missile and then the West goes like look we told you they’re so evil they are

28:44

they’re exactly the enemies that we’ve told you they are and they do the same with the Chinese so it it sucks in the

28:51

others right so aren’t you worried that we might we might land ourselves in the

28:56

third world war that we conjure up ourselves yes I am and I’ve always made the

29:05

probably provocative um comparison what would Hitler have done

29:11

in his bunker in Berlin if he had had nuclear weapons you know goov was a very decent

29:17

Visionary person he knew that his system was going down and he wanted to work with the

29:23

West um and I consider him a very great Statesman although he then made some

29:28

mistakes and the eyes of the Chinese he did the terrible mistake in multi party system and all that that’s a long story

29:33

but he did recognize and that the his system was over and that he needed to get the best

29:41

out of it including leaving Afghanistan and you know putting letting sakarov be

29:47

on free foot Etc and then he said hey how are we going to cooperate how do we create a new European home where we

29:53

don’t have this militarism and this block confrontation and all that

29:58

so uh that’s what I am not sure or rather I’m sure we don’t have such

30:04

personalities such leaders in the Western World in the NATO countries in the United States so yes uh that means

30:11

you may see two um scenarios very roughly more of course but one scenario

30:18

would be the United States Empire implodes it it it kind of disintegrates

30:24

from the inside things that doesn’t work anymore um infrastructure that doesn’t work um

30:30

nobody obeying anymore too many conflicts inside NATO Etc the other one

30:35

of course is the explosion scenario and that is when you find out that your system is at the end and your Empire has

30:43

come to what all Empires do they go down there’s no Empire that lasts forever and

30:48

this by the way will be the last because the Chinese are not so stupid that they will build a new Empire and try to rule

30:54

the world and it’s not in their genes I it’s not in their cos ology to do that

31:00

um then you may see somebody sitting in the White House blowing up the whole

31:05

thing you know throwing tactical nuclear weapons somewhere else and when we talk

31:10

about Europe I must say I wonder which is even to me a larger Enigma than the

31:16

one you mentioned before how come that the European politicians leaders

31:22

whatever and citizens accept to be slaughtered in the nuclear war for in

31:28

Europe started by NATO which is led by the US you know we have a around if if

31:35

God forbid if Ukraine leads to an exchange of very serious Conventional Weapons or tactical nuclear weapons in

31:42

Europe we are the ones paying the price not the not the Americans This is not going to be intercontinental ballistic

31:49

missiles it’ll be on the battlefield of Europe where you where I’m sitting I

31:54

can’t understand that there’s not even that sense of De y among European leaders to say we are not going to be

32:02

the victims of this policy that NATO has now been doing for 30 years trying to

32:07

get Ukraine into it they’re all supporting this we’re going to win over Russia and we were going to make Ukraine

32:13

in NATO and all that it’s completely inside the narrative it has nothing to do with real and that when when when

32:21

when a whole civilization and people in power people who sits on tons of weapons including nuclear power

32:28

nuclear weapons are no longer using rational analysis but are into emotional

32:34

group think then it is dangerous and I’m not sitting here saying it’s not dangerous but I refuse to be deterred by

32:41

the danger and give up that’s why I see it as my job as a peace researcher to say hey there are 300 alternatives to

32:48

this road down nuclear I’m very glad that you’re doing that and I very much

32:53

agree um I I am very um I am very afraid that EUR at at the moment is at this ideological moment which actually the

33:01

you know the greater EUR Europe has uh once in a while and actually not just Europe actually the Eurasia in general

33:08

maybe it’s it’s it’s a general thing like there are there are ideological moments where entire civilizations start

33:15

destroying themselves the Russians did so uh between like 1917 and then the

33:24

1950s which with the bolik Revolution and and also the per of their own people

33:29

the Chinese did it too the I mean the Great Leap Forward the cultural revolution Great Leap Forward those were

33:35

moments when they destroyed their own cultural heritage and the Soviet Union basically eroded from from from within

33:43

and maybe right now Europe is in that thing and this is going to be extremely dangerous I mean the Nazis were in that

33:49

I mean I mean genociding like millions of your own people you don’t do that when you’re a healthy Society right the

33:56

Israelis are probably there as well well um because these are the same people like living living on the same plot of

34:01

land right you’re killing the people that that you you’re part of your Prosperity is built upon so

34:09

um sure I think that’s a very very valid Global comparison you’re making why do

34:16

Empires fall they fall not because only because they are conquered or invaded by

34:22

somebody else they fall but because of internal factors they overdo something

34:27

um they become self-destructive uh and I’m afraid that nobody in the western

34:33

political sphere I mean the formal political sphere sees how self-destructive the whole thing is at

34:38

the moment I don’t think Madame feline has any idea about anything but we’re going to win no matter the pricee Danish

34:46

Prime Minister I mentioned has the same attitude now Sweden and Finland as you know are NATO members they don’t have

34:52

any independent thoughts left they just go with the with the flock and the flock says we’re going to you know win in over

35:00

Russia in Ukraine that could go madly wrong but it can also simply fall apart for them that’s what I still hope for

35:07

but the main thing is that those people who work against all this should become constructive they should become doctors

35:14

they should look at healing and treatment even if it sounds unrealistic because and that’s what I

35:20

always quote the Queen of Peace research Elisa baling always said you cannot make

35:27

people work for something that they cannot imagine so you know all these peace

35:33

people and Security Experts and others who sit and have seminars these very weeks and months about you know the

35:39

third world war and nuclear war and it’s coming soon and all that I say shut

35:46

up this is not helpful one you don’t know what will release a nuclear war two

35:52

you don’t know that it will happen three think of something else be more constructive because because the more

35:58

you talk about the risk of nuclear war the more you support the military-industrial media academic

36:03

complex and all the bastards were militarizing this culture to death you

36:08

participating because you lack creativity about possible Alternatives

36:15

and Pascal if you and I go to a doctor and he or she makes a diagnosis and a prognosis say you’ll be dead in one year

36:22

because you have this and that disease you don’t think it’s a very good doctor you’ll go to another one and say hm what

36:28

can be done about it so I don’t die and that’s what peace movement people and others should begin to do and they are

36:34

not peace movements they are anti-militarist movements it sounds now like I’m very critical I know it’s part

36:40

of the same thing you have to do critical thinking you have to do diagnosis what will happen if this

36:45

continues and then you have to come up with Alternatives the last part is what the military industrial complex thrives

36:53

from that so few researchers movements Etc and politicians are

37:01

thinking of the Poss the perfectly possible alternatives to this road you

37:07

cannot you cannot get a discussion going at the moment I’m totally excluded from Danish and Swedish media which had was

37:13

not 20 30 years ago because they know that I will say it’s easy to make peace

37:19

in in Ukraine you know if if I begin to say that people think this is really

37:25

dangerous stop that man for what reason reason the reason is that decision

37:30

makers politicians parliamentarians they always criticize each other they criticized by the media and editorials

37:37

editors in Chief they are criticized by the people critic criticism doesn’t change the world what changes the world

37:45

is that people say hey it could be done differently we could do it this much more smart way that’s when politicians

37:52

say oh oops somebody has better ideas than we think we have so I always quote

37:58

and sorry if you heard me say this before but I think it’s so precisely a diagnosis of our time it’s George

38:05

Bernard sure the Irish duin Dublin author who said most people think of the

38:10

look at the world and ask why you know why is it has it all these problems what we should do is to look at the world as

38:15

it could be and ask why not this is that’s what I do and that’s what I think peace search is about it’s

38:23

it’s a good approach it’s a good approach and since you are already like throwing over the medical met metaphor I

38:29

would like to throw back this my basic um motivation to do what I do which is

38:36

that I look at War as a Cancer and if the cancer gets too bad it will devour

38:42

the entire body of the of humanity and there’s two approaches to he to work with that one is to try to heal the

38:49

cancer and to make it go away completely which to me is the United Nations approach the top down let’s get rid of

38:55

War uh the other way is an older way and but that’s one that we F that we are not

39:01

using anymore which is to try to isolate it don’t try to radiate it away try to make sure that it doesn’t spread and

39:07

neutrality is actually the antidote for that if you keep if you if you spread cord and sanitars of neutrality then you

39:14

might not get rid of all the wars but they might remain small and local and resolve because they will run out of

39:20

steam what is your thought on that I think your idea the way you distinguish

39:27

between the two approaches is brilliant Pascal thank you for giving me that um I

39:33

think that that um if you say isolation uh you could say

39:40

I and I’m just trying this on you as two intellectuals uh throwing things at each

39:46

other and see how the other reacts you know a good dialogue ends with question marks not with exclamation

39:52

marks um I would say don’t you see the present 11 12% of the world who we call

39:59

the West as isolating itself you know I don’t see around the

40:05

world I don’t when I’m in China and talk with people I don’t see any fascination

40:11

with the military I don’t see any fascination with Warfare they talk peace

40:16

I was just invited to this celebration of the five principles I’m sat there listening in the people’s H to the to

40:25

president Xi Jinping and the for Minister Etc all talking for hours about

40:31

peace how to structure the world so we can be more peaceful how not to dominate

40:36

other countries Etc and people say okay you paid by the Communist party no I’m not well I’m just saying there’s such a

40:42

different approach to it whereas anybody you listen to in the western world today is talking about Warfare and the risk of

40:49

war and threats and what we must guard ourselves against I mean I’ve written it and I stand for it the Western world has

40:56

become me Mally ill and that’s very sad but I think that isolation is coming people are sick and

41:04

tired of looking at 650 us bases around the world go to aava close to where you

41:09

sit I’ve been there so the long story short is militarism when it gets

41:15

overboard when it it get overdeveloped will be its own cancer eating of itself

41:22

and then you can say that’s very sad and yes if the West does not have the

41:27

intellectual capacity to rescue itself from over militarization to militarize

41:32

itself to death there’s nothing we can do about it it’s just one more Empire going down and as I said it will be the

41:39

last because it’s not in the genes of the Japanese or the Chinese to build

41:44

Empires because the Empire is built on missionary thinking others must be like us if you look at what the Chinese are

41:51

saying they don’t want others to be like the Chinese Chinese want like the Japanese want to be specific unique and

41:58

themselves they’re not trying to make everybody confusionists or something like that it’s very fascinating because

42:03

people always say with a new multipolar multinodal work oh China will just

42:09

become the new Empire how naive you are Yan I think it’s very naive to believe

42:14

that the Chinese will build an Empire modeled upon the United States of America or the British Empire or you

42:21

know I don’t think they will I can’t prove that they won’t but I see nothing in their social cos ology that would

42:28

lead to them yeah this is this is where you and and and Jeffrey sucks would agree with each other and where you

42:34

stand in like in opposite to John mimer because John mimer for all the brilliant

42:39

analysis which is rooted in reality and in actual in in recognition of the

42:45

different the different actors and and and their motivational factors he still at the end of the day projects European

42:53

motivations into the Chinese which is why he think they will Act exact like the European of which you

42:59

know the greatest respect for him but I think he’s wrong on that one so um this

43:06

is I mean this is very useful the question then just is how can

43:12

we help and by we I mean really mean the we as you and I plus everybody listening

43:18

who are sitting in who are sitting in in in China in Indonesia in Thailand in but

43:24

also in the US and in the UK and and and in Europe the people who actually share this Vision how do we help to lay the

43:33

old euroamerican Empire to rest in a peaceful way let it let it let it let it

43:40

go down peacefully way more oress the Soviet Union went peacefully away um

43:46

without you know blowing up to me this is like it’s like it’s like raw X and if one of them drops then boom so how do we

43:53

not drop the eggs that’s a very good question again Pascal I enjoy this conversation which

43:59

is not an interview but a conversation um I think that that I wrote some years

44:05

ago also inspired by Yan galon who said is there anybody who can help the United

44:11

States you know he predicted it it would fall as an Empire we not let me make that clear to

44:17

your viewers I’m not talking about the us as a society I’m talking about the Empire and of course Empires cost so

44:25

much that they eat up the resources at some point that you need for your own society and that’s what you can see in

44:31

the infrastructure in the United States today and the poverty and all that but but he said who can help the United

44:37

States and the answer was only its friends and I think that unfortunately

44:45

the friends of the United States which is basically Europe and allies in the in the NATO countries are not able to do

44:52

that I thought of that some years ago I thought it was a good idea a good point of view you who can help well you can

44:58

tell a friend you on the wrong tracks you’re drinking too much you’re spending too much weapons money um but I’m not

45:05

sure because Europe has proved to now if not before proved that it doesn’t have

45:11

an independent policy of the United States it accepts you know things like the destruction on nordstream it accepts

45:16

the sanctions Etc so I’m pretty pessimistic on that one my hope would be

45:23

that simply things slowly but in reasonably orderly

45:28

way falls apart in the Western World so that at some point somebody will come up in the western world and say let’s join

45:35

them because we can’t beat them and that should happen before the United States and NATO Etc has has

45:42

crumbled completely in a war and you and I can only sit and speculate about that because the war we all fear but which I

45:50

refuse to be detered by in my work and my private life could happen this afternoon

45:57

you got to you got to recognize that that is the situation we’re in but that

46:02

also should lead everyone who is paid tons of money to the military system

46:08

called NATO to ask why the hell did that Alliance who promised us peace end up

46:14

being the main actor and the main fighter of Wars so I mean the the

46:20

process down could be something that makes people think we were told blah blah blah blah and today we in the

46:27

opposite situation we were told that peace would come with money and weapons it doesn’t and as somebody said if if

46:33

weapons were a road to peace we would have had peace long ago so the first thing is self reflection what has gone

46:41

so wrong compared with what we were told and the other thing will be then to sit

46:46

down and have future seminars it will be to do white books it will do to talk

46:52

only about uh Alternatives the reason being as long as we talk about the war

46:58

we talk the we are within the agenda and the discourse of the militarists and we

47:04

are in a defensive prision saying we are against NATO membership for Sweden or we are against this weapon or we’re against

47:09

War we’re against this that they set the agenda if you begin to say hey we could

47:15

do things completely differently look here there are good examples in the world it can be done differently conflict resolution nonviolence thinking

47:22

in the future Better World Order multipolar poity alternative defense

47:28

maybe somebody I can only hope for that maybe somebody will fall out their ears and say oh I never thought of that

47:36

and that’s what makes the world change that’s when people say I’ve never thought of that it doesn’t make the

47:42

world changeed to say that the war is coming tomorrow that’s where I’m very hesitant to say what I just said to you

47:48

but on the other hand I’m not sitting here playing naive and believing that there cannot be a war because there could very well be a war because of

47:54

Ukraine of course no but this is because of Ukraine sorry but but the conflict formation that led to the war in Ukraine

48:02

and now let me be precise no completely agree this is probably where we just at

48:07

some point have to use a uh an advice I once got from my best philosophy

48:13

professor as an undergrad say like if you want to if you want to disagree with somebody and you want them not to shut

48:19

down you just need to lie to their faces and tell them I completely agree with you and and whatever comes after the end

48:26

can be the opposite of what they just told you but you need to tell them first that you agree with them in order to

48:32

keep them open to the suggestion um we have to keep this discussion open Yan um

48:37

but I do have to leave so um if people want to read your writings or to follow you where should they

48:43

go well we are basically in two places we are at transnational

48:50

dolive the our main homepage the foundation homepage with um archives

48:56

back to 1986 when we started this work which is devoted to the Article One

49:02

Making Peace by peaceful means that’s what we are here for and then we have a um fast growing um presence on

49:11

substack also now with a lot of videos because I belong to the expanding group

49:16

of people who now been uh thrown out of YouTube as well as um Vio and you can’t

49:23

log in you cannot do this so we put all the videos for instance the video you outp put on on neutrality studies videos

49:30

on your YouTube channel we will take over and and post on substack so uh

49:36

that’s what we do and then we are frequently on all kinds of social media too we’re trying to use the the

49:42

opportunities that they give us but we are also getting smaller and smaller for instance on Facebook um we can live with

49:49

that we’re growing very fast in um in Chinese and other nonwestern media

49:54

because the West the rest of the world is looking for peace and the Western world is looking for more more

50:00

militarism so I’m fairly optimistic but transnational doli is where you will

50:06

have the road into everything else we do okay okay I’ll put all of that into the into the description below uh Yan olber

50:13

thank you very much for your time today well thank you so much for the good conversation I really enjoyed

oooooo