theAnalysis.news

Saudi Arabia and Iran have agreed to re-establish diplomatic ties, with China showing itself to be a neutral and effective negotiator in the region. Talia Baroncelli speaks to Trita Parsi, the Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, on how this shift in Saudi-Iran relations affects Israel's posture toward achieving normalization with Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, the United States' recent departure from its usual condemnation of Israeli drone strikes on Iran and its open support for Israeli belligerence signals a new dangerous policy that increases the likelihood of war with Iran.

{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@id":"https:\/\/theanalysis.news\/chomsky-and-ellsberg-on-the-present-danger\/#arve-youtube-4feuuqsvdom640f72f155f9a120415523","type":"VideoObject","embedURL":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/4fEuUQsvDOM?feature=oembed&iv_load_policy=3&modestbranding=1&rel=0&autohide=1&playsinline=0&autoplay=1&enablejsapi=1","name":"CHOMSKY AND ELLSBERG PART ONE","thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/theanalysis.news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/Chomsky-and-Ellsberg-2.jpg","uploadDate":"2023-03-13T14:59:15+00:00","author":"theAnalysis-news","description":"Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg discuss American objectives in the Ukraine war and the preparations for war with China. TranscriptListenDonateSubscribeGuestMusic Paul Jay Hi, I'm Paul Jay. Welcome to theAnalysis.news. It is a special interview session today with Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky. Be"} Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg discuss American objectives in the Ukraine war and the preparations for war with China. .kt-post-loop_c50a87-47 .kadence-post-image{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_c50a87-47 .kt-post-grid-wrap{gap:30px 6px;}.kt-post-loop_c50a87-47 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kt-post-loop_c50a87-47 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .kt-blocks-post-grid-item-inner{padding-top:10px;padding-right:25px;padding-bottom:25px;padding-left:9px;}.kt-post-loop_c50a87-47 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item header{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_c50a87-47 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .entry-title{padding-top:5px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:10px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;font-size:16px;line-height:17px;}.kt-post-loop_c50a87-47 .entry-content{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_c50a87-47 .kt-blocks-post-footer{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_c50a87-47 .entry-content:after{height:0px;}.kt-post-loop_c50a87-47 .kb-filter-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:2px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:5px;padding-right:8px;padding-bottom:5px;padding-left:8px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:10px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;} Chomsky and Ellsberg on the Present Danger The Ultimate Serial Killer is Nuclear War – Paul Jay How Will the War in Ukraine End? – Boris Kagarlitsky Ukraine: Compromise or War to the End – Paul Jay Ukraine: Zelenskyy’s Visit to Washington | With Colonel Wilkerson (Ret.) Debatte über den Krieg in der Ukraine mit preisgekrönten Journalisten Class and the War in Ukraine – Paul Jay pt 1/2 Retired US Army Colonel on Ukraine, Iran & the State of the US Empire Risking Nuclear War to Avoid Humiliation – Ellsberg (pt 1/2) For Humanity’s Sake, Ukraine War Must End – Wilkerson A Warning From Chomsky and Ellsberg Answering Criticism of our Ukraine Coverage with Paul Jay (pt 3/3) Answering Criticism of our Ukraine Coverage with Paul Jay (pt 2/3) “Answering Criticism of our Ukraine Coverage with Paul Jay” (pt 1/3) Russia, Climate Crisis, and the War in Ukraine – Boris Kagarlitsky pt 3 Russia Started War, Capitalists on All Sides Fuel the Fire – Boris Kagarlitsky pt 2 Putin’s War Driven by Domestic Politics – Boris Kagarlitsky Daniel Ellsberg on Nuclear War and Ukraine Sovereignty and War – Yuliya Yurchenko Ukraine and the Doomsday Machine – Larry Wilkerson and Paul Jay The Invasion has Inflamed Eastern European Opinion Nationalism, Imperialism, Smoke and Fire Risking the Apocalypse for Money and God Who Benefits From a Protracted Ukrainian War? Hedges on Ukraine Russian Chauvinism and an American Global Monroe Doctrine – Vijay Prashad pt 2 Ukraine a Pawn in a Larger Struggle – Vijay Prashad pt 1 Putin’s War Crimes Follow in the Steps of American War Crimes – Denis Pilash pt 2/2 Ukraine and the Oligarchs – Denis Pilash pt 1/2 Ukrainian Left: Fight Russian Invasion & Say No to NATO – Denys Gorbach pt 2/2 The IMF Connection with the Ukraine Crisis Ukrainian Left: Fight Russian Invasion and Say No to NATO – pt 1/2 Matt Taibbi on Putin the Apostate Ukraine From Crisis to Catastrophe – Gerald Horne  Ukraine: Russian Crimes, American Hypocrisy – Wilkerson and Jay Ukrainian Buzarov and Russian Buzgalin on the Conflict in Ukraine Part 2: A Progressive Russian on Ukraine – Aleksandr Buzgalin A Progressive Russian on Ukraine – Aleksandr Buzgalin pt 1/2 It’s Time to Roll Back NATO Itself – Larry Wilkerson Ukraine: Dangerous Dance of Military-Industrial Complex – Paul Jay Why is Biden Pushing Putin on Ukraine? – Larry Wilkerson Ukraine and the Battle of the Oligarchs – pt 2/2 Why Are Tensions Rising in Ukraine? – pt 1/2 Transcript Listen Donate Subscribe Guest Music Paul Jay Hi, I’m Paul Jay. Welcome to theAnalysis.news. It is a special interview session today with Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky. Be back in just a few seconds. Please don’t forget the donate button. We can’t do this without you and be right back. Once again, joining me are Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky. Thank you, gentlemen, for joining us. Daniel Ellsberg Good to be here. Thank you. Paul Jay I’ve asked Noam and Dan if they would actually kind of interview each other, and I’ll jump in if I need to. But at any rate, Noam is going to go first and ask Dan a question. So go ahead, Noam. Noam Chomsky Actually, I can ask quite a lot of questions. There are lots of things I’d like to hear your take on, which I have a limited grasp of. One of them is kind of in the forefront now, I think, or should be. There’s a good deal of increasingly open talk in Washington– British analysts and others– about the fact that the United States is getting kind of a bargain out of the Ukraine war. Quite a part from the military industry, the fossil fuel industry, and Europe falling into Washington’s pocket. The United States, as a number of military figures and others have pointed out, is able to significantly degrade the military capacity of its main military enemy at a very small cost to itself and can therefore husband its resources for the major war that it’s planning with China. I’m just wondering what your take is on all of this. Daniel Ellsberg Noam, with my knowledge from the inside, it is very profitable to prepare for war, to plan for war, and above all produce for war. For instance, arms manufacturers would like very much to break through the limits on war material that we provide to Taiwan. That has been in place since about ’79 when [Jimmy] Carter actually recognized Beijing as the capital and there being ‘One China’. Congress forced on that agreement a separate agreement that Congress would continue to budget for, and we would continue to sell military arms to Taiwan– you’re talking about China now– despite the fact that Carter had just recognized Taiwan as a province of China, as virtually all Chinese regarded. Until this century, nearly all Taiwanese regarded it as a province of China. Now, there is an independence movement that has grown since the end of the last century, the end of the year, and since then. Generally, they are regarded as part of China. So we have this kind of paradox of sending weapons to a province of China. We don’t send them to any other province of China, Zhejiang, for example, and we don’t do that. But this move towards seeing Taiwan as a separate part, which of course, is by about 100 miles. But actually, it contradicts the idea of ‘One China’. However, Congress insisted we’re able to send, but with a limit, defensive arms, and not excessive amounts. I can’t help but believe that there are a lot of people who would like to break through that. They have been increasing the amount over the years and even more in the last year. Of course, we’ve been taking a lot of moves like Nancy Pelosi and even progressives like Ro Khanna to make visits to Taiwan of a kind that didn’t occur before and which are in the line of recognizing Taiwan as a separate, independent and sovereign country. Now, why? What’s the pressure for that? I certainly am not an expert in that area. I think one contributor, just one, but not an insignificant one, is the desire to enormously increase the sales of arms that we make to Taiwan. No ceiling on that. If it is recognized as an independent country, which we’re moving toward with these open statements of commitment to defend them from China, of course, an independent country can make alliances; that’s sovereignty. In fact, all of Latin America is a sphere of influence in which countries have limited sovereignty. They cannot make alliances with, quote, “foreign powers.” We’re not a foreign power, of course, in the Western Hemisphere. They can’t have bases, for example. If they were totally sovereign, they could. We were preparing to invade Cuba even before Russia in response to those plans. After the Bay of Pigs in ’61 and ’62, they were providing arms, but not yet nuclear arms. There were great calls, pressing calls, for [John F.] Kennedy to announce an invasion of Cuba going right up to the moment when they turned up with nuclear weapons from Russia. Now, I’ll come back. Since they have no legal status, as they don’t, clearly, the position we take is, “no, no. Sovereign countries, independence, have [inaudible 00:06:04].” What Kennedy was preparing for and accelerated when the build-up appeared– totally aggression was illegal. We regard it as criminal and illegal for China to claim that it has a right to determine the nature of the government and to claim Taiwan as its own. But we come back to the question, which I don’t fully answer– no, I’ll come back to Noam. Aside from the desire to have, I think, Taiwan not only as a purchaser of our weapons and a great profit to our arms sales but as a base again, as it used to be before ’79– they used to have nuclear weapons, U.S. nuclear weapons in Taiwan. I visited bases with nuclear weapons in Taiwan in 1960 and thereafter. I don’t think the Navy has ever fully reconciled itself to losing Taiwan as a base. With all this talk about containing China with a circle of friendly powers, a NATO-like encirclement of China, as we did with Russia, I think Taiwan would be a marvelous part of that circle of containment. It would be just wonderful to contain China from these various things, including parts of China that they read as Chinese. I’ll turn the question back to you. Noam Chomsky I’m wondering what this conception that’s now spreading in high circles is that we can degrade Russia on the cheap by losing Ukrainian lives to degrade the Russian forces. We can kind of control it enough so that it doesn’t lead to a strong Russian response. We’ll just keep it under control while at the same time preparing for a massive assault on China. I’m just wondering, for example, recently, there were reports about the Marines shifting their tactics from heavy armaments to island hopping, go back to Iwo Jima, and so on. I mean, can they really seriously be thinking that we can be preparing for a war with China where the Marines will be attacking islands as in the Second World War, and it’s not going to blow up into total catastrophe? Daniel Ellsberg I don’t believe they’re preparing to invade Taiwan. I think it would have to be with the request, or politicians who indeed may have been induced in various ways to make that request, bribed, or impelled in some ways. I cannot believe they have in mind an amphibious invasion of Taiwan. They do intend [crosstalk 00:09:14]–  like the puppets. Do you really believe that? I think the idea would be that like our puppet government in Saigon [Ho Chi Minh City] asking us– they asked us sometime after the Marines had arrived. Phan Huy Quát, I know very well the Prime Minister. I know very well a fact that Phan Huy Quát, whom I did meet but didn’t know well, was not informed that Marines were about to land at Da Nang in 1964. But of course, he endorsed it once it happened. The rest of the involvement there did have the appearance of asking a request of a government that we described as sovereign. Although we had created South Vietnam, the U.S. created South Korea, South Vietnam had not existed before we drew [inaudible 00:10:11]. Taiwan, as I say, went back and forth and so forth, but for many years we treated it as an American base, and we didn’t do that by invading it. We had people there who relied on it and profited from it, in fact, wanted us to support Chiang Kai-shek’s pretensions that his claim to being the ruler of all of China was based on his firm intention to reinvade China. We supported operations against China from Taiwan and from the offshore islands, some of them a mile and a half from China. When China was opposing those, they were opposing bases that we were using for covert operations. How to keep them in the U.S.; that is Chiang Kai-shek’s hands? The answer was there’s only one way to do that. They’re a mile and a half, some of them, a few more within sight of mainland China. Only nuclear weapons can keep them away. [Dwight D.] Eisenhower was prepared to initiate nuclear war to maintain islands that are just within sight of the mainland as part of the defense of Taiwan, which we regarded, in effect, as a subordinate. So 65 years ago, it was still top secret that Eisenhower had been ready, if necessary, to hold those islands to initiate nuclear war, with the understanding in his eyes that although China didn’t have nuclear weapons, read Ukraine, its allies and a supplier of Russia did have nuclear weapons. Eisenhower expected a response from the U.S. against Taiwan, Shanghai, and possibly bases in Japan and Guam that were supporting this effort. In other words, to which our response would be an all-out war, which, as I found in ’61, the Joint Chiefs expected to kill 600 million people. They didn’t know then in 1958 or ’61, and they didn’t know until 1983 when nuclear winter became conceptualized and predicted by many scientists and confirmed today that it wouldn’t be just 600 million that would be killed. We expected to attack. We planned to attack. We targeted every city in Russia, over 100,000, and 80% of the cities over 25,000, and the same in China. That’s where you get up to 600 million and fall out from those attacks. What we didn’t figure out then was that the smoke from the burning cities would be lofted by nuclear attacks. Hard to do this with non-nuclear attacks, but possible. We did it in Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo, creating firestorms that lofted the smoke into the stratosphere where it wouldn’t burn out. But that was only three cities. With 100 to 200 cities with that smoke in the atmosphere, and you get that firestorm every time with nuclear weapons, it blocks 70% of the sunlight for up to a decade. It kills all of us, and it starves nearly everyone to death. Not everyone– Argentina. Allen Rose is having dinner with us tonight, leading environmental scientists– 90% to 98% starve to death in a year. He has a big peer-reviewed study that says it will be over 5 billion. He was telling me it’ll be a lot more than that. I’m bringing this up to today. That’s what we’re facing now with the prospect of continuing this war, including moving toward the invasion of Crimea and the full expulsion of all Russians from Donbas, where Russian troops have been for eight years now. They’ve all got to go. Putin has said he is prepared to use nuclear weapons to prevent that. That Crimea, for example, is a trigger if he’s really facing expulsion, which he wouldn’t be, in my opinion, from Ukrainians alone. But if some people, including many major factors in Ukraine, including Zelenskyy, and so on, want and get direct U.S. involvement on this and not just a matter of arms sales and provisions, but troops and pilots, not just F-16s, then Putin would be seeing a real challenge and may as well, in Donbas. I don’t think he is bluffing. He could be. People have bluffed in the past and have not bluffed in the past. I don’t think he’s bluffing now. I am getting away from your point that there are people who don’t want to press it to that point because they want war with China, which is a nuclear power, of course. Actually, China doesn’t have the number of weapons that Russians do. China doesn’t need a first-use threat like Putin in its own region. Twenty years since [Bill] Clinton sent carriers to the Taiwan Straits as a challenge to them when they were sending test missiles in the area of Taiwan, we sent two carriers; the Chinese have been building up their conventional capabilities, including anti-aircraft carrier cruise missiles, and a lot of airfields among other things. The U.S. can’t do that again. They will control it. It’s pretty well recognized that they have at least conventional parity there, if not superiority. That’s the difference from Europe. That used to be the way it was in Europe. We thought there was an overwhelming conventional superiority of Russians, Soviet troops against West Europe. Now, that was always a hyped-up hoax. There was a basis for that supposedly rationalized, the idea that we would initiate more the basis of NATO planning. We don’t have to do that anymore in Europe. Why is Putin doing it? Because he’s in the position we used to be. He’s imitating our old policy. He has a conventional inferiority in Europe. So he’s doing what we did for 70 years, threatening initiation of nuclear war and blowing the world up. It has no more justification than we had for 70 years, and we’re still making it. Here’s the point I was leading up with regard to your question. President Biden could easily, actually, said in 2016, when he was just leaving office as vice president, he couldn’t think of any circumstances in which it would be to the benefit to initiate nuclear war or to threaten it. That was Vice President Biden in 2016. He ran on that in 2020—no first use. We will not initiate nuclear war, which seems, you know, sort of a bedrock of sanity, except for the fact that we have been saying the opposite for 70 years. But here we had a presidential candidate who was, at last, recognizing that it will be immoral and insane to initiate nuclear war in any way. Well, he’s been in office for two years. He hasn’t said that. He’s not going to say it. He could very well afford to say that. He could say cold threats are now tarn-justified, totally immoral, as they are, and with no longer saying, and we’re saying the same. Hard for us to say that now because that is NATO policy right now, what he’s threatening. He won’t say that, I think, because many Americans feel he will need that threat in Taiwan. To hold on to Taiwan as an independent state, in effect, which we haven’t openly recognized, but saying that we will defend them goes pretty far. We can’t assure a conventional defense. We could actually defend it with non-nuclear weapons. If Biden says, “no nuclear weapons or first use threat for Taiwan,” he will be accused by political factors and authoritative people saying, “you are now inviting a Chinese invasion into Taiwan.” And that goes along with our ideology and our commitments of the last 50 years, you know, very openly till ’79. After ’79, as we move toward treating Taiwan as an independent to which we are, in effect, abide, we’re back to threatening it. So, in short, we need Putin’s threat for Taiwan, even not in Europe. And that is what makes me a little pessimistic that without pressure, Biden will not do what he would be, I think, quite willing to do in Europe. Noam Chomsky Well, based on your incomparable experience with these guys, is it conceivable, in your view, that they are now thinking the gang around Biden, that they can calibrate the war in Ukraine carefully enough so as to keep degrading Russia, sacrificing Ukrainians, not lead to Putin’s escalation of the war, and at the same time prepare the Marines, your old friends, to start island hopping in a planned war against China, which they will somehow be able to calibrate as well to keep it short of Chinese nuclear weapons and gain the goal of degrading China as well? Can it be that they’re really thinking of that? Daniel Ellsberg The Marines, as I understand it, moved to training in recent years for amphibious operations, which were the essence of my three years in the Marines as a platoon leader and then incumbent in commander, but as a battalion planning officer, assistant battalion planning officer. It’s all for amphibious operations. But now, you know, gradually, much more helicopters instead of landing crafts. I probably went down the nets from the ship. A rather challenging project, actually, when you have a big pack on your back and weapons– more than 100 times. I practiced it all the time. Of course, based on the island hopping of World War II, yes, they’ve been rehearsing now for helicopters for a long time, but they do, as you say, seem to be moving back. I don’t know the details of this, but they are moving back toward more operations like that in their training. Now, something that occurs to me, which my memory isn’t too precise on, but hasn’t China been very much warming their relationships with the Solomon Islands? Guadalcanal? My first brother-in-law died in 1942 during the Battle of the Guadalcanal. Well, before they can go back to that, we have the islands that the Chinese have built up in the South China Sea to some extent for airstrips and so forth. Yeah, you could take over those. Coming back to the first part of your question, initially and now the attitudes on Europe, what do they plan there? It’s true. They are– especially Republicans. They seem to be sounding almost sane direction on Ukraine in the sense of not an indefinite amount of escalation here. Not forever. You even have– what to say. How shall I describe Marjorie Taylor Greene? A maniac saying it would be insane to invade Crimea. Well, that’s true. You have Democrats who are denying that and going along with Zelenskyy and pronouncing that we’re going to invade Crimea. Taylor Green thinks– I have used it, but I’m afraid it is not good even for a joke, but I have used it. I said I do have a principle you can’t count on. You might think you could use, as a compass point, somebody who is always wrong. Lindsey Graham offers himself for that, for instance. One would think Marjorie Taylor Green. I’ve often said you can’t count on anyone to be wrong on everything all the time. As I mentioned that somebody said to me, “even Lindsey Graham had a good resolution on immigration the other day.” Maybe I’ve been misjudging him. That means you just can’t set your compass court opposite to these people or reliably, pretty reliably, though. So in Europe, I think that the democratic leaders like [Antony] Blinken, [Lloyd] Austin, [Jake] Sullivan, and Biden have shown a willingness and even a desire for the war in Ukraine to continue indefinitely at this level and somewhat higher. I don’t think they want– I’m pretty sure they don’t want nuclear war, but it’s like Condoleezza Rice said, “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” Well, how do you know if you’ve gone enough in pressing the Russians or too much? You know it when this comes up [inaudible 00:25:32] and Crimea offers itself as an abyss. I don’t think they want a two-sided nuclear war or even a one-sided one in Europe. They are threatening a one-sided war in Taiwan, and I think they’ll continue to do that. Putin is threatening what he hopes, I believe, is a one-sided war to hold on to Crimea, where virtually all Russians, I understand, do regard that as part of Russia. It would be an existential threat to lose it, and so forth. He has a lot of support for that. Donbas is a more complicated issue. Will he really blow up the world to keep all of his troops in Donbas as opposed to going back to pre-2023 and pre-2022, February 24? We don’t know. Noam, as you keep pointing out in other channels, it’s outrageous that there is no negotiation going on on this point and there to be no communication. The fact that Blinken and [Sergey] Lavrov’s Foreign Minister’s first discussion since the war began was ten minutes a day at a conference which Blinken used to say, “get all your troops and withdraw, in effect, withdraw from Crimea,” that’s not going to happen. A nuclear war, I think he knows that. We can just say no communication. Well, that’s outrageous in terms of the interests of the world, but I think to keep it going, there’s nothing but a benefit for the ruling circles in this country. The profit to the military-industrial complex, the share profits of Lockheed, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Boeing have gone up, as have the profits of the oil companies. I would say they’re not going down. But even more important, as you said, for the arms sales aspects, is the fact that NATO is back having appeared to have no purpose, no rationale since about 1992, with the end of the USSR, the end of the Warsaw Pact, the Warsaw Pact moving and not existing as a Russian set of satellites, it seemed to have no purpose of NATO. Now Putin is back as an enemy is a [inaudible 00:28:21]  factor for NATO with the U.S. as its head. I have to say we’ve taken on, and with a lot of consensus, the role of a military protector in Europe. A protectorate, first in West Europe, now in East Europe. Now it’s hard to get the benefits of being a protector, a protection racket unless you’re protecting them against somebody. I think that [George F.] Kennan’s and [Mikhail] Gorbachev’s desire for a peaceful, democratic Russia to be part of a peaceful, democratic Europe community, from Lisbon to Vladivostok, but anyway, from Lisbon, a very wide European community, that was not desired. Kennan said, “you won’t get this if you go into Ukraine.” [Jack] Matlock, [William] Burns, and many others said, “you can’t have a peaceful, democratic Russia if you talk about going into Ukraine. If you get Ukraine into NATO, you will have very bad relations with Russia.” I think that was heard by other people. Aha, that gives us our roadmap. We’ll do everything we can to get Putin, in a sense, to look like an enemy and to do things that make him appear; that’s a trap he fell into. We have Putin back– that’s full. We have all the benefits now of being a protector of Europe, and it is indeed committing aggression, massacring people, and in every way encouraging people [to purchase] F-35s. He’s the greatest salesman for this dog of a plane, F-35S, which is in the shop all the time and cannot fly near a thunderstorm because it doesn’t have good lightning protection. All of the other competitors for fighter bombers and Saab Gripen, and Dassault Rafalel, they’re all out. It’s F-35s all over. Well, that’s okay with Lockheed. They’ve been lobbying for that since the ’90s. Anyway, it’s a perfect little war, as they used to say– the Spanish-American War. In this case, it can’t go on too long without the constant risk of inciting Putin to carry out threats of a kind we have often made but haven’t yet been carried out. Noam Chomsky Well, actually, Lindsey Graham, who you mentioned, is one of those who’s been celebrating the fact that the U.S. is degrading the Russian military with very little expense to ourselves, a great deal of expense to Ukraine and the rest of the world. But notice what’s happening. NATO is now at its last summit, an Indo-Pacific power. We have now been able to enlist Europe in our planned confrontation with China, which is pretty much a bipartisan agreement in the main conflict. We’ll sort of somehow calibrate things so that it doesn’t get out of hand, and Europe will fight to the last Ukrainian, as some are putting it. Meanwhile, we’ll prepare for China. The U.S. has now sent– it’s not only the shift in the Marine strategy, which I mentioned, the U.S. now has for the first time established permanent bases for B-52s in Darwin, Australia, in Guam, maybe pretty soon in the Philippines. They’re now building up the military connections with the Philippines that had declined. It looks as though they seriously think that they can somehow continue to provoke China. Also, the commercial war, which is trying to prevent China from any technological and economic development, maybe bring them to their knees. Can they really? I mean, judging by what you’ve seen on the inside, can anybody be crazy enough to really be thinking this? Daniel Ellsberg I haven’t been on the inside since about the time I got to know you, read your books, and be influenced by you. So I’m not on the inside. In fact, I want to ask you what your opinion is here. By the way, your book was about American power and the Mandarins. I’m just looking at it. I’ll tell you why in a minute. But of course, that looked at the Pacific war in World War II in a way that totally changed my understanding of it as somebody who had grown up slightly from 10 to 14 during World War II; it certainly changed my attitude. So why do they seem to be acting that way? Not all of them, but not every politician, but most of them, actually, and more Democrats than Republicans. It’s certainly in Europe, only Europe, but also on the Pacific. Why? I don’t know. I’ll tell you right away, as an outsider, I don’t know why they are acting as if they want war with China. You tell me. Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like any amount $5 $15 $25 $50 $100 $500 $1,000 Custom Amount $ Make this donation each month (optional) User my donation to help support the upcoming documentary "How to stop a nuclear war" (optional) Donate with Credit Card Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter Email(Required) Name(Required) First Last Δdocument.getElementById( "ak_js_2" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); gform.initializeOnLoaded( function() {gformInitSpinner( 10, 'https://theanalysis.news/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg', true );jQuery('#gform_ajax_frame_10').on('load',function(){var contents = jQuery(this).contents().find('*').html();var is_postback = contents.indexOf('GF_AJAX_POSTBACK') >= 0;if(!is_postback){return;}var form_content = jQuery(this).contents().find('#gform_wrapper_10');var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find('#gform_confirmation_wrapper_10').length > 0;var is_redirect = contents.indexOf('gformRedirect(){') >= 0;var is_form = form_content.length > 0 && ! is_redirect && ! is_confirmation;var mt = parseInt(jQuery('html').css('margin-top'), 10) + parseInt(jQuery('body').css('margin-top'), 10) + 100;if(is_form){jQuery('#gform_wrapper_10').html(form_content.html());if(form_content.hasClass('gform_validation_error')){jQuery('#gform_wrapper_10').addClass('gform_validation_error');} else {jQuery('#gform_wrapper_10').removeClass('gform_validation_error');}setTimeout( function() { /* delay the scroll by 50 milliseconds to fix a bug in chrome */ }, 50 );if(window['gformInitDatepicker']) {gformInitDatepicker();}if(window['gformInitPriceFields']) {gformInitPriceFields();}var current_page = jQuery('#gform_source_page_number_10').val();gformInitSpinner( 10, 'https://theanalysis.news/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg', true );jQuery(document).trigger('gform_page_loaded', [10, current_page]);window['gf_submitting_10'] = false;}else if(!is_redirect){var confirmation_content = jQuery(this).contents().find('.GF_AJAX_POSTBACK').html();if(!confirmation_content){confirmation_content = contents;}setTimeout(function(){jQuery('#gform_wrapper_10').replaceWith(confirmation_content);jQuery(document).trigger('gform_confirmation_loaded', [10]);window['gf_submitting_10'] = false;wp.a11y.speak(jQuery('#gform_confirmation_message_10').text());}, 50);}else{jQuery('#gform_10').append(contents);if(window['gformRedirect']) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger('gform_post_render', [10, current_page]);} );} ); “Daniel Ellsberg (born April 7, 1931) is an American political activist and former United States military analyst. While employed by the RAND Corporation, Ellsberg precipitated a national political controversy in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret Pentagon study of the U.S. government decision-making in relation to the Vietnam War, to The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other newspapers.” “Avram Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historical essayist, social critic, and political activist. Sometimes called “the father of modern linguistics,” Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science.” theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“.   Never-Endum-Referendum Artist Website Paul Jay’s Documentaries

Why net zero commitments are empty and dangerously misleading if we continue to burn fossil fuels. Talia Baroncelli speaks to retired physician and IPCC climate expert Peter Carter about how ongoing wars, illegal mineral wealth extraction in active conflict zones, and the plunder of resources by transnational corporations are literally killing the planet.

In part 2 of "North of 48," Paul is asked about working with Daniel Ellsberg on his film "How to Stop a Nuclear War."

War crimes, coercion, and illegal surveillance: Stefania Maurizi's book "Secret Power: Wikileaks and its Enemies" chronicles Wikileaks' publication of secret documents and the ongoing dehumanizing treatment of its founder, Julian Assange. Talia Baroncelli speaks to investigative journalist Stefania Maurizi.

{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@id":"https:\/\/theanalysis.news\/honest-government-ad-the-safeguard-mechanism\/#arve-youtube-dyrwaqvjg_q63ff739eb0c37103491702","type":"VideoObject","embedURL":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/dYRwAqvjG_Q?iv_load_policy=3&modestbranding=1&rel=0&autohide=1&playsinline=0&autoplay=1&enablejsapi=1","name":"Honest Government Ad | the Safeguard Mechanism","thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/theanalysis.news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/honest-gov.jpg","uploadDate":"2023-03-01T10:45:57+00:00","description":"The Australien Government has made an ad about the Safeguard Mechanism - Labor's key climate policy to reach its 2030 emissions target - and it's surprisingly honest and informative. This video was originally published by The Juice Media on February 15, 2023. ListenDonateSubscribeMusic theAnalysis.n"} The Australien Government has made an ad about the Safeguard Mechanism – Labor’s key climate policy to reach its 2030 emissions target – and it’s surprisingly honest and informative. This video was originally published by The Juice Media on February 15, 2023. .kt-post-loop_43ee01-95 .kadence-post-image{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_43ee01-95 .kt-post-grid-wrap{gap:30px 6px;}.kt-post-loop_43ee01-95 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kt-post-loop_43ee01-95 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .kt-blocks-post-grid-item-inner{padding-top:10px;padding-right:25px;padding-bottom:25px;padding-left:9px;}.kt-post-loop_43ee01-95 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item header{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_43ee01-95 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .entry-title{padding-top:5px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:10px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;font-size:16px;line-height:17px;}.kt-post-loop_43ee01-95 .entry-content{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_43ee01-95 .kt-blocks-post-footer{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_43ee01-95 .entry-content:after{height:0px;}.kt-post-loop_43ee01-95 .kb-filter-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:2px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:5px;padding-right:8px;padding-bottom:5px;padding-left:8px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:10px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;} Honest Government Ad | the Safeguard Mechanism Honest Government Ad | AUKUS Honest Government Ad | Julian Assange Honest Government Ad | Visit Western Australia Juice Media Satire: Australian “Values” News Corp Bargaining Code – Biting Satire From Juice Media Juice Media Nails Australien Government Climate “Policy” Juice Media Take Down of QAnon – we wish it was just satire Listen Donate Subscribe Music Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like any amount $5 $15 $25 $50 $100 $500 $1,000 Custom Amount $ Make this donation each month (optional) User my donation to help support the upcoming documentary "How to stop a nuclear war" (optional) Donate with Credit Card var gform;gform||(document.addEventListener("gform_main_scripts_loaded",function(){gform.scriptsLoaded=!0}),window.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){gform.domLoaded=!0}),gform={domLoaded:!1,scriptsLoaded:!1,initializeOnLoaded:function(o){gform.domLoaded&&gform.scriptsLoaded?o():!gform.domLoaded&&gform.scriptsLoaded?window.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",o):document.addEventListener("gform_main_scripts_loaded",o)},hooks:{action:{},filter:{}},addAction:function(o,n,r,t){gform.addHook("action",o,n,r,t)},addFilter:function(o,n,r,t){gform.addHook("filter",o,n,r,t)},doAction:function(o){gform.doHook("action",o,arguments)},applyFilters:function(o){return gform.doHook("filter",o,arguments)},removeAction:function(o,n){gform.removeHook("action",o,n)},removeFilter:function(o,n,r){gform.removeHook("filter",o,n,r)},addHook:function(o,n,r,t,i){null==gform.hooks[o][n]&&(gform.hooks[o][n]=[]);var e=gform.hooks[o][n];null==i&&(i=n+"_"+e.length),gform.hooks[o][n].push({tag:i,callable:r,priority:t=null==t?10:t})},doHook:function(n,o,r){var t;if(r=Array.prototype.slice.call(r,1),null!=gform.hooks[n][o]&&((o=gform.hooks[n][o]).sort(function(o,n){return o.priority-n.priority}),o.forEach(function(o){"function"!=typeof(t=o.callable)&&(t=window[t]),"action"==n?t.apply(null,r):r[0]=t.apply(null,r)})),"filter"==n)return r[0]},removeHook:function(o,n,t,i){var r;null!=gform.hooks[o][n]&&(r=(r=gform.hooks[o][n]).filter(function(o,n,r){return!!(null!=i&&i!=o.tag||null!=t&&t!=o.priority)}),gform.hooks[o][n]=r)}}); Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter Email(Required) Name(Required) First Last Δdocument.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“.   Never-Endum-Referendum Artist Website Paul Jay’s Documentaries

Boris Kagarlitsky talks about the mood of the Russian people and the possibility that the Russian military leadership might insist on ending the war.

{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@id":"https:\/\/theanalysis.news\/ukraine-compromise-or-war-totheend-paul-jay\/#arve-youtube-gzbn5syalfu64062ba58be7c703592640","type":"VideoObject","embedURL":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/gzBn5SyaLfU?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheanalysis.news&iv_load_policy=3&modestbranding=1&rel=0&autohide=1&playsinline=0&autoplay=1","name":"Ukraine: Compromise or War to the End - Paul Jay","thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/theanalysis.news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/Ukraine-pt-1-1.jpg","uploadDate":"2023-02-17T15:03:05+00:00","author":"theAnalysis-news","description":"Paul Jay is a guest on North of 48, where he discusses the Ukraine war in the context of the risk of nuclear war and climate catastrophe. TranscriptSpanish TranscriptListenDonateSubscribeMusic Walter Kiriaki Welcome to North of 48. It's February 13th, the day before Valentine's. It's 3 degrees Celsi"} Paul Jay is a guest on North of 48, where he discusses the Ukraine war in the context of the risk of nuclear war and climate catastrophe. .kt-post-loop_47526f-ab .kadence-post-image{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_47526f-ab .kt-post-grid-wrap{gap:30px 6px;}.kt-post-loop_47526f-ab .kt-blocks-post-grid-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kt-post-loop_47526f-ab .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .kt-blocks-post-grid-item-inner{padding-top:10px;padding-right:25px;padding-bottom:25px;padding-left:9px;}.kt-post-loop_47526f-ab .kt-blocks-post-grid-item header{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_47526f-ab .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .entry-title{padding-top:5px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:10px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;font-size:16px;line-height:17px;}.kt-post-loop_47526f-ab .entry-content{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_47526f-ab .kt-blocks-post-footer{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_47526f-ab .entry-content:after{height:0px;}.kt-post-loop_47526f-ab .kb-filter-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:2px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:5px;padding-right:8px;padding-bottom:5px;padding-left:8px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:10px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;} The Ultimate Serial Killer is Nuclear War – Paul Jay How Will the War in Ukraine End? – Boris Kagarlitsky Ukraine: Compromise or War to the End – Paul Jay Ukraine: Zelenskyy’s Visit to Washington | With Colonel Wilkerson (Ret.) Debatte über den Krieg in der Ukraine mit preisgekrönten Journalisten Class and the War in Ukraine – Paul Jay pt 1/2 Retired US Army Colonel on Ukraine, Iran & the State of the US Empire Risking Nuclear War to Avoid Humiliation – Ellsberg (pt 1/2) For Humanity’s Sake, Ukraine War Must End – Wilkerson A Warning From Chomsky and Ellsberg Answering Criticism of our Ukraine Coverage with Paul Jay (pt 3/3) Answering Criticism of our Ukraine Coverage with Paul Jay (pt 2/3) “Answering Criticism of our Ukraine Coverage with Paul Jay” (pt 1/3) Russia, Climate Crisis, and the War in Ukraine – Boris Kagarlitsky pt 3 Russia Started War, Capitalists on All Sides Fuel the Fire – Boris Kagarlitsky pt 2 Putin’s War Driven by Domestic Politics – Boris Kagarlitsky Daniel Ellsberg on Nuclear War and Ukraine Sovereignty and War – Yuliya Yurchenko Ukraine and the Doomsday Machine – Larry Wilkerson and Paul Jay The Invasion has Inflamed Eastern European Opinion Nationalism, Imperialism, Smoke and Fire Risking the Apocalypse for Money and God Who Benefits From a Protracted Ukrainian War? Hedges on Ukraine Russian Chauvinism and an American Global Monroe Doctrine – Vijay Prashad pt 2 Ukraine a Pawn in a Larger Struggle – Vijay Prashad pt 1 Putin’s War Crimes Follow in the Steps of American War Crimes – Denis Pilash pt 2/2 Ukraine and the Oligarchs – Denis Pilash pt 1/2 Ukrainian Left: Fight Russian Invasion & Say No to NATO – Denys Gorbach pt 2/2 The IMF Connection with the Ukraine Crisis Ukrainian Left: Fight Russian Invasion and Say No to NATO – pt 1/2 Matt Taibbi on Putin the Apostate Ukraine From Crisis to Catastrophe – Gerald Horne  Ukraine: Russian Crimes, American Hypocrisy – Wilkerson and Jay Ukrainian Buzarov and Russian Buzgalin on the Conflict in Ukraine Part 2: A Progressive Russian on Ukraine – Aleksandr Buzgalin A Progressive Russian on Ukraine – Aleksandr Buzgalin pt 1/2 It’s Time to Roll Back NATO Itself – Larry Wilkerson Ukraine: Dangerous Dance of Military-Industrial Complex – Paul Jay Why is Biden Pushing Putin on Ukraine? – Larry Wilkerson Ukraine and the Battle of the Oligarchs – pt 2/2 Why Are Tensions Rising in Ukraine? – pt 1/2 Transcript Spanish Transcript Listen Donate Subscribe Music Walter Kiriaki Welcome to North of 48. It’s February 13th, the day before Valentine’s. It’s 3 degrees Celsius in Northern Canada, and I’m happy to have you with us. We have some special guests lined up today to discuss Ukraine. First, I’m going to bring on Ann Li. Ann has a column at the Daily Kos, K-O-S, and she’s a professor. Hi, Ann. How are you? Ann Li Good, good. Thank you, Walter. Walter Kiriaki Thank you, Ann. Next, we’re going to bring up Professor Jonathan Bick. He taught poly-sci at Western Connecticut State University for nearly a decade. He now works at the University of Massachusetts. He can be seen on the David Feldman Show, commenting on current political events and occasionally gets them right. Sorry. Jonathan Bick Once in a while, Walter. That’s true. Thank you. Walter Kiriaki Our special guest is Paul Jay of theAnalysis.news, who’s got some award-winning documentaries out there. What I like about you, Paul, is you do interviews with people whose voice should be heard in the mainstream news but is not necessarily heard, and you get different angles and different takes, and I really appreciate that. He started the Real News Network and interviewed Gore Vidal. All nice stuff. Should we push for a compromise to support Zelenskyy’s call to push Russia out of all of Ukraine at this time? Do you have an angle on that, Ann? Ann Li Actually, I don’t. Diplomacy is incredibly complex, and the issue of pushing for any lull or ceasefire is incredibly problematic. The major powers haven’t seen fit to try and attempt to do that. Even disinformation, recall that Putin claimed that there was a ceasefire and a variety of other things and still continued combat. Walter Kiriaki That’s true. How about you, John? Jonathan Bick Are you including in that pushing the Russians not only out of Ukraine proper but Crimea, the Crimean Peninsula? Walter Kiriaki  I think the question… yeah, I think that is what Zelenskyy said he would like to do, yes. So I would include that. Jonathan Bick No, my position would be to reach some sort of compromise because it seems unlikely that Ukraine is going to be able to do that by itself. I think that the more that the U.S. and Western powers, NATO powers, continue to add more and more support for Ukraine, the greater danger there is that this could expand into a war that includes more than just Ukraine and Russia, and the possibility of nuclear weapons being used increases. I think these are very dangerous possibilities. I would be in favor of a compromise. Walter Kiriaki Well said. Paul, do you have some thoughts on this? Paul Jay Yes. But in terms of the format, I tend to blab on. Do you want me to blab on, or do you want me to make this short? Walter Kiriaki You blab on as much as you want, my friend. We’re here to hear you. Paul Jay  Poor you, but here I go. Walter Kiriaki Okay. Paul Jay I think we have to start our analysis from two points, and then we look at almost anything going on in the world, but particularly now in Ukraine. That is the catastrophic existential threat of the climate crisis. It could be an even more immediate catastrophic threat of nuclear war. Then you start to look at Ukraine, Taiwan, or anything you want to look at. Let’s look at Ukraine. There will not be a Ukraine to speak of in 10 to 20 years. There’ll be no agriculture left. Much of the country will be unlivable. If you look at the IPCC report on climate, which is very conservative, but a new report just came out from James Hansen, who used to work at NASA, he doesn’t think we’re on the road to two degrees or three degrees. He thinks we are on the road to 10 degrees. Get that? Ten. This essentially means there might be a few humans left in the Arctic, and that’s about it. Walter Kiriaki Yes. I call dibs. Paul Jay For Ukrainians, like for Zelenskyy to call for a no-fly zone to push the Russians and Putin’s government into a humiliating defeat and the desperation that goes with that, it accomplishes two things. One, the possibility, and the Chinese actually wrote this in an editorial in Global Times. If Putin fears for his own life, if Putin’s regime is teetering, if the Russian people believe that this war has become such a disaster that it might even lead to the breaking of the national fabric of the Russian Federation because there are many ethnicities and nationalities that are doing very bad in this Russian Federation. You could see the breakup or potential breakup. If the Russians see this as a real disaster, which some Americans want, and not only Americans but some of the real hawks are hoping for this breakup, then desperate measures may come. Those desperate measures could include the use of a tactical nuclear weapon. If Zelenskyy is serious about quote-unquote, “liberating Crimea,”– the reason I put quote-unquote on Crimea is that I think Crimea is a different story than Donbas. Several Western polling firms polled Crimea after the Russian-organized referendum because not many people trusted the results of that referendum. I think it was three different Western polling firms that found that, in fact, the results of that referendum, whether the process was legitimate or not, it actually did reflect the majority of public opinion in Crimea. The Russian naval bases there, Russia does see Crimea as a part of Russia, of the Russian Federation. If Zelenskyy is serious about trying to throw the Russians out of Crimea, I think that is beyond a red line. Maybe it’s even beyond a red line that even the U.S. would accept, but I don’t know. The war of hysteria in the United States right now, whether it’s about Ukraine or whether it’s about China, the pressure of domestic politics is you can’t look weak on Russia. You can’t look weak on China and expect to win the next election. Whether that’s even true or not is another story. I don’t know that Americans actually care that much. But certainly, it’s something the political elite believe to be true and is driving and has driven over the decades, much of U.S. foreign policy– the fear of looking weak, the fear of being humiliated. When I’ve had this conversation with Ukrainians, I’ve had it with Lefty progressive Ukrainians. I’ve said to them– because even they are saying, some of the socialist left-wing Ukrainians, they want to liberate Crimea, not just Donbas. They just discount. They say you can’t succumb to the nuclear blackmail of Putin. But why not? Why can’t we succumb to nuclear blackmail if there’s some legitimacy to it? And there might be. Over Crimea, there might be. Especially in Crimea, where as I said, it seems at least prior to the invasion, I don’t know what it is now, the mood might have changed; if most of the people want to be part of the Russian Federation, then why shouldn’t they be? In fact, that goes for Luhansk, and that goes for Donetsk. There need to be legitimate referendums to see where and how these people want to live. They have a right, I think, to self-determination. For quite a while, what the people of Luhansk, Donetsk, and such wanted was actually to be in Ukraine but within a federated system. In 2014, when they declared autonomy from Kyiv, it wasn’t a demand to join Russia. It was a demand to have a federated system. I believe something… we’re in Canada, you and I, and we have a federated system. The civil code in Quebec is not the same as in the rest of Canada. They have language laws protecting French that don’t exist in the rest of Canada. A federated system might have worked. So why wasn’t a fairly reasonable proposal from the people in those regions acknowledged, respected, and adopted by the Ukrainian state? This is where the whole thing gets complicated, which is the Ukrainian oligarchy is not the villain of the piece. Clearly, it’s the Russian oligarchy, and the Russian state, if you want, within this time frame, and this region is the villain of the piece. I say it that way because this only takes place within the context of global monopoly capitalism, a vicious, horrendous system that’s given us World War I, World War II, and endless wars afterward, including the use of nuclear weapons. It takes place within that system, a system since World War II, managed by the United States. It goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway, no power within this monopoly capitalist system has more blood on its hands than the United States. That doesn’t mean, in terms of the Ukraine War, the specificity of it. It doesn’t mean the Russians did not launch a war of aggression. It is illegal. It continues to be a war of aggression and continues to be illegal, and it continues to be catastrophic for Ukraine. Who knows, it may turn out to be catastrophic for Russia. It could turn out to be catastrophic for all of us. The Ukrainian government is not a good guy in this story. The Ukrainian government, before the invasion, could have said something that was obvious to anyone that knew anything about it. They should have just taken NATO off the table and said, “look, they’re not going to let us in any way, so we might as well just say, withdraw our application.” There were many Ukrainian voices saying that before the invasion. Just acknowledge the truth here. Ukraine is not getting into NATO, so stop making it an issue. Now, whether that would have stopped the invasion or not, I don’t know. I think there are a lot of domestic reasons why Putin launched this, but he would have lost his principal argument. That argument does matter in terms of Russian public opinion. This public opinion matters. It mattered in the U.S. and the Vietnam War, and it matters now. Putin does not want to lose Russian public opinion, and it seems he is to some extent. So the Ukrainian government could have taken that off the table. Of course, the U.S. government could have taken it off the table, and they didn’t. Quite the contrary, they made it such a big issue that it became another point of humiliation for Putin. So just to step back a bit, we are dealing, as I said, with a system of global monopoly capitalism and global imperialism. I see that basic system you could look at as a cancer. It’s not new. This cancer has been around. You could say even from the early 20th century; it brought us the First World War, the Great Depression, and so on. This cancer has been getting worse, and it’s like a parasite if you want it, and that parasitism is based in finance because finance has become so parasitical. People call it a global casino, and so on. It’s getting worse, and that normal cancer is managed by our democratic institutions. So the normal Democratic Party, the normal Republican Party, meaning more like Bush-Cheney than Trump and the Christian nationalists, they manage this cancer in different ways. The Democrats want slightly less intense exploitation of American workers. The Republicans, if they had their way, would probably go back. This is certainly this version of Republicans. They want to certainly go back to America before the New Deal, and some of them wouldn’t mind going back to slave society or some variation of it. They fight over that. How intense should the exploitation be? The Democrats’ argument, and I’m talking about the elites here, not ordinary people who are part of the party or vote for the party, even the majority of candidates, certainly people in the House, but the elite of the Democratic Party, they’re worried about the radicalization of the working class. So they say, “let’s mitigate the intensity of the exploitation in the United States,” but they don’t mind plundering the rest of the world, which is why, on the whole, with some exceptions, the corporate Dems and the corporate Republicans have been pretty much on the same page of foreign policy, more or less since World War II. Anyway, let me cut to the chase to the answer because you can go on with this. Let’s be clear about who we are. Nobody much gives a shit what we say anyway. Let’s acknowledge that. We’re not in power. We don’t get to decide U.S. foreign policy. What we can do is speak out as progressives of what is what we think is the most rational course of action for people to demand of their elites and to get organized to take as much power as possible, even at the level of unions and communities, and then electorally. Hopefully, sooner than later, because we don’t have much time, really build a mass movement both in the streets and electorally that can get some rationality back into this discourse. Within the next 10 years or five years, I don’t know; in terms of climate, the predictions get worse and worse. The time frame of the window of opportunity to do something is getting… every time you hear a prediction, it’s less years. We need to urgently get back– in 1969, there was a massive protest against the Vietnam War. They called it the moratorium. I’m working on this film with Daniel Ellsberg now. That massive protest in 1969 helped curb Nixon’s plan to use a tactical nuclear weapon in Vietnam. Ellsberg’s release of the Pentagon papers was another blow to preventing Nixon from using it. In 1972, there was a conversation between Nixon and Kissinger. There’s actually a recording. People may have heard this. He asked Kissinger… no, Kissinger said to Nixon, “maybe we should blow up the dams.” Nixon says, “how many people will it kill?” Kissinger says, “probably around 200,000.” Nixon says, “well, then why don’t we just use a nuclear weapon?” Kissinger says, “well, isn’t that going too far?” Nixon said, “why? Are you afraid of that?” Something like that. I’m actually going to use the actual… we have the tapes. The tapes have been released to that conversation. The Pentagon Papers are coming out, and the trial of Ellsberg, which led to the Watergate investigation, which led to the downfall of Nixon, all of these things, mass movement, whistle-blowing, it actually stopped Nixon from a real plan. Ellsberg says, “Nixon had already commissioned the targeting of where the tactical nuclear bomb or maybe bombs would hit North Vietnam.” It had gotten so far that they actually knew where they were going to drop them. They were prevented from doing it by American public opinion. We need that again now because as much as we need it and hope that it also rises in Russia, an antiwar movement rises, and there is some indication it is. There are stories of the amount of people leaving Russia because of this. Over a million or maybe more. We’re in an urgent moment for climate and nuclear threats, and we need to get organized at every level of society wherever we can. In terms of Ukraine, I know a lot of the Ukrainians don’t like what I’m going to say, and I’m saying the same thing Chomsky has been saying and Ellsberg. Chomsky has been getting denounced by a lot of Ukrainian leftists for this. There’s got to be a compromise– to get to your question– because of the climate crisis, because of the threat of nuclear war, and because, and maybe in the most immediate sense, how many more tens of thousands of people need to die? How many more children need to die? How many more people, including Russian soldiers? And dying for what? Let’s say they liberate Crimea. Let’s say they’re successful in Donbas. Then what? Hand it all back to the Ukrainian oligarchy? So the same corrupt, rotten oligarchs that helped create the conditions for this war, and I’m not putting the primary onus on them. Without a doubt, the primary onus is on the Russian oligarchs, then the Americans, the whole context, then the pushing of NATO, sure. The Ukrainian oligarchy has a lot of responsibility for creating these conditions. And they’re going to hand all this right back to the Ukrainian oligarchs because right now, there doesn’t seem to be any independent movement in Ukraine. What I would love to see is the Ukrainian workers take all these guns and all these weapons and tell the Russians, “you want Ukraine denazified? Great. Get the hell out of Ukraine, and you go denazify Russia. We’ll denazify Ukraine, including using all these weapons to overthrow the Ukrainian oligarchy. We’ll build a real independent progressive Ukraine.” That’s what I’d like to see, but I don’t know that that force is there. So if it’s not there, what are they going to get if they liberate these places except the Ukrainian oligarchy in alliance with NATO and Western European and American capital? They just go back to where they were. So, yes, of course, there must be a compromise. We, as progressives here, need to demand a compromise that’s for the good of the Ukrainian people. But we need more than that. What I’m about to say is, sure, I’m looking through rosy glasses, but I see no way out for humanity other than what I’m about to say. I don’t see how we get there, but we need to demand it anyway. We need this grand global– like they used to have the Geneva convention. We need a massive conference of the UN or certainly of the major powers. There needs to be one, a compromise in Ukraine, which includes legitimate referendums for Luhansk, for Donbas, and for Crimea. There needs to be a Marshall Plan of some sort. I hate using the word because there are a lot of negative sides to that, but at any rate. China and the United States need to offer Russia a way out of a fossil fuel economy, and not just Russia. There needs to be an international urgent agreement. Do you know the movie Don’t Look Up? A meteor is coming, or an alien invasion. Well, we’re there. We’re at a point where if the major powers don’t come together and have this grand bargain of a transition off fossil fuels, at least some kind of nuclear weapons limitation treaties. We essentially have no nuclear weapons treaties now. The last one is going to expire in 2024, but the inspections have already stopped. The Russian-American inspections are not even happening. So the treaty is effectively not in force. We don’t have any nuclear weapon agreements right now. So we’re headed for an all-out, unrestricted, new nuclear arms race, and we’re in it. We’re not headed for it—wrong language. We’re in it. The United States already has a plan to spend at least one and a half trillion dollars. The Russians are going to do what they can to match it. Because of that, now the Chinese are trying to match it. The Chinese, up until now, was very modest. I think they only had about 200 ICBMs, and they were keeping it at the level of a deterrent. But because of this craziness going on in the United States, which is also pushing the Russians, the Chinese are now starting to build up their nuclear weaponry. We are headed towards existential goodbye humans, so we better get organized. Walter Kiriaki Well, it’s a lot to unpack there, Paul. You weren’t kidding. Let me just ask a couple of questions, and we’ll throw it to John and Ann. I think Ukrainians inherited a Soviet system of oligarchy, and I think the Ukraine oligarchs were beholden to the Russian ones. As the war was going on, there was still helicopter motor plants producing motors in Ukraine and sending them to Russia to kill Ukrainians. With what Zelenskyy has done– in a war setting, you can do this. You can be, I don’t know if it’s ultra cruel, or you can… he’s taken the Ukrainian oligarchy out of the system, according to what I read. Now, do you not think that’s a step forward for Ukraine? Paul Jay I can speculate. I don’t know enough. I would just say that in wartime, as it happened in the United States and in World War II, FDR was essentially an Emperor during World War II, even leading up to it, some say. Sure. But maybe what emerges out of this, maybe, is a little more of the current Russian-style state. I wouldn’t compare it to the Soviets, where you have state capitalism in partnership with an oligarchy. Right now, the state seems to be more powerful than the oligarchs. The state itself, Putin, and others are oligarchs. So it’s a section, you could say, of the oligarchy that has direct control over the state. The individual oligarchs are not part of that inner circles. If they play ball, they keep their wealth. Now, maybe Ukraine will emerge with that. Now, my understanding from talking to Ukrainian is that prior to the invasion, there was a basic contradiction within the Ukrainian oligarchy. The Eastern Donbas-based oligarchs relied on cheap natural gas from Russia. They didn’t want to have such an antagonistic relationship with Russia. The Western oligarchs, Western Ukraine, were the ones far more pushing for the E.U. relationship. But it wasn’t simplistic because a lot of them also wanted the E.U. relationship. There are some basic contradictions in the oligarchy which gravitate towards the Russian sphere of capitalism and which gravitate towards the Western sphere of capitalism. And that is, in fact, what the war really is about. It wasn’t actually about any NATO threat to Russia. I think that’s a crock. It’s an important piece of the nationalist narrative in Russia, and that can’t be underestimated. The nationalist narratives in the United States are critical to holding that society together. If it wasn’t for Americanism, why wouldn’t Americans rise up and get rid of their own bloody oligarchs? It’s a very important piece. How do poor people from all these Southern states go march off to war and die for Americanism? I mean, for a total… Walter Kiriaki I almost think it’s a class struggle because the Russians going to die are coming from the least economically advantaged. There are commercials running in Russia right now. Do you want to buy your daughter an iPhone? Join the army. Do you need a new car? Join the army. To me, it sounds like more of a class war. Paul Jay Of course, it is. The American Army is very similar. Most of the people who join supposedly volunteer, but they’re doing it out of economic necessity. The relationship between the Ukrainian state to the Ukrainian oligarchy, assuming this ends with this state still intact, and right now it looks like it will, then I don’t see why I wouldn’t go back. The pro-Western oligarchs will be dominant, but I don’t know if Zelenskyy has the power that Putin has. So if he loses that wartime clout and popularity, the Ukrainian oligarchs, I think, will wind up more powerful in relation to the state than is in Russia, but I’m speculating, and I’m not sure it matters right now that much. Walter Kiriaki Well, it’s true. But I’m hoping what’s going to happen is all these soldiers on the Ukrainian front line won’t take the crap any more from the oligarchs. They’ll be highly trained, much the same as what happened in Canada and the United States when the Second World War veterans came in. Unions started expanding, and there was more stuff for the people. John, you look like you have a question. Am I wrong? Jonathan Bick Well, I want to say, first of all, I think that Paul’s analysis is dead on. Just starting with the climate crisis, if there were an increase in the average global temperature of 10 C, civilization is gone, and humanity would be lucky to still have any survivors, I think, over the intermediate term. That’s just catastrophe if that were to happen. Even half of that increase would pose an extinction threat to humans. We’d be living under conditions that are totally foreign to us today. So yes, I agree completely that climate is and should be the number one issue that the world is dealing with. In the very short future, it’s going to cause global catastrophes that are going to kill millions of people. As this happens, and as food supplies become disrupted and transportation networks become disrupted, the opportunity for conflict increases dramatically, and that includes using things like nuclear weapons. I understand the horrific situation that is transpiring in Ukraine and in other places around the world with other conflicts, but if we’re serious about surviving as a species, I think we need to come to the realization that we have to prioritize addressing climate change as a species. Nationalism is almost entirely poisonous. Paul, I don’t understand how it is that people sign up for these wars when their own elites in their own nations are having a war against them in terms of their quality of life, in terms of their ability even to have a life. It’s fundamental that we have to address these things and recognize that, essentially, the war in Ukraine is a distraction from the most important priority, which has to be climate change and also addressing nuclear threats. Those two issues are magnitudes greater a threat than what’s going on in Ukraine. That’s not to say what’s going on in Ukraine is not important, but compared to those two issues, it doesn’t even compare. Paul Jay I would just say that they’re all tied up with each other because the reality is there needs to be a deal in Ukraine to be able to have the conversation. China, the ridiculousness of the hawkishness towards China. If you want a dystopian future, listen to this one. Think about that conversation with Kissinger and Nixon. If it hadn’t been for maybe the Pentagon papers and then Watergate, Nixon seriously considered using a tactical nuclear weapon. Kissinger was seriously thinking about blowing up dams that could kill 200,000 people. This is a state with Truman that dropped nuclear weapons on Japan, and fire bombed city after city. These people do not care about killing hundreds of thousands and even millions of people. They can live with that. So listen to this future. What happens at three or four degrees when millions and tens of millions, hundreds of millions of people from Latin America have to move north? What are they going to do to stop them? There’s no wall. There’s one way to stop them, and there’s only one way that I know. Two ways. There’s a rational way, which is right now a real proper Marshall plan for Latin America to transition off fossil fuel and help build a sustainable economy in Latin America. You could even start with Central America. Or, and I hate even to say these words, but you cannot rule this out; tactical nuclear weapons are used in Mexico, so people can’t come north. Do you really think this is beyond these fucking people? What’s the alternative to stopping tens of millions of people coming north? What, machine guns at the border? Even that wouldn’t do it. Walter Kiriaki Elon’s spaceship. Paul Jay Yeah, that’s nonsense, too. If anything, they may well be doing something under the Earth. They may have some secret ways to live down there, but that’s all ridiculous, too. I mean, if there’s a nuclear winter, they better plan to stay down there for about 25-30 years or something. Maybe some rich people will survive. The end of Don’t Look Up is great. Is that the one where the dinosaurs eat them all at the end? Jonathan Bick Yes. Walter Kiriaki Ann, you look like you have a question. Ann Li Well, I think it is very compelling. The climate issues are still and will remain as far as we can see the kind of backsliding that has become normal for a lot of neoliberal approaches to solving the crisis at a standard, peaceful level. I actually tend to agree with you that the initiation of a tactical nuclear strike somewhere, somehow, will punctuate, I think, some important move. Whether it winds up in peace or not is another question. I do want to ask you why– it seems that Ukraine is making a serious attempt to de-oligarch or at least purge one portion of its oligarchy. I think that they’re doing this on the prompting, of course, of the E.U. and of the United States. This is incremental. I think you’ll wind up still with a smaller, perhaps, or wider group of oligarchs in Ukraine. These kinds of solutions are still predicated, I think, on trying to find a ceasefire solution. That ceasefire solution is going to be not impossible. I think that’s the message that the Ukrainians are sending, that they only want to go back to the 2014 borders, which includes Crimea. Crimea is probably the linchpin for some, or at least the negotiating point for a ceasefire that will probably return Crimea to the Russians and keep, as you say, a federated system. But it’s going to take a long slog of ceasefires, demilitarized zones, a lot of diplomacies, and probably some serious military victory on both sides to get us to that point. Do you see that as a reasonable case, but can it be done quickly before some nuclear solution occurs? It seems pretty clear that the fighting around Zaporizhzhia, the reactor there, was symptomatic of a testing of our will to either have another Chornobyl or not and whether that’s going to be a key element in the negotiations that move forward. I don’t disagree with you about the possibility of 10 degrees. We are at a technological point where we can achieve that. But your suggestion that we’re going to get to a global solution for these kinds of things with all due respect to the Marshall Plan is, well, unfortunately, there are more people on the side of a neoliberal solution to that than there are to a UN solution. I wonder how you see that scenario working out. It seems as though we’re going to need a change in consciousness that will proceed further beyond any mass movement. Paul Jay I’m not sure of the last sentence. Ann Li Well, I think you’re urging a change in consciousness that would be a mass movement. I don’t disagree with you about the issue of mass movements in the ’60s and ’70s. I grew up in a generation that hoped that we would be able to have such a movement. There are some on the ground who believe that a mass student strike, for example, would have compelled that. As we see, we do a lot of memorials, but we still haven’t moved to the next step of controlling the military in the United States. It seems somewhat futile to assume that a mass movement can achieve those kinds of ends. Paul Jay Yeah. I would say there are two possible objective factors that could play in favor of this. We’ll see. First of all, capitalist elites since the 19th century, since modern industrialization, have been split on this question of how intensely to exploit workers. I’ll give it quickly. I don’t know if I told this story last time, but there’s a mine in Wales. Did I tell you the mine in Wales story last time? No? All right. So I was in this mine in Wales, an iron ore mine, and it has been continuously mined since the Romans. So like 2,500 years of iron ore mining. But in the mid-1800s, there was no air filtration system. So you weren’t allowed to pee when you were working down there. If you didn’t keep your job, you’d get fired, and your family would probably starve. The choice was to have at least somebody in the family working in the mine, hopefully, a man, a woman, and a child or children, or you would starve. You couldn’t pee. So they couldn’t use donkeys to haul the ore up to the surface, so they used women. By the mid-1800s or so, so many women’s pelvises had been twisted and distorted by the weight of hauling iron ore to the surface that they couldn’t have babies anymore. The children were dying and being forced to go up into these little crevices in the ceiling of the mine, and they put sharp stones down the back of their shirts so they couldn’t sleep. They were destroying the working class to the extent that they wouldn’t be able to have new workers to go mine. So there was a split. This wasn’t just happening in the mines. It was happening throughout British industry where the level of exploitation of especially women and children was so intense that there was a question, would there be enough workers? So the capitalist class splits on this. A section says, “for the sake of capitalism, we got to pull back on this intense level of exploitation.” The other section says, “well, screw you because I make more money doing it this way.” The ones that were more understanding of the needs systemically won, and they did ban child labor in the mines, and they did ban women from working in mines. Eventually, there was an eight-hour working day, which also came from a mass movement. It was both. There was a rise of workers getting organized and sections of the elite that saw it as a systemic interest to have some level of reform. Can we see that again now? And you still need both. There is no foreseeable mass movement strong enough, whether it’s in the streets or electorally, to make the change we need just at that level of mass movement. You need some sections of the elite to see their own interest is jeopardized both by the threat of nuclear war and catastrophic climate change. Now, on climate, you can see an acknowledgment of that. It’s finally penetrated. Even Larry Fink from BlackRock talks about the need for companies to be more accountable. It starts to get through their heads that this really is an existential threat, although there’s no conversation on nuclear, but nothing in terms of really effective policy other than Biden’s plan, the supposed anti-inflation thing, or whatever he called it. But that thing, at least it was something compared to nothing, but it’s nowhere near to what’s needed. So the problem is the system itself works against these solutions. Let’s say BlackRock wants to get out of coal, which they said they did. They claim they wanted to pull back on their coal investment. Well, when they do, Vanguard just steps in or somebody else steps in and picks up the coal investment. Without government intervention in a phasing out of coal, the market can’t do it, even if an asset management fund is as powerful as BlackRock, which has something like eight trillion dollars under management now. Between BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, the three largest asset management companies, they have more money under management than the GDP of China. That’s insane, right? Three companies. But they’re very competitive. The craziest thing happened recently. Mark Carney, who used to be the Governor of the Bank of Canada and then went on to be the Governor of the Bank of England, and now is a special climate consultant for Guterres at the UN, created an organization from the financial sector to big banks, asset management companies all over the world. He recruited them to start making green investments and start trying to make the companies they invested in more accountable. It was more greenwashing than real, but anyway, at least they acknowledged the problem, at least. So some Republican governors threatened that if any bank starts going down the road of this green, like Mark Carney’s group, that state would no longer do business with that bank. Vanguard pulled out because of it—the second largest asset management company. So the market can’t do it. We have to get way louder because even Bernie doesn’t talk about this, and not nearly enough and hardly at all. We need public ownership. We have to start with this question of fossil fuel phasing out and regulations. It’s clear the marketplace can’t do it. I think anybody who’s not brain-dead in the elites has to know this is true. So maybe with the rise of a movement and some sections of capital, like those who saw you better ban child labor and female labor, maybe some will start to say, “we’re jeopardizing our own wealth. Okay, maybe the fossil fuel people have to get sacrificed here.” Even if you take the manufacturers of nuclear weapons, it’s a big deal to Lockheed Martin. The amount of money they make on this new generation of ICBMs, it may be close to… what is it? I think it’s $100-200 billion. I don’t know. There are a trillion dollars more of contracts out there for this whole renewal of nuclear weapons. If you actually look at who owns Lockheed Martin, it’s the banks. It’s these asset management companies and other banks. If you look up who owns Lockheed Martin, CNN has a good breakdown of this. The majority investor, I think, in every single one of the 12 companies that make nuclear weapons, you’ll see, is under the category of institutional investors. Well, those are the big banks and especially asset management funds. Well, if you look at the size of that eight trillion dollars that, say, BlackRock has under management, how much does that Lockheed Martin nuclear weapons contracts mean to them? Not that much. It’s a very small amount of money when you’re looking at the size of a BlackRock. So in this film, if I get it, I want to go try to get an interview with Larry Fink. I’m going to say, “listen, you said you have a responsibility to defend the assets of your investors, but that doesn’t mean you also have a responsibility to defend the asses of your investors because these assets won’t be worth hell. They’ll be nothing. They’ll be worthless in maybe as little as 10-15 years. We’re not talking end of the century.” If we’re crossing two degrees by 2050, do you think there was a disruption in global supply chains during the pandemic? There won’t be global supply chains at three degrees, two to three degrees. It’s a joke. So they’re very short-sighted, but maybe this combination of elites starting to get the danger, starting to understand the need for government intervention. They did deal with acid rain, so it’s not out of the question. This kind of thing can happen. One of the things we have to do is be better at finding ways to communicate with ordinary people whose identities are so wrapped up in Americanism, a certain religion, because I’m in no way condemning all people who are religious, but there are certain forms of religion which are interwoven with Americanism and apocalyptic thinking. Maybe there’s a certain section of people you can’t get to, but I think most people could listen to this if there’s some way to get to them. So I’m hoping this movie of the nuclear thing… yeah, it’s been announced publicly; I can say this now. Emma Thompson is going to be the narrator for it. So it’s going to give us a mainstream possibility to get it out there. Walter Kiriaki Well, I really want to talk about that. Let’s just say this is the end of part one, and we’ll come back for the start of part two. Walter Kiriaki  Bienvenido a North of 48. Es el 13 de febrero, el día antes de San Valentín. Tenemos 3 grados centígrados en el norte de Canadá.  Gracias por acompañarnos. Tenemos algunos invitados especiales para hablar sobre Ucrania.  Primero, daré la palabra a Ann Li. Ann tiene una columna en el Daily Kos y es profesora. Hola, Ann. ¿Cómo estás?  Ann Li  Bien, bien. Gracias, Walter.  Walter Kiriaki  Gracias, Ann.  A continuación, presentaré al profesor Jonathan Bick. Enseñó Policiencia en la Universidad Estatal de Western Connecticut durante casi una década. Ahora trabaja en la Universidad de Massachusetts. Aparece en el David Feldman Show, en el que analiza acontecimientos políticos actuales, y a veces acierta. Lo siento.  Jonathan Bick  De vez en cuando, Walter.  Walter Kiriaki  Eso es cierto.  Jonathan Bick  Gracias. 

{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@id":"https:\/\/theanalysis.news\/italian-state-mafia-collusion-and-the-arrest-of-a-crime-boss\/#arve-youtube-tdndt2p8fxe63efbc41ce5eb798194450","type":"VideoObject","embedURL":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/TDNdt2p8FXE?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheanalysis.news&iv_load_policy=3&modestbranding=1&rel=0&autohide=1&playsinline=0&autoplay=1","name":"Italian State - Mafia Collusion and the Arrest of a Crime Boss","thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/theanalysis.news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/Nazzaro-5.jpg","uploadDate":"2023-02-17T12:40:49+00:00","author":"theAnalysis-news","description":"Breaking up mafia networks requires a strategy that is not just crime-focused but addresses socio-economic inequalities to prevent the mafia from preying on society's most vulnerable. It must upend the reliance of politicians and international finance on dirty money. Talia Baroncelli speaks to Sergi"} Breaking up mafia networks requires a strategy that is not just crime-focused but addresses socio-economic inequalities to prevent the mafia from preying on society’s most vulnerable. It must upend the reliance of politicians and international finance on dirty money. Talia Baroncelli speaks to Sergio Nazzaro, an investigative journalist specializing in criminal networks. .kt-post-loop_238f64-bd .kadence-post-image{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_238f64-bd .kt-post-grid-wrap{gap:30px 6px;}.kt-post-loop_238f64-bd .kt-blocks-post-grid-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kt-post-loop_238f64-bd .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .kt-blocks-post-grid-item-inner{padding-top:10px;padding-right:25px;padding-bottom:25px;padding-left:9px;}.kt-post-loop_238f64-bd .kt-blocks-post-grid-item header{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_238f64-bd .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .entry-title{padding-top:5px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:10px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;font-size:16px;line-height:17px;}.kt-post-loop_238f64-bd .entry-content{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_238f64-bd .kt-blocks-post-footer{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_238f64-bd .entry-content:after{height:0px;}.kt-post-loop_238f64-bd .kb-filter-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:2px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:5px;padding-right:8px;padding-bottom:5px;padding-left:8px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:10px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;} Italian State-Mafia Collusion and the Arrest of a Crime Boss 44 Years in Prison, Still a Revolutionary – Eddie Conway Dies on Feb. 13, 2023 Federal Reserve is Throwing Workers Out of Work to Save the Rich Honest Government Ad | AUKUS The False Promise of Carbon Capture and Storage Exposing Apocalyptic Economics with Steve Keen Saudis Hedge Bets, Iran Risks Increasing Isolation – Trita Parsi Navy Puts Climate Change at Top of Threat List – Larry Wilkerson Honest Government Ad | Julian Assange No Evidence to Support FED 2% Inflation Target – Robert Pollin  Apartheid Drives the Conflict in Peru Pro-Bolsonaro Attacks Following Bannon’s Playbook? Mini Doc: Why I am Opposed to the War in Vietnam – Martin Luther King 50 Years After Allende at the UN: A Corporate Triumph Named Multistakeholderism The Iranian Revolution: The Fall of the Shah and the Rise of Khomeini Ukraine: Zelenskyy’s Visit to Washington | With Colonel Wilkerson (Ret.) Brazil: Hope for the First Time in a Very Long Time Time Bomb in Global Finance – Rob Johnson Mini Doc: Gore Vidal’s History of the National Security State Iranian Women-Led Resistance Independent of Western Imperialism Debatte über den Krieg in der Ukraine mit preisgekrönten Journalisten Monopoly Power vs Democracy – Matt Stoller  Why the Media is Now Supporting Julian Assange? – Paul Jay pt 2/2 Class and the War in Ukraine – Paul Jay pt 1/2 Peru’s Systemic Political Crisis Deepens as President is Arrested State of Big Tech 2022: Dismantling National & Global Digital Enclosures Retired US Army Colonel on Ukraine, Iran & the State of the US Empire Real Climate Solutions are No Mystery – Pollin How to Fight Inflation Without Attacking Workers – Pollin Is Russian War in Ukraine “Similar” to 1962 U.S. Blockade of Cuba? – Daniel Ellsberg (pt 2/2) Risking Nuclear War to Avoid Humiliation – Ellsberg (pt 1/2) Worker’s Wages & Leverage are the Real Targets – Ferguson Ukraine War & Pandemic Caused More Inflation Than Gov. Spending – Wilkerson Honest Government Ad | Visit Western Australia Wilkerson on Militarism and Regrets About Iraq War Repairing a Fractured World Economy? Lula Wins in Brazil but “Will Have to Tread Very Carefully” After Bolsonaro’s Failures, Why was Brazil’s Election so Close? Drone Whistleblower Hale is a Hero – Ellsberg and Chomsky Will Jan 6 Committee Investigate Christian Nationalism? – Gerald Horne Debunking Net Zero, Carbon Offsets, Nature-Based Solutions, Climate Smart Agriculture, Bioeconomy… Why the Soviet Union Imploded – Jeffrey Sommers (pt 2) Rising Fascism and the Elections – Chomsky and Ellsberg Anti-Regime Protests and the Devastating Effects of US Sanctions in Iran Why the Soviet Union Imploded – Jeffrey Sommers (pt 1) For Humanity’s Sake, Ukraine War Must End – Wilkerson Why is Biden Risking Nuclear War with China? – Chomsky and Ellsberg The Fed Attacks the Working Class – Robert Pollin Chomsky and Ellsberg on the Death of Gorbachev Chile’s Devastating Vote Gorbachev Paved Way for Oligarchs – Aleksandr Buzgalin A Warning From Chomsky and Ellsberg Answering Criticism of our Ukraine Coverage with Paul Jay (pt 3/3) Capitalism’s Structural Crisis and the Global Revolt Answering Criticism of our Ukraine Coverage with Paul Jay (pt 2/3) “Answering Criticism of our Ukraine Coverage with Paul Jay” (pt 1/3) Biden’s Bill has Significant Funding for Climate but 10% of What’s Needed – Bob Pollin Why Give a Damn About Pelosi? – Paul Jay pt 1 No Bosses: A New Economy for a Better World (pt 1/3) No Bosses: A New Economy for a Better World (pt 2/3) No Bosses: A New Economy for a Better World (pt 3/3) Biden’s China Policy: A More Polite Trump – Amb. Chas Freeman U.S. Policy on Taiwan is Dangerous – Wilkerson Progressive Running Against a Corp Dem in Boeing Country Russia, Climate Crisis, and the War in Ukraine – Boris Kagarlitsky pt 3 Russia Started War, Capitalists on All Sides Fuel the Fire – Boris Kagarlitsky pt 2 Organizing in West Virginia  Get Organized to Win! – Jane McAlevey pt 1/8 Chris Hedges, Edward Snowden, Noam Chomsky, Paul Jay and Daniel Ellsberg on Assange A Dire Warning About the End of Human Civilization The Capitalist Solution to ‘Save’ the Planet: Make it an Asset Class & Sell it 25,000 Gather for Moral March on Washington Racism and a Failed Coup – Gerald Horne Identity, Nationalism and Climate Change – Paul Jay Putin’s War Driven by Domestic Politics – Boris Kagarlitsky Jan 6 Committee Ignores White Christian Nationalism A Paradigm Shift for Colombia Daniel Ellsberg on Nuclear War and Ukraine JFK’s Canadian Coup Reversal of Fortune for Colombia’s Left? Rising Interest Rates Intended to Create Unemployment – Bob Pollin The Story Behind “The Con” Stand on Guard for Whom? – Canada and NATO Fascism and the Democratic Party – Paul Jay pt 3/3 Weaponized National Identity, War and an Orgy of Profits – Paul Jay pt 2/3 Sovereignty and War – Yuliya Yurchenko On Conspiracy and War – Paul Jay pt 1/3 Leftist Mélenchon as French PM Would Shake Europe – Renaud Lambert Paul Jay on 9/11 Trump Saved Christian Nationalist Billionaires a Bundle in Taxes Ukraine and the Doomsday Machine – Larry Wilkerson and Paul Jay The Invasion has Inflamed Eastern European Opinion Nationalism, Imperialism, Smoke and Fire Risking the Apocalypse for Money and God Who Benefits From a Protracted Ukrainian War? Hedges on Ukraine The Power of the Strike – Jane McAlevey pt 8/8 Power Analysis and Whole-Worker Charting – Jane McAlevey pt 7/8 Why I am Opposed to the War in Vietnam – Martin Luther King Russian Chauvinism and an American Global Monroe Doctrine – Vijay Prashad pt 2 To Win We Need Strong Militant Unions – Jane McAlevey pt 6/8 Ukraine a Pawn in a Larger Struggle – Vijay Prashad pt 1 Putin’s War Crimes Follow in the Steps of American War Crimes – Denis Pilash pt 2/2 Is China’s Trade Predatory or for Mutual Benefit? – Hudson and Bond pt 2/2 Ukraine and the Oligarchs – Denis Pilash pt 1/2 Ukrainian Left: Fight Russian Invasion & Say No to NATO – Denys Gorbach pt 2/2 The IMF Connection with the Ukraine Crisis Ukrainian Left: Fight Russian Invasion and Say No to NATO – pt 1/2 Is China Socialist or State Capitalist? – Hudson and Bond pt 1/2 Matt Taibbi on Putin the Apostate A Dire Warning About the End of Human Civilization Does Nicaragua Under President Ortega Deserve Progressives’ Support? Ukraine From Crisis to Catastrophe – Gerald Horne  Ukraine: Russian Crimes, American Hypocrisy – Wilkerson and Jay Ukrainian Buzarov and Russian Buzgalin on the Conflict in Ukraine What is the Way Forward for the Ukrainian People in the Midst of International Tensions? – Andrey Buzarov pt 2/2 Massive Escalation in Donbas or a New Propaganda Campaign? – Andrey Buzarov pt 1/2 What U.S. Foreign Policy and Pro Wrestling Have in Common – Paul Jay Part 2: A Progressive Russian on Ukraine – Aleksandr Buzgalin A Progressive Russian on Ukraine – Aleksandr Buzgalin pt 1/2 Resource Limits to American Capitalism & The Predator State Today Mobilizing is Not Organizing – Jane McAlevey pt 5/8 A Failed Coup Within a Failed Coup – Paul Jay Biden Bows to the Saudis – Trita Parsi & Annelle Sheline It’s Time to Roll Back NATO Itself – Larry Wilkerson Ellsberg & Assange: Exposing Lies of the Nationa

Eddie Conway, a fearless fighter for working people everywhere, died on February 13th. Eddie was a Black Panther who was unjustly imprisoned for 44 years. In his honor we republish a series of biographical interviews hosted by Paul Jay, first released in 2015.