“This Is Gonna Get Us ALL Blown Up!” Jeffrey Sachs On Russian Invasion

Summary

The transcript features a debate on NATO's expansion, Russia's security concerns, and the Ukraine conflict. Professor Jeffrey Sachs argues that Russia's opposition to NATO's enlargement is rooted in historical invasions and security needs. He criticizes the U.S. for past interventions and regime changes, suggesting that the conflict could lead to nuclear war if NATO includes Ukraine. The host counters by highlighting Russia's illegal actions in Ukraine and other countries, suggesting that NATO membership could deter further aggression. The discussion reflects differing perspectives on the causes and potential solutions to the conflict.

Takeaways

• 🌍 NATO expansion has been a longstanding issue, with Russia perceiving it as a threat to its security.
• 🇷🇺 Putin's demands for a ceasefire include the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from four occupied regions.
• 🇺🇦 The Ukrainian public overwhelmingly opposes ceding any territory to Russia.
• 🛡️ Historical context: Russia has felt threatened by Western invasions and seeks a buffer zone.
• 🔄 The US and NATO's expansion eastward is viewed by Russia as a violation of earlier promises.
• ⚖️ Negotiations are seen as crucial, with differing views on the importance of NATO's role in the conflict.
• 📜 The US has a history of covert regime changes and military interventions, influencing global perceptions.
• 🗣️ The debate highlights contrasting views on the legitimacy of Russia's actions versus those of the US.
• ⚔️ The potential for nuclear war is a concern if NATO were to expand further into Ukraine.
• 📉 Historical examples, such as Austria's neutrality, are used to argue for similar solutions to the current conflict.

Q & A

What are the main concerns of Russia regarding NATO, according to the discussion?

Russia is concerned about NATO's eastward expansion, which it perceives as a threat to its national security. This includes the potential inclusion of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO.

What historical events are cited to support Russia's concerns about Western encroachment?

Historical events cited include repeated Western invasions of Russia, the expansion of NATO after the Soviet Union's collapse, and the British Empire's attempt to control Russia's access to the Black Sea in the 1850s.

What are Putin's terms for a ceasefire in Ukraine as mentioned in the script?

Putin demands the complete withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from four regions currently occupied by Russia: Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson.

Why does the professor believe NATO expansion is a critical issue for Russia?

The professor believes NATO expansion is critical for Russia because it views NATO's presence near its borders as an existential threat, especially given historical promises that NATO would not expand eastward.

What example is given to illustrate successful neutrality during the Cold War?

Austria is given as an example, which adopted permanent neutrality in 1955, resulting in the Soviet Union withdrawing and Austria not being part of the Iron Curtain.

How does the professor compare US and Russian actions in terms of invasions and military interventions?

The professor argues that the US has a history of illegal invasions and regime changes worldwide, similar to Russia's actions. Examples include the US bombings in Yugoslavia, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and support for coups in various countries.

What is the significance of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis in the context of the discussion?

The Cuban Missile Crisis is used to highlight the dangers of superpowers placing military assets near each other's borders, emphasizing the need for distance to avoid nuclear conflict.

What are the potential consequences of Ukraine joining NATO, according to the professor?

The professor believes that Ukraine joining NATO could lead to nuclear war, as Russia views NATO's presence on its border as an existential threat and is prepared to take extreme measures to prevent it.

How does the professor justify his criticism of US foreign policy?

The professor justifies his criticism by pointing to the numerous covert and overt US military interventions and regime changes since World War II, which he believes have caused significant global instability and conflicts.

Why does the professor argue that the US and Russia should negotiate directly and transparently?

The professor argues for direct and transparent negotiations to establish clear terms and mutual understanding, reducing the risk of misinterpretation and conflict. He believes this approach could lead to a more stable and peaceful resolution.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 NATO's Role and Russian Perceptions

The discussion explores the perceived threats Russia has historically faced from Western powers, particularly focusing on NATO's expansion. The argument is made that Russia sees NATO's growth as a direct threat, prompting preemptive actions from Putin. The conversation questions the West's understanding of Russia's security concerns and critiques the United States' role in expanding NATO despite assurances made to Russia post-Soviet Union.

05:03

🕊️ Historical Context of Russia's Security Concerns

This section delves into historical precedents, such as the British Empire's strategies in the Black Sea and the U.S.'s post-1991 efforts to encircle Russia with NATO. It highlights Ukraine's position as a neutral buffer state until the U.S. supported a change in Ukrainian leadership in 2014. The narrative underscores the long-standing strategic aims of Western powers and their impact on Russia's current stance.

10:06

🔄 U.S. Military Interventions and Russian Reactions

The conversation shifts to U.S. military actions in Europe and beyond, drawing parallels between American interventions and Russia's recent actions in Ukraine. Specific examples like the bombing of Belgrade, the invasions of Iraq and Libya, and the support for regime changes in Syria and Ukraine are cited. The argument suggests that these U.S. actions have contributed to the current geopolitical tensions.

15:08

🌍 NATO Expansion and Russian Aggression

This part of the discussion examines the role of NATO as a deterrent against Russian aggression. Historical examples of Soviet invasions of neighboring countries and their subsequent joining of NATO to prevent further attacks are provided. The argument is made that NATO membership could have deterred the Russian invasion of Ukraine, highlighting a different perspective on NATO's expansion.

20:12

📜 The Importance of Neutrality and Historical Lessons

Historical examples of neutrality, such as Austria's status post-1955 and the Cuban Missile Crisis, are discussed. The argument posits that maintaining a neutral buffer state could have prevented the current conflict. It suggests that mutual agreements and respecting spheres of influence can lead to lasting peace, drawing lessons from past geopolitical events.

25:12

💥 The Threat of Nuclear War and Strategic Missteps

The potential for nuclear war if Ukraine joins NATO is a central theme in this section. The discussion emphasizes the existential threat Russia perceives from NATO expansion and the historical context of U.S.-Russian nuclear tensions. It argues for prudence and strategic distance between superpowers to avoid catastrophic outcomes.

30:15

📄 Diplomatic Insights and Core Security Concerns

Insights from U.S. diplomatic communications, particularly a 2008 memo by Ambassador William Burns, are highlighted. The memo underscores that Russia's opposition to NATO is a broad political consensus, not just Putin's stance. It stresses the importance of understanding Russia's core security concerns and the need for the U.S. to recognize these in its foreign policy.

Keywords

💡NATO

NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is a military alliance formed in 1949 between North America and Europe to ensure mutual defense. In the script, NATO's expansion is a central issue, with debates on its role in escalating tensions with Russia and its historical promises to not expand eastward.

💡Putin

Vladimir Putin is the President of Russia, whose policies and actions are a major focus of the discussion. The script explores his motivations, particularly regarding NATO's expansion and the invasion of Ukraine, presenting differing viewpoints on his intentions and strategies.

💡Ukraine

Ukraine is a central subject in the script, being the country invaded by Russia. The discussion covers the geopolitical implications, the historical context of NATO's expansion, and Ukraine's position and decisions regarding neutrality and NATO membership.

💡Crimea

Crimea, a region annexed by Russia in 2014, is highlighted in the script as a significant territorial issue. The annexation is used to illustrate Russia's strategic interests and the complexities of territorial disputes in the context of Russian-Ukrainian relations.

💡Ceasefire

Ceasefire refers to the halting of active military operations, a concept discussed in relation to Putin's proposed peace terms. The script questions the sincerity and feasibility of these terms, particularly in the context of territorial withdrawals and negotiations.

💡Encroachment

Encroachment is used to describe NATO's perceived expansion towards Russia's borders. The script delves into historical and contemporary views on how this encroachment has influenced Russian security policies and led to military actions.

💡Annexation

Annexation refers to the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state. In the script, the annexation of Ukrainian regions by Russia is discussed, particularly in terms of legality, international response, and historical context.

💡Neutrality

Neutrality is the stance of not supporting either side in a conflict, discussed in the context of Ukraine's past promises of neutrality. The script contrasts this with Ukraine's changing political landscape and the impact of external influences, especially from the US and NATO.

💡Geopolitics

Geopolitics refers to the influence of geography on politics, especially international relations. The script extensively covers geopolitical strategies, such as Russia's need for a buffer zone, NATO's expansion, and historical conflicts involving major powers.

💡Sovereignty

Sovereignty is the authority of a state to govern itself without external interference. The script discusses Ukraine's sovereignty, emphasizing the illegal nature of Russia's invasion and the international implications of violating a nation's sovereignty.

Highlights

NATO hasn't actually encroached; Putin is preemptively acting.

Russia has historically believed in maintaining a safety buffer from the West due to repeated invasions.

The argument is that the U.S. lied, cheated, and started NATO's expansion, leading to increased tensions.

Putin's peace plan demands the complete withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from regions currently occupied by Russia.

The debate centers on whether Putin's actions are a preemptive move against NATO encroachment.

Russia's core issues include NATO's non-enlargement and the status of Crimea, which they consider non-negotiable.

Historically, Russia has always wanted some distance from the West due to repeated invasions.

The U.S. promised not to expand NATO eastward after the Soviet Union's collapse, but this promise was broken.

The argument that NATO's expansions have consistently crossed Russia's red lines, particularly with Ukraine and Georgia.

The U.S. has engaged in multiple illegal wars and regime change operations, which undermines its credibility.

Austria's permanent neutrality agreement with the Soviet Union in 1955 prevented it from being part of the Iron Curtain.

The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 highlights the importance of keeping a distance between superpowers to prevent nuclear war.

The U.S. placing Aegis missiles in Poland and Romania is seen as breaking the security architecture.

Putin views NATO's encroachment as an existential threat to Russia's security.

U.S. interventions, like the bombing of Belgrade and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, are examples of its aggressive foreign policy.

The U.S. has a history of covert regime change operations, influencing its global actions.

The debate about NATO's expansion and its impact on global security remains contentious.

Transcripts

here is this is going to get us all

blown up if we don't have a little bit

more common sense NATO hadn't actually

encroached he is preemptively doing this

you seem very reliant on accepting

Putin's world view Russia throughout its

history has always believed in keeping

some safety from the West which has

repeatedly invaded uh Russia it's good

for superpowers to keep a little

distance United States they they lied

they cheated and they started the

expansion it's an argument you've

espoused on Russian State tv yeah I tell

it everywhere why are you not as

censorious about Putin doing the thing

you feel so angry about what you say

America's done if they took uh Ukraine

as a member of NATO we will end up in

nuclear

war President Putin wants peace at least

that's what he wants you to believe the

Russian dictator has for the first time

outlined his terms for CE fire ceasefire

in Ukraine he's demanded the complete

withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from four

regions which are currently occupied by

Russia which it claims to have annexed

Italy's Prime Minister Georgia Maloney

speaking this weekend's peace Summit of

world leaders said he's effectively

telling Ukraine to withdraw from Ukraine

but if Putin's real aim was to feain

innocence for his apologist and score

another propaganda Victory he may have

been successful what the debate all this

I'm joined by Professor Jeffrey saaks re

returning to uncensored Professor great

to see you

oh it's great to be with you thank you

so much purus we had a great reaction to

our last debate uh which was as Lively

and provocative as I hoped it would be

so I hope we'll get get the same again

now um I just want to ask you this Putin

peace plan isn't really a peace plan

what he's saying is all the land I have

illegally stolen I want to keep isn't

that what it boils down

to well there are two issues uh one is

no NATO enlarg M and the second is this

territorial issue it involves Crimea and

what they claim is the four regions of

Russia to my mind this is overwhelmingly

about the first issue is about NATO

because that's been the issue on the

table for 30 years territory was not on

the table until two years ago but for 30

years NATO was on the table I think the

territorial issue

if I may say uh are probably negotiable

at least in part of course there's been

a war going on for 10 years now and an

escalation during the last two years I

think the non-negotiable parts of what

Putin is saying I would guess really

non-negotiable so we have to think about

them is that NATO will not enlarge to

Ukraine and I think Crimea is

non-negotiable for

uh Russia's uh core security uh

interests and perceptions and uh history

so I think what's really absolutely core

to what President Putin is saying is he

would like to stop the war he doesn't

want to take over Ukraine he doesn't

want to take more of Ukraine uh on the

combat line right now on the contact

line he doesn't control all four of

these provinces and I doubt uh that he

would insist on that I do think that he

would uh uh hold out for Crimea almost

every Western analyst and expert agrees

with that and there are many reasons for

that but what I do think is at the core

of this all along was Russia throughout

its history has always believed in

keeping some safety from the West which

has repeatedly invaded uh Russia and

after the end of the Soviet Union in

1991 the US and Germany had said to

gorbachov and to yelson we won't expand

Nato one inch Eastward but then uh like

always with the United States they they

lied they cheated and they started the

expansion and then uh the Russians I

was observing this all along the first

expansions which were in Central Europe

didn't come too close to Russia and they

said we don't like that you cheated you

told us no uh but okay that's Hungary

Poland and Czech Republic that was 1999

under Clinton but then it just kept

coming and kept coming and kept coming

and they said with

Rising decb and uh Rising fervor stop

coming closer and their ultimate red

line has been consistent it is Ukraine

and Georgia why well it it goes back

peers to uh the British Empire to 1853

to

1856 actually to Lord Palmerston he had

an idea surround Russia in the Black Sea

uh render Russia's Fleet in the Black

Sea in sasto which was there in

1853 just like it's there in 2024 render

it essentially inoperable control the

Dells this is a long story uh and then

Russia is a second or third rate power

and President Putin is responding to

what has been a a British Imperial

attempt for uh7 75 years and a US

attempt since

1991 basically to surround Russia with

NATO and what Putin has been saying is

don't do that stop leave Ukraine as a uh

a kind of buffer zone uh and Ukraine was

perfectly happy with that and public

opinion was perfectly happy with that

and they didn't want to join NATO and in

2009 they elected Victor yanukovich who

promised them neutrality which was the

promise that Ukraine itself had made in

declaring its independence that they

would be permanently a neutral country

because they're in between West and East

they're in between Europe and Western

Europe or the European Union and Russia

so they wanted just okay we'll be we'll

be neutral but then the United States

did team up to overthrow yanukovich in

February 2014 and that's when this war

started that's when Russia stopped

saying well we'll lease a base in Crimea

rather we'll take back Crimea we don't

want it to fall into NATO hands just

like thear did not want uh sast stopel

to fall into Palmer's hands uh so this

is basically a long long story I think

the rest is negotiable uh I basically

think either the US and Europe don't

understand what they're doing which is

not

impossible or they're still on what has

been a

30-year neocon agenda which I know about

in detail which is get NATO all the way

to surround Russia because that was the

plan of big new binski and Dick Cheney

and others going right back to the 1990s

they still want to do it and they think

they can still accomplish this

say I'm GNA take all all right with

respect you've given a very very long

answer but I come back to my initial

question which is

ultimately you know I I'm listen you've

been through a lot of the history there

and some of the points are arguable but

a lot of people I've heard Express

similar sentiments about some of the

background to this and about Russia's

concern about the encroachment of NATO

and so on but it it doesn't change the

fact that Russ Russia illegally invaded

a European Sovereign Democratic country

that has helped itself to vast sways of

the land and the latest polls show that

the vast majority of Ukrainian people do

not want to seed an inch of the land

that's been taken to Vladimir Putin or

the Russians and yeah he can say I was

concerned about NATO encroachment but

NATO hadn't actually encroached so he is

preemptively doing this and if

ultimately he's allowed to take this

land what message does that send the

rest of the world rest of Europe the

other neighboring countries to Ukraine

why should we have any confidence after

Crimea after Georgia after Ukraine now

that he wouldn't just carry on attacking

and invading other neighboring countries

that's where I find your I wouldn't say

trust I don't think that's the right

word but you seem very reliant on

accepting Putin's world view rather than

perhaps the Stark reality of the

barbarism with which she's executed this

war yeah may maybe because I know too

much about the United States because the

first war in Europe after World War II

was the US bombing of Belgrade for 78

days to change borders of a European

State the idea was to break Serbia to

create uh Kosovo as an enclave and then

to install bondas steel which is the

largest NATO base in the Balkans in the

southwest Balkans so the US started this

under Clinton uh that we will break the

borders we will illegally bomb another

country we didn't have any un Authority

this was a quote NATO mission to do that

then I know the United States uh went to

war repeatedly illegally uh in uh what

it did in Afghanistan and then what it

did in Iraq and then what it did in

Syria which was uh the Obama

Administration especially Obama and

Hillary Clinton tasking the CIA to

overthrow Bashar al-assad uh and then

what it did with NATO illegally bombing

Libya to taple morar Gaddafi uh and then

what it did in Kiev in Fe February 2014

I happen to see some of that with my own

eyes the

US overthrew yanukovich together with

right-wing Ukrainian military forces we

overthrew a president and what's

interesting by the way is we overthrew

yanukovich the day after the European

Union Representatives had reached an

agreement with

yanukovich to have early elections a

government of national unity and a

standown of both sides that was agreed

the next thing that happens is the

opposition quote unquote says we don't

agree they stormed the government

buildings and they deposed yanukovich

and within hours the United States says

yes we support the new government it

didn't say oh we had an agreement that's

unconstitutional what you did

uh so we overthrew a government contrary

to a promise that the European Union had

made and by the way uh Russia the United

States and the EU were parties to that

agreement and the United States an hour

afterwards backed the coup okay so

everyone's got a little bit to answer

for in

2015 the uh Russians did not say we want

the donbas back they said Peace should

come through negotiations and

negotiations between the ethnic Russians

in the east of Ukraine and this uh new

regime in Kev led to the Minsk 2

agreement the Minsk 2 agreement was

voted by the UN Security Council

unanimously it was signed by the

government of Ukraine it was

guaranteed explicitly by Germany and

France and you know what and it's been

explained to me in person it was laughed

at inside the US government this is

after the UN Security Council

unanimously accepted it the ukrainians

said we don't want to give autonomy to

the region oh but that's part of the

treaty the US told them don't worry

about it Angela Merkel

explained in desite in a notorious

interview after the 20202 escalation she

said oh you know we knew that Minsk 2

was just a a a holding pattern to give

Ukraine time to build its strength no uh

Minsk 2 was a un Security Council

unanimously adopted

treaty that was supposed to end the war

so when it comes to who's trustworthy

who to believe and so forth I guess my

problem Piers is I know the United

States government uh I know it very well

I I don't trust them for a moment I want

these two sides actually to sit down in

front of the whole world and say these

are the terms then the world can judge

because we could get on paper clearly

for both sides of the world we're not

going to overthrow governments anymore

the United States needs to say we accept

this agreement the United States needs

to say Russia needs to say we're not

stepping one foot further than whatever

the boundary is actually reached and

NATO is not going to enlarge and let's

put it for the whole world to see you

know once in a while treaties actually

hold there an argument okay listen I

hear I listen I hear you and it's an

argument you've espoused on Russian

State TV for as well I've heard you do

that yeah um absolutely I tell it

everywhere right so and that's fine

you've been consistent I I get that but

actually isn't this if you look at it a

different way a perfect illustration of

why there should be NATO encroachment

actually because if you go through the

history since the start of World War II

in 1939 it was Nazi Germany and the

Soviet Union that invaded Poland 1940

Soviet Union invaded the baltics 1940

Soviet Union annexed parts of Romania 56

Soviet Union invaded Hungary 68 Soviet

Union invaded Czech Sakia now Poland

Estonia Lithuania lvia Romania Hungary

or Czechoslovakia did not invade Russia

or the Soviet Union no threat emanated

from those countries but they were

attacked by the USSR St Russia and

that's why these countries wanted to

join NATO and since they joined NATO

none of them has been attacked by Russia

again so if you were putting all that

into the mix here you might say that's a

perfect illustration of NATO power

deterring Russian aggression and that

actually if Ukraine had speeded up uh

its membership of NATO uh which many of

the people in Ukraine were actually Keen

to do if it had done that it might have

had the protection against the illegal

Invasion by Russia so in a way you could

flip your argument on its head and say

it almost proves the opposite which is

that by by not being part of NATO

Ukraine was vulnerable to the very

attack that then happened just as it

lost crime uh and my fear with Putin is

I don't trust him as far as I could

throw him I take your point about russan

about American uh military activity I

was the editor of the Daily Mirror

newspaper in England which led the

campaign against the Iraq War which I

thought was a senseless illegal uh

Invasion as well and I I've been very

critical of America yeah so you know

it's not like I'm a great U cheerleader

for for what America's done on the

military stage but purely looking at

this situation with Ukraine I just I

just don't see why allowing Putin to

keep all this land is a good

thing yeah i' I'd ask you to consider uh

a couple more dates uh one is uh

1955 fascinating date because in

1955 uh Austria very

cleverly uh agreed to permanent

neutrality on the basis that the Soviet

Union would go home home and in the

state treaty they adopted neutrality and

the Soviet Union went home and that's

why Austria wasn't part of the Iron

Curtain for the decades that followed

because they adopted neutrality and

non-nato membership now it's fascinating

and I don't want to take us uh into a

long digression but the idea of the

Soviet Union then was actually not only

with regard to Austria but it was more

strategic what they were saying was do

the same with Germany which just killed

27 million of our people after all this

was 1955 was just 10 years from the end

of World War II neutralized Germany

don't make Germany a rearmed Cornerstone

of something called NATO but make

Germany neutral and then we can end the

Cold War and this was no less

the recommend or the recommendation of

no less I should say than George Kennan

himself the author of containment George

Kennan for years in the second half of

the 1950s said we're missing the most

obvious point a neutral Germany the Cold

War could end he went on wreath lectures

in BBC to say this I think it was 1957

if I remember correctly and this is

fascinating we missed the opportunity to

end the Cold War decades earlier the

other date that I would urge you to

think about is

1962 when the Soviet Union came close to

the United States uh in Cuba the US said

Monroe Doctrine you don't come anywhere

close to our hemisphere we nearly had

nuclear Armageddon in

1962 the Soviet Union was doing nothing

different from what the United States

was doing in Turkey it was placing

nuclear

offensive missiles or weapons near the

border of the adversary I actually

kushev said I don't want war with them I

just want to do what they're doing to us

it nearly led to nuclear Annihilation

it's good for superpowers to keep a

little distance the United States is

expansionist if you say the Russians are

expansionist or the Soviet Union is

expansionist keep a little space between

them and that's what President Putin has

been saying for more than two decades

keep a little space be prudent we don't

want the United States right up against

our border and the US has really

provoked it not only overthrowing a

Ukrainian president bad judgment in my

opinion but also so unilaterally walking

out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty

in 2002 unilaterally placing ages

missiles in Poland and Romania and when

Russia say what are you doing you're

breaking the whole security architecture

the US says and I quote it's none of

your business what we do NATO's none of

your business Russia that's the formal

literal position of the United States of

America America that we can go anywhere

with any Third Country including Ukraine

or Georgia we can put our missiles

wherever we want it's none of your

business Russia well come on purs this

is going to get us all blown up if we

don't have a little bit more common

sense okay but here's what I'm struck by

here's what I'm struck by Professor talk

to you a couple of times I find you

fascinating to talk to you by the way

and I I know you have a deep knowledge

of all this albe it you have some

interpretation of of what's going on

that's different to what I have but I

respect your knowledge um and your

scholarship on this but I'm just struck

that your language towards Russia and

Putin is nowhere near as censorious as

it is about uh America about your own

country it's true and I but I but I

think that you know what I sit here in

England and think it's so weird to see

such a learned American Professor who

seems to think that a Russ that that

America is the real problem here not

Vladimir Putin and Russia when many

other people would think the complete

opposite Piers the problem is uh I I was

born in

1954 and I've seen nothing but us Wars

of choice and CIA Ops my whole life and

since I became a International

Development specialist more than 40

years ago I've seen many of them up

close and I'm tired of them you know a

very good book written in

2017 by a professor at Boston College

named Lindsay oor has the title covert

regime change she studies peers no fewer

than

604 covert regime change operations by

the United States almost all of them CIA

LED

64 During the period

1947 to 19 89 I've had heads of state

say to me personally

Piers they're going to they're going to

take me out was the term that one of

them used and I assured them this

president in uh it was Haiti Haitian

president there no no no no we're going

to get all this sorted out in my naive

way they walked this President this was

arist out to an unmarked

plane flew him 23 hours in this coup

that the US arranged to Central African

Republic and in a broad daylight

launched a coup and when I tried to get

the New York Times to at least cover the

story I wanted to read it read about it

I was told by the reporter on the beat

oh our editors aren't interested in that

so you can have coups in broad daylight

I've seen the United States launch Wars

all over the world that Americans and

others don't even know were caused by

the United States it was only decades

after the fact that Z big

binski told us that he had urged

successfully Jimmy Carter to support the

jihadists the mujahadin to try to

overthrow the government in Afghanistan

in 1979

to lure the Soviets into a trap that

would be their Vietnam we messed up

Afghanistan for more than four decades

in that little typical us regime change

if man okay but Professor look here's my

question if you feel so angry about so

many as you put it illegal military

operations invasions whatever you want

to call them by the United States why do

you not also feel that same level of

anger When Vladimir Putin for whatever

political reasons he wants to come up

with about fears of NATO encroachment

blah blah blah when he launches a

fullscale invasion of Ukraine which is

now a sovereign Democratic European

country and well it's not a democratic

country but it's a it it had a

democratic election far more democratic

than Russia it did it did a while ago it

did a while ago under martial law it was

certainly far more of a well before the

War Began it was certainly far more of a

democracy than Russia has been in recent

decades you would certainly accept that

wouldn't

you look I I think the point is so my

point here's my my point is why why are

you not as why are you not as censorious

about Putin doing the thing that you

feel so angry about what you say

America's

done all I want is when Putin says we'll

negotiate and here our terms I want the

United States to say

we'll negotiate but we have different

terms but we'll sit down with you that's

all I'm asking but his terms his terms

is reported by Russian State media on

Friday the complete withdrawal of

Ukrainian troops from the territories of

donet Lans zapara and kerson after which

peace negotiations can begin I mean

that's just you know what I I don't

believe that's just taking taking a

quarter of the country or even a third

and saying I want to keep it

okay yeah so what are our terms for

negotiations come on this is

negotiations you don't get to keep any

of it would be my

terms well fine but the bottom line is

something else the bottom Line's really

about NATO so this is you know if if the

plan okay but that's my point my point

is if the plan if the if the plan of

Biden is of course we're going to keep

pushing NATO then there's no peace then

we're just in in open War and the one

that dies is Ukraine in the end but if

the maybe or maybe rather like all these

other countries that the Soviet Union

invaded maybe if Ukraine becomes a fully

paid up member of NATO it actually stops

Russia from being so aggressive

constantly whether it was crime here in

2014 or whether it's all these areas now

in other words you you know power in

power in I'm just telling you yeah I I

I'm

telling you the following in my

assessment yeah uh if uh first of all it

can't become a member of NATO in the

midst of a war this is anyway NATO

Doctrine but if they if they if they

took uh Ukraine as a member of NATO uh

we will end up in nuclear war uh just

like we nearly ended up in nuclear war

over the Cuban Missile why would we why

would we for the same reasons we didn't

because for in the Cuban Missile CR

Comm sense prevailed right no it did it

by the way it almost didn't Prevail

every everyone was for war except for a

very small handful of people including

thank God uh John F Kennedy and Nikita

kushev and that was just about all that

saved the world but the reason is for

Russia Ukraine is their 2,100 kilometer

border and they view this as an

existential issue I can tell you for the

US this is is a game this is the game of

Risk if you know that board game this is

big briny's game spelled out in

1997 in his article in foreign affairs

called a strategy for Eurasia let's

Corner Russia this is their game for

Russia this is existential this is right

on their border they don't want the

United States right on their again sorry

to jump in but again again this is your

inter ation of that but the other

interpretation could be the other

interpretation is that to stop Russia

invading its neighboring countries

that's what NATO is about and it's

proven very successful all those all

those countries that attacked before

haven't been attacked since because

they're part of NATO so this is this is

it could be it's the other argument

could be but it no you're right you're

right but then it could be nuclear war

that's all I'm saying but why would why

would okay why would Vladimir Putin who

is apparently Elon Musk says he's the

richest man on earth and loves his

material things whether it's Shadows or

super Yachts or whatever it may be why

would somebody with that mentality in

other words not an Islamic

fundamentalist who has nothing who wants

to kill himself for the cause and

believes he's going to you know meet 70

virgins up in in uh in wherever they end

up going um why is somebody with Putin's

materialistic capitalistic mentality why

would he even contemplate Armageddon and

losing everything that's that's not what

he's about he hasn't got that mentality

he's not someone he's not a suici b

he well I I think it it's useful for all

of us uh and you and uh everybody

listening to go online and read a a

memorandum by one of our best diplomats

William Burns who happens now to be CIA

director but in

2008 was the US ambassador to Russia and

he wrote a secret memo back to condalisa

Rice Secretary of State uh Julian

Assange enabled all of us to see the

real discussion not The Superficial

patter and narrative and he explained

this isn't about Putin this question of

NATO this is the entire Russian

political class everybody

and the the N the memo famously is

called net means net that for Russia

this isn't Putin this isn't one person

this isn't a lark this is viewed by

Russia as existential this is viewed by

Russia as do not stand on our borders

period especially now that the United

States has abandoned unilaterally the

anti-ballistic missile treaty it has

abandoned the international nuclear

force now stoltenberg is

who's well anyway he's just parting the

US saying we we are going to stock up on

our nuclear armaments they're not going

to accept it's not Putin it's Russia and

by the way you would feel the same way

in their position and the United States

absolutely

felt the same way when that was tested

and we have this Doctrine by the way

which is even

more remarkable since

1823 we've said no foreign powers in the

entire Western Hemisphere not just on

our border but the entire Western

Hemisphere and that doctrine that Monroe

Doctrine was reiterated I was sitting

there when Donald Trump reiterated that

in the UN General Assembly that was for

the whole Western Hemisphere so it's

perfectly understandable and it's not

about Putin this is it's about Russia's

absolute core National Security don't

come up to our border perfectly

sensible Professor sex great to talk to

you again I I find our conversations

fasc wonderful to be with you I really

really enjoyed thank you really

appreciate it thank you very much