0:04

Hello, and welcome

0:05

to you, Claudia. I'm one of your host

0:07

Katie Halper.

0:07

And I'm another host, Aaron Natek.

0:10

How are you, Katie? Good. You? I'm good.

0:12

That's the second week. I just like your time to draw

0:14

you. I'm just trying to, you know, like speaking.

0:16

I'm trying to ask you how you're doing, but you're so such

0:18

a good friend that you can't wait to ask me how I'm

0:20

doing. I know. I'm

0:21

so concerned with your own

0:23

well-being. It's true. What can we

0:25

say? Yeah. Are you worried about me or something?

0:27

Is it simple? Yeah. Yeah. No more than usual.

0:30

Yeah.

0:31

we tell people that we're gonna be starting at twelve

0:34

thirty on a

0:35

Oh, that's a big announcement. That's a huge announcement.

0:37

Oh, that's right. So for people

0:39

who are listen to our Monday

0:41

morning show, which is when we go over the

0:44

Sunday morning news shows that we watch that you

0:46

don't have to. this

0:48

Monday as well as a couple more

0:50

Mondays, but we'll tell you later about those.

0:53

But this Monday, we're gonna do instead of a Monday

0:55

morning, it's gonna be called Monday,

0:57

midday. How about that? midday, Monday.

0:59

And we're gonna be going over the news

1:02

stories at twelve thirty. instead

1:04

of our usual time at ten AM, and then the call

1:06

in will be at one:thirty instead of our usual

1:09

time at eleven. But then the next week

1:11

will be back to normal. So don't freak out

1:13

too much.

1:13

Wow.

1:14

Yeah. Yeah. Big announcement. Huge

1:16

announcement. So we're moving the time up by, what,

1:18

two hours, two and a half hours? Two

1:20

and a half hours. Last Monday. Yeah. Wow.

1:22

I'm gonna be guest hosting at the Hill,

1:24

which I've done in the past, but I'm doing it

1:26

again. Yeah. Very

1:27

cool. Yeah. Very cool. Well,

1:29

we look forward to that. I mean, that's a big Monday.

1:31

Katie helped her host the hell in the morning. Yeah.

1:34

You come back for more at

1:36

twelve thirty for midday, Monday

1:38

morning. Yeah. Alright.

1:39

Once we get to it?

1:40

Yeah. Let's do it.

1:42

Alright. So for our four basic

1:44

food groups, I have Democrats suck this week,

1:46

and

1:48

Look,

1:49

some some exciting news. There's a new anti

1:51

imperialist in town, and

1:53

his name is Joseph Biden,

1:55

the president. of the US. He was

1:57

speaking at the UN

2:00

general assembly. And he talked about the

2:02

principle, which the US, he says, really

2:04

respect, which is how countries

2:06

cannot take others territories

2:09

by force. Let

2:10

us speak plainly. a

2:13

permanent member of the United Nations Security

2:15

Council invaded its neighbor,

2:18

attempted to erase the sovereign

2:20

state from

2:21

the map. Russia

2:23

has shamelessly violated the

2:25

core tenets of

2:26

the United Nations charter.

2:29

No more important than

2:32

the clear prohibition against

2:35

countries taking the territory of

2:37

their neighbor by force. So,

2:39

Katie, when I heard this, I was like, wow. Oh

2:41

my god. It's the first time, you know, Joe Biden

2:44

who voted for the Iraq War

2:47

was in the administration that invaded

2:49

Libya and left it in ruins

2:51

and returned to slave trade

2:53

and supported pretty much every single

2:55

disastrous US military intervention. Really

2:57

sorry about bombing Serbia. So excited

3:00

about Serbia. Oh my god. He was so He wanted

3:02

to blow up the bridges. That's how excited he was. Right.

3:04

That was his idea. Yes. Now

3:07

he's finally embracing, in his words, the UN

3:09

Charter. where you cannot take

3:12

other people's territory by force.

3:14

But wait a second. Then I listened a little closer,

3:16

and I realized there's a caveat in what he

3:18

said. So Well, then just go back, like,

3:20

to the last, like, I don't know, five seconds

3:22

of the clip unless he already says again.

3:25

No more important. than

3:27

the clear prohibition against

3:30

countries taking the territory of

3:33

their neighbor by force. countries

3:35

can't take the territory of their neighbor

3:38

by force. Right. Right? And guess

3:40

what? Syria, which the US

3:42

is currently occupying one third of

3:44

our neighbor. Not a neighbor. Not

3:46

a neighbor. Iraq was not our neighbor. Serbia

3:49

was not our neighbor, you know. Going all the way

3:51

back to Vietnam. Yeah. Vietnam was our neighbor.

3:53

So we're good. You know what? He's

3:55

very influenced by mister Rogers. Fred

3:58

Rogers. Right. It's a

3:59

beautiful day in the

3:59

neighborhood. A beautiful day in the neighborhood. Won't you

4:02

be won't you be please won't you be my neighbor.

4:04

Very hospitable, very good to your neighbor.

4:07

Yes.

4:07

Yes. And of course, that's not what the UN

4:09

charter says. The UN charter does not have a mister

4:12

Rogers exception. done. When Charter

4:14

says, you cannot take any other sovereign states

4:16

territory by force. But the crazy

4:18

people in the Biden White House have to give them credit

4:20

for this, good smart sort of

4:23

did a sleight of hand and changed that to neighbor.

4:25

And that means the US is good

4:27

because we're not occupying Canada right now.

4:29

I mean, we didn't take Mexico. Right. We did.

4:31

Right. I mean, but that was a while ago. So

4:33

Yeah. We're neighborly. We're good neighbors.

4:35

Great neighbors. Alright. Well, that is a Democrat

4:38

suck, for sure. Well, I got a

4:40

really fun Republican suck. Here's a really

4:42

great campaign video from Linda

4:44

Paulson who is a Republican running for

4:46

the Utah State Senate, district

4:48

twelve.

4:54

Hey, Utah District

4:55

twelve. Listen up bright here. There's

4:57

a new name on the ballot for the senate

5:00

this year. My name is Linda

5:01

Paulson, Republican, and awesome

5:03

love God and family, and the con

5:06

institution. I tried to get another

5:08

conservative to run. Nobody

5:10

could do it, so I'm getting it done.

5:12

I'm pro proliferated, pro live

5:15

pro police, the

5:16

right to bear arms, and the right to

5:18

free speed. I want less government, control

5:20

and regulation, want to stop any expose

5:23

all political corruption where it's integrity,

5:25

morality, accountability. Government

5:28

programs should lead to self sufficient and

5:31

support traditional family

5:33

as the fundamental unit of society.

5:36

But in schools, they are pushing for

5:38

new beliefs And just to clarify,

5:41

that's a female adult. I know

5:43

what a woman is.

5:50

I love this country. It's a blessing

5:52

to be free, but freedom comes

5:54

with responsibility, the

5:56

constitution needs to be protected,

5:59

not changed or disregarded, but

6:01

resurrected. If you share my values,

6:03

if you like what I stand for, then give

6:05

me your fold on the eighth. of November.

6:08

District twelve needs a choice. Let me be

6:10

your voice, Linda Paulson. Linda

6:12

Paulson for Senate. Now,

6:15

I don't know what to do, Aaron, because I don't

6:17

share her beliefs, but I like her style.

6:21

I

6:21

actually think beats. Yeah. I think she

6:23

has talent. I actually do. I'm not kidding.

6:26

I

6:26

think that was an impressive flow. I'm

6:29

curious. there's there's some good rhymes

6:31

schemes in there. You know, some don't work, you

6:33

know, like where she slips

6:35

in, knowing about what a woman is or

6:38

something. That was I mean, the Rhyme the Rhyme

6:40

scheme was off there. But Yeah.

6:41

I agree. That that Rhyme scheme

6:43

was off, so I think she edited that part in because

6:45

there was a beat like, the beat was off.

6:47

Like it didn't even it wasn't just

6:49

her. It was actually the music. The power

6:52

of producing. I mean, what what producers can

6:54

do these days is really amazing. But I also liked

6:56

her her little dance move at front, like, the

6:58

step to the side -- Yeah. -- the side and then the little

7:00

twirl. Yeah. That was that

7:02

was good. She knows how to use space. Yeah.

7:05

And crazily, you know, she she discloses

7:07

that she tried to get somebody else to work. Yeah.

7:09

But

7:09

nobody wanted it. So Well,

7:11

that's good. That's, you know, they say, Roseanne,

7:13

tomorrow says, leaders

7:14

great leaders aren't made their corner.

7:17

That's right. Sure. You do wanna select an administrator.

7:19

That's true. She didn't wanna do it. She didn't wanna do

7:21

it, Linda. Linda did not wanna do it. Well,

7:24

thank you, Linda. You're Linda, for your service.

7:26

And if it doesn't work out in the state senate, you know,

7:28

think about a rep career. Definitely. You

7:30

know? I I actually hope it doesn't work out. not

7:32

just for the state of the world, but the state

7:34

of the deaf world. Yeah. Yeah. It'd be

7:36

it'd be good for everybody if she loses.

7:39

When when? good for Utah given her,

7:41

you know, reactionary policies and great for

7:43

the rap world, given her amazing skills. There

7:45

you go. Everybody wins. If she

7:47

loses. Right.

7:50

We've got a very different kind of sponsor

7:52

for this episode,

7:53

The Jordan Harbinger Show.

7:55

The

7:55

show covers a wide range of topics

7:57

to weekly interviews with heavy hitting guests,

8:00

and

8:00

there are a ton of episodes you'll find interesting.

8:02

I

8:02

also recommend Jordan's episode with Dan

8:05

Carlin about apocalyptic moments

8:07

hardcore history, and

8:08

his episode with Russell Brand about

8:11

finding freedom from our addictions. The

8:13

show cover stories like how professional art

8:16

Forger somehow made millions of dollars while

8:18

being chased by the feds and the mafia.

8:20

Jordan's

8:20

also done an episode all about

8:22

birth control and how it can alter the partners

8:24

we pick and

8:25

how going on or off the pill

8:28

can change elements of our personalities. Check

8:30

out jordan harbinger dot com

8:33

slash start for some episode recommendations

8:35

or search

8:36

for the Jordan Harbinger show.

8:38

That's

8:38

HARB

8:41

as in boy, i, n as in Nancy,

8:43

GER on Apple

8:45

Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you

8:47

listen to podcasts.

8:51

Come join TV's Ross

8:53

Matthews every Thursday on his new podcast,

8:56

Hello, Ross. Hi. I'm Ross

8:58

Matthews, and I am excited to tell

9:00

you about my brand new podcast. Hello,

9:02

Ross. You know, I I just said that.

9:04

Yeah. I

9:04

know I was just saying it again to emphasize

9:06

the name of my new podcast.

9:08

It's Hello Ross. Look, you only

9:10

have, like, thirty seconds to tell them about the new

9:12

podcast. Hello Ross. You have to tell them about

9:14

the celebrity guests, the interesting people with

9:16

cool stories to tell and it's new every Thursday,

9:18

go ahead. You'll

9:19

never know who's gonna pop by to say hello,

9:21

Ross.

9:21

It could be an awesome screw in her. At the start of your favorite

9:24

show, even my dental hygienist. Really?

9:26

No. She's fascinating. Okay. Anyone

9:29

else? One time I was at a dinner party and

9:31

the late eighty across from me. Turns out she was

9:33

a Dominatorics. Oh, that's gonna hurt.

9:35

I've been a naughty boy. Are

9:38

you going to ask? We're gonna go there. For

9:40

real? and there. For real real?

9:42

You better stretch. I better stretch.

9:44

With the On our show, nothing's off

9:46

limits. I'm gonna ask that question. No.

9:49

And that question. No. And

9:52

I'm gonna get away with it. Oh, boy. So it's

9:54

like mister Rogers neighborhood. Right? Except

9:56

thinking of mister Matthew's neighborhood.

9:59

Oh, that sounds

9:59

fun. You know, that actually does sound

10:02

fun. And it's on YouTube or wherever

10:04

you listen. That's my line. Hello,

10:06

Ross, available on YouTube or wherever you

10:08

listen. Okay. Now you just repeated me. We are

10:10

so over our time limit. Oh, that's a bummer.

10:13

Alright. So if it wasn't that weird, we have what

10:15

I think is kind of a weird fashion shoe.

10:17

You know, it was it was recently fashion week.

10:20

brands are unveiling their fall line. So

10:22

this is Jerry Seinfeld posing for

10:24

a spread with kids, which is

10:26

like a shoe company. They sell shoes and

10:28

other urban gear. So this

10:31

is Jerry posing for

10:33

Kith, and I just thought it was kinda weird.

10:36

Let's look

10:36

at that. k. Yeah. And and for

10:38

our podcast audience, we'll be able to see this. But Jerry

10:41

is in a apartment it looks

10:43

like and he's wearing some you

10:45

know, urban fashion. I think you can call that he's

10:47

wearing AAAA Forward jogging

10:50

suit there. It's sporty. Yeah.

10:52

Yeah. He's also leaning in a

10:54

in a lot. He's leaning. Yeah. Okay. Is

10:56

this is

10:58

this camera?

10:59

That looks like Camo -- Yeah. -- and he's looking

11:02

the thing is if this was being done ironically --

11:04

Yeah.

11:04

-- you know, because Jerry

11:06

is a, you know, middle aged upper

11:09

middle aged white man. I think

11:11

it'd be kinda funny, but I don't think this is ironic.

11:13

I think this actually serious.

11:15

What's this jacket? It looks like

11:18

Is this like a nat like a southwestern

11:22

kind of pattern? I don't

11:23

know. I don't know. It's it's Mexico

11:25

Santa Fe? And

11:27

I'm just wondering what what demographic they're going

11:30

for here. Like, when I when I whenever I passed by

11:32

kids stores, it's it's like kids lined up

11:34

down the block because it's, like, the new sneakers

11:36

gonna drop that day. So they always have these huge

11:38

lines for new sneakers. And Jerry

11:41

is you know, if you watch Seinfeld, he was

11:43

kind of the sneaker head. on

11:45

top of being a serial box heady.

11:47

Right. But I just know I just

11:49

don't see who they're trying to appeal to

11:51

here. But, hey, you know, I'm not That's

11:53

why I'm not in the role of fashion, I guess. Right.

11:56

Yeah. Very weird. Yeah. Very weird.

11:58

Now I'll say this. If Larry David was posing,

11:59

That

12:00

would be I'd probably be into that. Yeah.

12:03

Me too. Yeah. because

12:04

he'd be so self

12:05

deprecating. Yeah. He wouldn't

12:07

be doing it seriously, obviously. Right. you know.

12:10

But Jerry Another example of Larry

12:12

being far superior to Jerry. I

12:14

mean, yeah, I I I'm very sympathetic to

12:16

that view. Absolutely. Yeah. Alright. Well,

12:19

for isn't that terrible? We have a

12:21

a terrible story,

12:23

but it's also a good teachable moment. So

12:26

very proud to be presenting this for

12:28

useful idiots. It's

12:30

a PSA. Let's just go

12:32

to the video tape.

12:33

this to make sure I get it right because it's that

12:35

strange, right? There's -- the FDA

12:38

has issued a warning about

12:41

what guess is a social media trend

12:43

about kids cooking

12:46

chicken in Nyquil using

12:48

over the counter drugs for funky

12:50

stuff. What earth is going on here?

12:52

Yeah. I mean, it's hard to believe that this is even a thing.

12:54

And couple years ago, it was taking too much

12:56

bendodrell to hallucinate. So you

12:58

know, it just seems like one social media trend

13:00

after another keeps popping up. And I think parents

13:03

really need to understand that this is going on, person

13:05

foremost. They need to keep their medicines,

13:07

whether it's over the counter of prescription, out

13:09

of reach, or locked from kids in the home.

13:11

They need to sit down and have conversations about

13:14

how to take medication safely and

13:16

also in a non judgmental way about the dangers

13:19

of things like this.

13:20

There is apparently a

13:22

phenomenon in

13:24

which

13:25

people are cooking chicken

13:29

in Nyquil. And

13:31

I think it's very important again to

13:34

talk about as that woman said in a non

13:36

judgmental way. The

13:37

FDA issued a warning.

13:39

It says, one social media trend relying

13:41

on peer pressure is online video clips

13:43

of people misusing non prescription

13:45

medications and encouraging viewers

13:48

to do so. These video challenges which

13:50

often target use can harm people and

13:52

even cause death. Boiling

13:55

a medication can make it much more concentrated

13:57

and change its properties in other ways even

13:59

if you

13:59

don't eat the chicken, inhaling the medications'

14:02

vapers while cooking could

14:03

cause high levels of drugs to enter your

14:05

body. It could also hurt your lungs.

14:08

So, guys, I don't even wanna get into

14:10

how you would cook a a chicken in

14:13

medication, but just don't do it.

14:16

Don't do it. Don't do it in night quell.

14:19

Don't do it in day quell either. Don't think it's

14:21

about that. You can't do it in either quell.

14:23

Does the Nikule though make the chicken

14:26

more finger lickin? Is

14:28

there any finger lickin benefit of of Nikule?

14:30

That's my question. I know. I might endorse you. I'm just

14:32

wondering, No. But you're kind of leaving the door open.

14:35

Well, I'm just wondering. I mean, what? I'm wondering, it's

14:37

Katie, I'm on air inside. It could be like a

14:39

a sweet baby raise kind of thing. kinda

14:42

tack up the chicken?

14:44

Well,

14:45

guys, you're really undermining my

14:47

PSA, but I guess you're helping. You're heightening

14:50

the terrible. Isn't that terrible? Okay.

14:52

But I have a question. Why I mean, why would

14:54

someone use Michael? Is it just for

14:56

fun on a social media, or is there some kind of

14:58

thing it does to the chicken? I

15:00

don't know. It's well, maybe it's

15:02

because they want maybe if you're sick.

15:05

Uh-huh.

15:06

It's a good way to, you know, you maybe

15:08

people are fakenly thinking that it's a good

15:10

way to stay healthy because you know when you're sick, sometimes

15:12

you don't have an appetite, but you still

15:14

need to eat. So maybe that's what they're thinking.

15:17

Right. Just throwing it out there. I'm just gonna

15:19

falling here. Or it's just some crazy social

15:21

media thing where it's just people

15:24

want to issue a challenge or dare. and

15:26

people like tariffs, you know. Oh, yeah.

15:28

That's what it yeah. That's what it does. Yeah. Yeah.

15:30

Yeah. So I don't even know how you do

15:32

it, but you should not be doing it.

15:34

and just don't boil

15:37

chicken in any medication ever.

15:40

Yeah. Yeah.

15:40

And to our vegan friends, you know, we should

15:43

say,

15:43

No toll fergies in -- Yeah. -- medication.

15:46

Exactly. Exactly. No. No toll fergies

15:48

with Nike nope. Sorry. Sorry,

15:51

Vegans. Sorry, Vegans. You don't get to

15:53

worry either. Exactly. You want to accept for this one.

15:55

Or you're welcome

15:55

Vegans because we're speaking to you and we're including

15:58

you in

15:58

our behalf. So

16:00

that's pretty terrible. That's terrible. This must

16:02

stay terrible. It does. Now

16:04

I'm hungry though. I have to admit.

16:09

We're

16:09

really excited about today's guest. Benjamin

16:11

Avalow is a researcher and writer who holds a

16:13

BA in European History from University of

16:15

Pennsylvania and an MD from Yale University.

16:18

School of Medicine. He previously worked in Washington

16:21

DC, lecturing writing and lobbying congress

16:23

about nuclear arms policy. And

16:25

so Ben's a doc He's medical doctor,

16:27

but we're not talking about medicine today. He's

16:29

gonna give us his diagnosis. Yeah.

16:32

From the Ukraine proxy world. Let's go to

16:34

it. It's a Ben Avalara.

16:40

Very excited to be talking to Benjamin

16:43

Avalow,

16:43

who is the author of

16:45

how the West brought war to Ukraine,

16:48

understanding how US and

16:49

NATO policies led to crisis warn the risk

16:51

of nuclear catastrophe. So welcome. Thank

16:53

you. course.

16:54

What made you write this

16:56

book in the first place? You

16:58

know, it actually started off as an op ed

17:00

and then kind of grew to a medium piece and

17:02

then got modified and

17:04

converted over into a book. I just

17:06

was quite concerned about what was going on. I

17:09

had worked on nuclear arms

17:11

issues a long time ago. So

17:13

I kind of had a certain foundation and

17:15

I pretty quickly formed a view what was happening

17:18

even though my knowledge, I would say initially, was

17:20

pretty deficient. I have medical background,

17:22

and I kind of went off on different paths for

17:24

quite a while. So I just

17:26

started trying to fill in my knowledge and

17:29

started off trying to explain it to people

17:31

as I understood it. at a

17:33

certain point, I just realized, you know, I should just turn

17:35

this into a book and really try to get

17:37

some mileage out of it in sense of reaching

17:40

an audience that you know, I

17:42

wouldn't reach through an op ed or through

17:44

through even a, you know, a medium article.

17:46

And you got really good blurb. You got

17:48

Chomsky,

17:50

John Mersheimer, Richard

17:52

Sokwa, Chad

17:55

Freeman, Jack f Mattlock, Doug with MacGregor,

17:57

all the big

17:59

critical

17:59

voices, basically. All

18:01

the big names. Yeah, I guess. So or a lot of

18:03

And can you lay out your your

18:06

thesis for people who haven't read the book

18:08

yet?

18:09

The subtitle kind of tells the whole story,

18:11

understanding how US and Nate policies

18:14

led to crisis, war, and the risk of

18:16

nuclear catastrophe. You

18:18

know, I guess you could describe this as a counter

18:21

narrative to the the current mainstream

18:23

narrative, which does, you know, depending

18:25

on who puts it forward, runs

18:27

along the lines of it. Putin is

18:30

Hitler, the new Hitler or a Hitler like

18:32

character at Reese. And this

18:34

is an unprovoked land grab

18:37

whether, you know, for labors realm or

18:39

for Imperial purposes or

18:42

something, just the evil Putin with

18:44

no plausible or national security motivation.

18:47

not not to say that it was a great thing to

18:49

do, but just that it was

18:52

the typical view is that there was no real

18:54

basis for this. in in terms

18:56

of any way that the US policymakers

18:58

might consider how they might act.

19:01

And the basic thesis is that you know,

19:03

a combination of NATO and Western

19:05

military actions that were taken outside

19:07

of NATO were really extremely

19:09

provocative and in sense backed Putin into

19:11

a corner. and that

19:13

he lashed out in a pretty violent

19:16

and destructive way in an

19:18

attempt to I think,

19:20

you know, as I view it, think there's different ways of

19:22

understanding this, of course. But the way

19:24

I view it, primarily, it's a military issue

19:26

that he's trying to create a zone

19:28

around, you know, around Russia's

19:31

western border that is basically

19:33

free of western military threats, whether

19:35

they be NATO or extranado

19:38

threats through, you know, direct

19:40

US, Ukrainian relations, or

19:43

multinational or other, you

19:45

know, bilateral relations between

19:47

Ukraine and other countries that are bringing in military

19:50

planning and operations and things

19:52

like that.

19:53

So what is your reaction to the latest news?

19:55

Putin just gave a speech where as expected,

19:58

he ordered a partial mobilization

20:01

he's going to call up

20:03

up to three hundred thousand Russian

20:05

forces. He said that those who will be

20:08

enlisted are people who have already served

20:10

in the Russian army in some capacity.

20:13

So, you know, college students and workers

20:15

are not gonna be affected, but This is

20:17

a major escalation. And he also said

20:19

that when

20:19

it comes to the possibility of using

20:21

nuclear weapons in Ukraine, he said that he's not

20:24

bluffing. He also pointed out

20:26

And

20:27

this is something I'll be very curious to see

20:29

what the reaction will be from

20:31

the US if they give one at all. Where

20:34

he said that for the first time

20:36

today, he said I'm gonna reveal what happened,

20:38

which is that early on in the

20:40

war, the

20:41

Ukrainian Russian side reached

20:43

some compromises that he said satisfied

20:46

Russian security concerns. But then

20:48

he said after that was reached, the US

20:50

basically sabotaged that agreement. And

20:52

that bolsters previous news that we've

20:54

talked about on this show where

20:57

reports in the Ukrainian media citing sources

20:59

close to Zelensky did say that,

21:01

yes, there was a tentative agreement

21:04

reached between Ukraine and Russia,

21:06

but that Boris Johnson was dispatched

21:08

to say,

21:09

that these talks cannot go forward and that

21:11

the US and UK would not back up Ukraine

21:14

with security guarantees if it made a peace

21:16

deal with Russia. And recently, if you own a hill,

21:18

Yeah. Or White House expert also

21:21

gave way to that by saying in foreign affairs

21:23

that US officials knew that

21:24

there was an agreement reach or the broad outline

21:27

of an agreement reach between Ukraine

21:29

and Russia. What Fuehne Hill left out is

21:31

what was previously reported in the Ukrainian media

21:33

with Boris Johnson. You know what happened? Yeah. Yeah.

21:35

There was an article in Ukrainian phenomena

21:38

back in was it April? I forget that

21:40

basically said that there were two

21:42

reasons why Ukraine had not

21:44

reached a a peace agreement with Russia and one

21:47

was that Boris

21:49

that is the one he was about to or

21:51

very close to it. And then Boris

21:53

Johnson basically showed up in

21:55

in you in Kiev and

21:58

told told Zelensky that

22:01

you you may be ready to make peace but we're not.

22:03

And the second reason had to do was stated

22:06

that the the the the massacre

22:08

or the alleged massacre, whatever one makes of

22:11

this the killings of civilians in

22:13

Búcha, Búcha. And

22:15

that those two factors were why there

22:17

was no agreement. And then as as Aaron said,

22:19

there was an article recently in

22:22

foreign affairs by Fiona Hill and someone else

22:25

stent, I think. I actually just

22:27

got that in my inbox today. I put that

22:29

on an order, but it was slow to get it. But

22:31

I had heard about the content of it.

22:33

That, as Aaron said, does seem to

22:35

reinforce the idea that there really was

22:37

a peace agreement that had been

22:39

made or very close to being

22:42

made, brokered by Turkey back

22:45

in, I think, it was April. and

22:48

that this was basically sabotaged by

22:50

Johnson, who presumably was went to

22:52

Kiev with the room as the US.

22:54

I don't think he would do such a thing without

22:57

the US being involved in that. You know, I think

22:59

the other only piece I wouldn't perhaps add

23:01

just sitting in background is that although

23:05

Russia's invasion has often been described

23:07

as this kind of terrible crime against

23:10

humanity. And, you know, in a certain

23:12

sense, of course, anytime you kill you

23:14

take an action that leads to the death of large numbers

23:16

of civilians or even, you know,

23:18

young military people in some cases, know,

23:22

this can be considered a great evil. But

23:26

often the invasion has been portrayed this

23:28

kind of unconstrained massive

23:30

attack on and, you know, as

23:32

I understand it, it's actually been but,

23:34

you know, the standards of what the US might

23:36

might do in a place like Iraq where it

23:39

opens up with a strategic bombing campaign.

23:42

This was actually a fairly constrained and

23:44

whether or not one wants to give credence to the idea

23:46

of this was just a special operation and not a war

23:48

from the beginning. I don't know. To some extent,

23:50

this is semantic question of what you wanna

23:52

call a war, what you wanna call special duration,

23:55

but it did not involve massive

23:58

strategic bombing. The

24:00

numbers were relatively small given

24:03

you know, the size of Ukrainian forces. I've

24:05

heard numbers. This might have been

24:08

Chaz Freeman who talked about this that

24:10

if you compare the actual number of

24:12

military casualties compared with civilian

24:15

casualties, you can come up with a kind

24:17

of ratio of basically

24:19

collateral damage compared to military

24:21

damage. And that will tell you something

24:23

about the extent of the attack. and

24:26

that the higher the level of collateral

24:28

damage, the sort of the more massive

24:30

the attack is thought to be. And the

24:32

collateral the level of collateral damage

24:35

that civilian deaths among Ukrainians

24:37

compared to the military who were killed

24:40

was actually relatively low for

24:43

a large scale invasion. and that itself

24:45

seems to support. As I understand, it's just

24:47

not something I have any expertise in it all,

24:49

but just based on what, as Freeman was saying,

24:52

who Jeff Freeman, by the way, was assistant

24:55

secretary of defense for international

24:57

security affairs back in the nineties. and

25:00

has a quite extensive background in

25:02

both military and state department.

25:04

And that itself seemed to reinforce the

25:07

the plausibility of the statement that this was not

25:09

any sort of massive war from the beginning, but

25:11

was really seeking specific limited

25:13

aims. And then, of course,

25:15

this this

25:17

escalation that Aaron has just

25:20

described is, of course, suggesting

25:23

this is becoming closer to a real war.

25:25

As far as the nuclear weapons, the threat

25:27

that he would use nuclear weapons, you

25:30

know, all I can say is I hope it's being taken seriously

25:32

because the Western media has been very quick to

25:34

dismiss anything he said

25:36

about nuclear weapons up till now was just

25:38

kind you know,

25:40

irresponsible propaganda. But,

25:43

you know, when you're dealing with two

25:45

superpowers right on the border of Russia, you

25:47

know, whether once you consider Russia superpowers or not

25:49

when you're dealing with the US superpowers which has

25:51

been very involved, and

25:54

it's questionable whether the US

25:56

can actually claim to not be a direct combatant.

25:59

you know, anything can happen. There's great

26:01

risks of things escalating. So,

26:04

you know, my hope is that he's first of

26:06

all, if he if he said it, I I don't dismiss

26:08

it as a possibility if

26:11

things go a certain direction, and I

26:13

hope it's taken seriously because it's it's something

26:15

that really needs to be factored in.

26:17

Now, Ben, what you just said

26:19

about the civilian casualties

26:21

in Ukraine being relatively low, some people

26:23

are gonna be offended by that. They'll take

26:25

onbridge with that. So I wanna just show that

26:28

you are not the only person making this

26:30

analysis. It actually comes from US officials.

26:33

So It was actually revealed recently

26:35

in the New York Times that US officials

26:37

are baffled by how Russia has

26:39

waged this war. So let's see this quote.

26:42

So this is from the times. Some American

26:44

officials express concern that the most dangerous

26:46

moments are yet to come even

26:48

as Putin has avoided escalating the

26:50

war in ways that have times baffled

26:53

Western officials. He has made

26:55

only limited attempts to destroy critical

26:58

infrastructure or to target Ukrainian

27:00

government buildings. So that's a

27:02

really rare admission

27:05

right there that I think undermines a lot of the propaganda

27:07

that's been used to justify the

27:09

proxy war, which is that

27:12

Russia's been waging this genocidal campaign

27:14

inside of Ukraine. Here is the

27:16

US via the New York Times, the

27:19

heart of Establishment Media, admitting

27:21

that they're baffled by how Russia

27:23

is actually avoided escalating the war, and that

27:25

unlike, say, the US and Iraq, as you said,

27:27

Ben, they have not targeted infrastructure,

27:29

which is the first thing that the US would do. when

27:32

it goes into invaded country like it did

27:34

in Iraq. And the fact that coupling

27:36

that with the sabotage of

27:39

peace of peace talks before shows

27:41

that, yes, while Russia has criminal

27:44

responsibility for this war, on

27:46

the US side, there's been everything done

27:49

to continue to prolong it even

27:51

despite the awareness that it could get far

27:53

worse, which I think it will. But

27:55

let me ask you about some of the background that it that

27:58

that gets omitted. So the major grievance

28:00

that we hear when it comes to Russia and

28:02

Ukraine, the only one that's really we're allowed

28:04

to talk about

28:05

in mainstream debate over

28:07

this issue, to the extent there is debate, is

28:09

NATO expansion. So we hear often that

28:11

Russia has complained about NATO expansion.

28:13

and that is a very big factor in

28:16

the background to this war. But as you point out

28:18

in your book, there's actually other factors beyond NATO

28:20

expansion. So I'm wondering if you could expand on that.

28:22

Yes. I mean, one of the points I try to make

28:24

in the book, I mean, I do agree. NATO

28:26

expansion is very important. I

28:29

think it's important both symbolically and

28:31

practically. practically

28:33

in that to the extent that NATO might

28:35

become a member,

28:38

that itself, I think, is a serious that Ukraine

28:40

might become a member. Oh, I'm sorry. The Ukraine might become

28:42

AAA self sare threat.

28:45

I think also just in terms of that

28:48

to

28:48

the extent that that's being considered as a possibility

28:50

for the future, it also means that the

28:52

arming that's taken place of of

28:55

Ukraine by the US and by other countries

28:58

is using NATO standard armaments

29:00

and attempting to develop

29:03

NATO level interoperability. interoperability,

29:06

which they don't currently have, but they're moving towards

29:08

that. Aaron, so let me just

29:10

be clear. So the question you're asking is the

29:13

threat outside of NATO? Is that what

29:15

you wanted me to focus on? Well, not outside

29:17

of NATO, but just

29:18

the way Russian grievances

29:21

are discussed. It's simply that they're upset about

29:23

NATO expanding further to the east --

29:25

Yeah. -- to the world's largest borders. what I get

29:27

from your book is that, you know, you try to lay

29:29

out the other factors that go along with that,

29:32

that come along with NATO expansion, that

29:34

make the threat of NATO expansion that

29:36

was more pronounced for Russia.

29:38

So one general way that I would just

29:40

frame this as I said before is

29:42

military threat. you know,

29:44

whether the real issue is not

29:47

a purely symbolic issue

29:49

about NATO. It's what does NATO entail militarily,

29:51

a defensive alliance, which involves

29:54

a lot of arming right on Russia's border.

29:57

And I think one can look at that separately.

29:59

One can also look at arming

30:02

and another type of military threat that's

30:04

encompassed by bilateral and multilateral

30:07

arrangements where the US outside

30:09

of NATO is arming Ukraine and

30:11

working towards NATO level interoperability. And

30:14

other countries are doing the same, and there are

30:17

multilateral war

30:19

exercises that take place inside and

30:21

near Ukraine that are taking place

30:23

outside of NATO as well. So

30:26

I I do think NATO is very important. I think

30:28

it can become kind of a distraction

30:31

if one focuses only on NATO.

30:33

When asking questions like, well, are they

30:35

really gonna join or things

30:37

like that? III tend to lump a lot of this

30:39

together under a sort of generic category of

30:41

military threat. which encompasses

30:44

both NATO and non NATO militarization

30:48

of the area. I think there are other issues

30:50

too, you know, one of the things Just

30:53

given my medical background and some other personal

30:56

interests in the area of research

30:58

in this area, I'm interested

31:00

in psychological factors. And,

31:03

you know, there's been an awful lot of kind

31:05

of I just called

31:07

gratuitous disregard of Putin

31:09

on a human level. Actually, in the

31:11

book at one point a I

31:14

use the analogy of gaslighting. I think

31:16

I say something to the effect of if

31:18

you are interacting with a person on just

31:20

in social setting, and you're doing something

31:23

threatening to that person, yet you're denying

31:25

any reality to the threat. You

31:28

know, this is a a weird combination of

31:30

actual threat. and disregard

31:33

or the implication that

31:35

the person's perception of the threat

31:37

is all in their head, and this gets

31:39

called gaslighting. So what do

31:41

you call it when you tell leader

31:44

of a country that there

31:46

are no threats when, in fact, there

31:48

are threats. Whatever the intentions are or the

31:50

threats I'm talking about pertain to

31:53

geographic location, the military hardware,

31:55

just like the US would not. you

31:58

know, the analogy of something that's given if they

32:00

were Russian military forces that

32:02

were placed in Canada or in Mexico,

32:04

And then Russia said, well, we don't

32:07

really mean to we don't mean harm. These are

32:09

pretty defensive. Don't worry about it. You know,

32:11

the US would not make much

32:13

of that. They they might be glad to hear that

32:15

all else being equal. But what they would

32:17

really do is look at the nature of the hardware

32:19

and capacities of those hardware and

32:21

the geographic proximity and the nature

32:23

of the training exercises. If there

32:26

are threats in an

32:28

objective sense right on Russia's border,

32:30

and they're moving closer to Russia's border.

32:33

And the Russian

32:35

leader points

32:37

to those threats and the

32:40

American leaders

32:43

say in effect, this is all in

32:45

your head. We are purely defensive.

32:48

you know, I think one can legitimately call that

32:50

a kind of gaslighting both on a

32:52

kind of a geostrategic

32:55

international scale in terms of the leaders

32:57

themselves But sort of in a broad

33:00

kind of political sense, this is a sort of

33:02

international or international relations

33:05

gaslighting. I think the US

33:07

is kind of just just regarding certain

33:09

realities. I don't it's a little bit

33:11

unclear to me whether this is you know, at

33:13

first, I think there's probably a range of

33:16

players involved in the U. S. side. I think some

33:18

are probably very well intentioned

33:20

and are simply interpreting

33:24

new in terms of old narratives. I

33:26

think some of them are probably well

33:28

intentioned but are sort of being deliberately deceptive

33:32

because they really believe they have to be deceptive

33:34

in order to build up the correct armaments. I

33:37

think there are others that are just sheer demagogues. I

33:39

won't try to point out who's who. But

33:42

all I'm saying is don't really think you can

33:44

say in any given, you know,

33:46

just broadly what the US intentions are

33:48

because think there's a range of tensions from range

33:50

of players. But, anyway, you

33:53

cut it. There's a kind of disregard for

33:55

legitimate Russian security concerns from

33:57

a kind of a geostrategic perspective. And

34:00

I think that's sort

34:02

of to bring this back to Aaron's question,

34:05

it's not only the question of military threat.

34:07

There's a sort of Oh, I don't know.

34:09

Call it disingenuous. Call it.

34:13

You know, the situation is even exacerbated by

34:15

the fact that there's this kind of gaslighting

34:17

going on, whether that gaslighting is intentional

34:19

or unintentional. Yeah. And a major

34:21

aspect of the military threat. which

34:23

I think is the most important

34:25

factor here, is the US

34:28

killing all of these arms

34:30

control treaties that

34:32

allow it to place offensive weaponry

34:34

right on Russia's borders. And

34:36

you talk about this in the book. The killing

34:38

of the anti ballistic missile treaty under George

34:41

w Bush which allowed

34:43

the US to build these

34:45

missile defense sites

34:47

in Romania and Poland, and they claimed that

34:49

the reason was to help protect

34:52

Europe from Iranian missiles. Yeah.

34:54

And I don't

34:55

think Iranian missiles even could hit Europe. And

34:57

even if they could, it'd be insane

34:59

for Iran to launch them. The real reason was

35:01

to give the US the option to actually

35:03

place offensive missiles. They could that

35:05

they could use

35:07

against Russia. And that's been

35:09

further exacerbated by Trump's decision, which

35:11

gets no attention because it undermined the Russia

35:14

gate narrative that Trump was doing Russia's

35:16

bidding to kill the INF treaty, which had

35:18

eliminated an entire class of

35:20

nuclear weapons and allows both sides

35:22

to build those up. I mean, that that part

35:24

of background is the part to me

35:26

that gets the least amount of attention. Yeah.

35:28

That's interesting. And that was I would say

35:30

that was one of the things that drew my attention

35:32

most strongly right away kind of given my

35:34

my past interest, deep past interest

35:36

in arms control and the

35:38

sort of the threats, both actual threats

35:41

and psychological pressures that

35:43

are imposed by nuclear arms. Because

35:45

to some extent, I mean, everyone should realize

35:47

that both sides effectively have an invulnerable

35:50

all second strike capability. But

35:52

psychologically, these things play a

35:54

very important role. Although,

35:56

personally, I believe that both sides have effectively

35:59

an invulnerable second strike. capability

36:01

after a after a first strike.

36:04

You know, one of the points I make in the book is,

36:06

and I quote, some German people German

36:08

experts on this, to

36:11

to validate it that, you know, there really

36:13

are actual threats. I mean, if if

36:15

a massive first strike was launched, there's

36:18

questions about what would happen to command

36:20

and control systems. So I think even

36:22

though I believe that second strike would always

36:24

be retained, I think

36:26

a country that's trying to act

36:29

prudently becomes concerned when

36:32

weapons become closer or more

36:34

more highly targetable, more

36:36

accurate. As you said,

36:39

you know, first, there's the aggregation of

36:41

the ABM treaty. It

36:43

was late two thousand or two thousand one.

36:45

I think it was by

36:48

by George Bush. and

36:50

the particular ABN sites

36:53

that were established, that have been established in

36:55

Romania now that are I think it's still under

36:57

construction in Poland. I don't think it's operationally

36:59

yet, although I'm not a hundred percent sure. And

37:02

then even the possibility that such sites might

37:04

be established in Ukraine, these sites,

37:07

Peach site has twenty four

37:09

launch tubes that

37:12

are able to accommodate offensive

37:14

nuclear weapons like Tomahawk cruise missiles.

37:16

So these these ABM

37:19

sites, you know, aside from the concern

37:21

that this could be used to try to mop up

37:24

Soviet Russian, second strike,

37:28

response to a perceived American

37:31

first strike. There's also the

37:33

threat that these that the

37:35

anti ballistic missiles in those tubes

37:37

could really be replaced with offensive weapons,

37:40

especially in a crisis, And the

37:42

US, of course, says these are not our intentions,

37:44

but in a crisis, the the

37:46

the more you're set up to be able to have an

37:48

offensive threat close to Russian

37:50

territory, the sort of more destabilizing

37:53

it is. So I think

37:55

this is very significant. And

37:57

as also as you said, the aggregation

38:00

of the intermediate

38:02

range nuclear weapons treaty by by

38:04

Trump, I think that was in twenty nineteen, These

38:07

are basically ground

38:09

to ground or land to land missiles

38:12

with a range five hundred and

38:15

five thousand kilometers. and those

38:17

were pretty much banned. I'm

38:19

forgetting what year that was. Was it eighty seven?

38:22

That treaty has now been aggregated.

38:26

pretty much unilaterally by the US. There were

38:28

accusations by the

38:30

US that the Russians were cheating. There

38:32

were Russian accusations that the US was

38:34

cheating. you you know,

38:36

the truth of it's very hard to sort out and

38:38

also is very technical in nature, but the key

38:40

point was that the US

38:42

was the party that really decided not

38:44

to digorously try to attempt

38:46

to resolve the problems that they wanted out.

38:49

And as I point out in the book, there

38:51

seems to be the case that that the US

38:53

may have wanted to do that based on

38:55

sort of parochial tactical advantage

38:58

that they thought they could gain from this as

39:00

well as the possibility of countering China.

39:03

which is not covered by that treaty. But

39:06

the basic combination of having

39:08

aggregated the ABM treaty which

39:13

both sets

39:16

up a possibility of attenuating

39:20

second strike from Russia after

39:22

a perceived US first strike. The

39:25

possibility of placing offensive weapons

39:27

there combined with the

39:29

aggregation of the intermediate

39:32

range forces treaty. So I

39:37

I was just reading, for instance, about the, you

39:39

know, the Highmark, you

39:41

know, these high mobility artillery

39:44

rocket systems that are being given to

39:46

Ukraine. Now those have short range and

39:48

there's the whole question of whether they're going to give the longer

39:50

range ones. But the the the

39:52

systems that are now in development are actually they have

39:54

even longer range. that

39:56

their the system is under development is

39:58

designed to be a four hundred and ninety

40:00

nine kilometer range,

40:03

which is, you know, just under the intermediate

40:06

forces distance, but they're now

40:08

being you know, they're now modifying the specs

40:10

to make them much longer range. So

40:13

those are apparently scheduled to become online

40:15

in twenty twenty four. But

40:18

the point is simply that there's a very serious

40:22

arms control concerns going on.

40:24

And and then that has, I

40:26

think, you know, real significance both in

40:28

terms of actual notes hardware and

40:30

threats and also psychologically?

40:32

You say in your

40:33

book, you write about how

40:36

the alleged motivations

40:38

of for the US have changed. So you

40:40

write in month since Russia invaded Ukraine,

40:43

the explanation offered for America's involvement

40:45

has changed. What has been pitch as limited

40:47

humanitarian effort to help Ukraine defend

40:49

itself as morphed to include an additional

40:51

aim to degrade Russia's capacity

40:54

to fight another war in the future.

40:56

And then you you go on. In fact,

40:58

the strategic objective may have been in

41:00

place from the start in March more than

41:02

a month before the new US policy

41:04

was announced as Freeman previously

41:06

assistant secretary of defense for international

41:08

security affairs observed everything we

41:10

are doing rather than accelerating an

41:13

end the fighting and some compromise seems

41:15

to be aimed at prolonging the fighting,

41:17

assisting the Ukrainian resistance, which is

41:19

a noble

41:19

cause, I suppose, but will result

41:22

in a lot of dead Ukrainians as well as dead

41:24

Russians. And

41:25

then you go on, Freeman's

41:26

observation points to an

41:27

uncomfortable truth. America's two war

41:29

aims are not really compatible with each other.

41:32

Whereas the humanitarian effort would seek

41:34

to limit the destruction and end

41:36

the war

41:36

quickly, The strategic goal of

41:38

weakening Russia will require a prolonged

41:40

war with

41:41

maximum destruction, one that bleeds

41:43

Russia drive men and machine on battlefield,

41:46

Ukraine. Freeman captures the contradiction

41:48

in the Darkly Iran equipped, quote, we

41:50

will fight to the last Ukrainian foreign Ukrainian

41:52

independence end quote. So

41:54

my question is to I guess, play devil's

41:57

advocate. What

41:58

would you say to people who say that,

41:59

well, weakening Russia

42:02

is a humanitarian goal? because

42:04

if we degrade their military, they

42:06

won't be able to, you

42:08

know, launch invasions such as these.

42:11

Right? Yeah. That's good question. You

42:15

know, there's couple of ways of looking at that. I think probably

42:17

the most important is that the

42:20

way one would degrade Russia's military is

42:22

to keep an extended war going and

42:24

to do what, as Charles Friedman described,

42:27

fight for Ukrainian. It depends to the last Ukrainian.

42:31

Aaron's recent sub stack article on

42:33

this addresses this point really

42:35

well. And it basically

42:37

makes the point that, you know, this

42:39

strategy entails killing an

42:41

awful lot of Ukrainians who wouldn't

42:44

die otherwise. And,

42:46

you know, quite literally, Erin,

42:48

I forget the name of the the congressperson

42:51

that you were you had that video clip of. It

42:54

was basically he

42:56

almost literally talks about we

42:58

want to get the Ukraine to fight to the last Ukrainian

43:01

and takes this as something

43:04

very advantageous, but

43:06

it's you know, we're talking about killing

43:08

huge numbers of Ukrainians. Yeah.

43:10

Look, it's it's Lindsay Graham, and and

43:12

let's actually watch the clip. Four

43:14

months into this thing.

43:16

I like the structural

43:19

path we're on here. As

43:21

long as we up Ukraine with the weapons

43:23

they need and economic support, they

43:25

will fight to the last person. So

43:27

secretary Lincoln, I

43:30

didn't think there was an issue under

43:32

the sun that

43:34

would get hundred votes. We

43:36

found it. Russia's estate sponsored

43:38

terrorism. So

43:39

there he says it. And what's interesting is, you know,

43:41

people like Jazz Freeman were saying critically

43:43

that the US policy is to fight to the left Ukraine.

43:46

Here's Lindsey Graham saying that as matter

43:48

of policy, and he likes that. He's happy

43:50

about that. It it's it's quite amazing.

43:52

I mean, really right. It's right on the surface that

43:55

we're talking about. just

43:57

killing huge numbers or having huge

43:59

numbers of Ukrainians

43:59

kill themselves battling

44:03

you know, fighting Russia in a battle in

44:05

a military operation that

44:07

the US does not seem very eager to have

44:09

end. So I

44:12

so to bring this back to Katie's comment

44:14

or question, you know, it's by

44:17

no means humanitarian when you prolonga

44:19

war, let's call it artificially.

44:22

And, you know, coming back again to this question

44:24

of Boris Johnson showing up in April and

44:26

the, you know, Ukraine and prop the article and the Fiona

44:28

Hill references in the foreign affairs, you

44:31

know, really taking steps

44:33

designed to prevent a peaceful resolution

44:35

to the problem. under terms that might

44:38

be acceptable to both to both parties.

44:42

Yeah. It's just it's kind of extraordinary. I'll

44:44

just add one more point too. I mean, this is almost

44:47

so trivial you don't need to say it, but

44:49

if this war

44:52

objective is in fact destabilizing as

44:54

I think it probably is. You

44:56

know, anytime you have a greater risk of nuclear

44:59

war, that's not humanitarian for anybody.

45:01

I mean, it's not humanitarian for Ukrainians.

45:03

It's not humanitarian for the Russians. It's not humanitarian

45:06

for us. It's conceivably

45:08

could escalate and wipe out the whole world. That's

45:11

a lot of human beings there.

45:13

So Yeah. Look, and if you're gonna invoke

45:15

humanitarian concerns to

45:18

justify prolonging this war,

45:20

then that means you also have to ignore by

45:22

definition the humanitarian concerns

45:25

of the people and the Don Boss who've been

45:27

living under a war for the last eight years.

45:29

and it's a war that's been widely

45:32

overlooked, but fourteen thousand people,

45:34

according to the UN, have died. The majority

45:37

on the Russian speaking side.

45:39

And that's a war that the US has fueled

45:42

with a lot of weaponry. And Trump

45:44

actually got impeached when he briefly impeded.

45:47

the flow of weapons. And that's when Adam Schiff

45:49

said that the US fights

45:51

Russia that that the United

45:53

States aids Ukraine so that we can fight Russia

45:55

over there. we

45:56

don't have to fight Russia here. And

45:59

there are voices inside the Don Boss where,

46:01

you know, Russian speakers live. that have

46:03

been calling for Russian intervention for very

46:05

very long time. It's taken Russia eight years to

46:07

do it. And I personally can't

46:09

justify Russia doing it. I

46:11

have to believe there were other ways for Russia

46:13

to try to seek a diplomatic resolution

46:16

to all of this. But the fact is we can't

46:18

pretend that there hasn't been a war going on. We also

46:20

can't and the people of the Don Bos who have

46:22

been shelved with US weaponry

46:24

for last eight years don't exist. Yeah.

46:27

Yeah. I think that's a good point.

46:29

I'll add to that. You know, it's very sometimes

46:32

there's a a tendency to

46:34

think of the soldiers who are fighting

46:36

a war as not part of the humanitarian

46:39

crisis. But, you

46:42

know, starting with the Ukrainian side, I mean, there

46:44

are people who are being impressed

46:46

into service who, you know,

46:48

are basically subject to arrest if they try to

46:50

avoid this. So there are there are

46:52

civilians in Ukraine who are being

46:55

forced to fight that might

46:57

not otherwise want to fight. You know,

46:59

they're part of the humanitarian crisis too.

47:01

So even if we could completely eliminate

47:04

all, quote, collateral damage. I mean,

47:06

you're you're talking about young human beings

47:09

who are, you know, everyone is

47:11

on some level a civilian. they just happen

47:13

to be sucked into the army either voluntarily

47:16

or by impressment. And

47:19

then, of course, even on the Russian side, I mean,

47:21

sure there are plenty of Russian soldiers who are

47:23

not eager to be fighting this war, that

47:26

either they have concerns that if they resisted,

47:28

they'll run into trouble, or

47:31

they believe that this is, you know, a

47:33

legitimate concern for their

47:35

safety of their society and their families.

47:38

But either way, you know, you're talking about nineteen

47:40

or twenty year old boys,

47:42

young men, who are basically

47:44

being burned alive in their tanks. with

47:48

anti tank weapons or,

47:51

you know, artillery or anything else. So

47:53

I I think it's the ongoing war is kind

47:55

of a humanitarian disaster for everyone, leaving

47:58

aside any questions of escalation, and

48:00

even leaving aside collateral damage,

48:03

which itself is just another form

48:05

of humanitarian disaster. Both

48:07

of you have referred to alternatives

48:09

for Putin. You

48:11

write in your book Notwithstanding all,

48:13

I will say I believe he had alternatives to

48:15

war. And Aaron, he just referred to that. What do

48:17

you guys think he could have done?

48:20

And to hear the rest of the interview, please

48:23

go to useful idioms dot subset

48:25

dot com.

48:28

That

48:28

was great. Very good. This

48:30

is a really it's a very slim book

48:32

so it's easy reading and it's quick and it

48:34

gives you lot of background on the war that

48:36

gets ignored and suppressed

48:39

in our mainstream media. So a a good

48:41

way to understand what's Now

48:43

a very dangerous situation. Yeah. I wish you were

48:45

a required reading, honestly, especially

48:48

for the media.

48:49

Absolutely. Absolutely.

48:50

Yeah.

48:51

Alright. Well, so to support us

48:53

and get more bonus content, go to useful idiots

48:56

dot substack dot com. And

48:58

Katie, we'll be back next week. on Monday

49:00

morning at a slightly different time. Yeah.

49:02

Twelve thirty. Alright. See everybody

49:05

then. Hi, Ron. Hello.

49:08

Thank you so much for listening to and watching

49:10

useful idiots. For full episodes and extended

49:12

interviews, please subscribe at useful idiots dot

49:14

sub tech dot com. can subscribe

49:16

on YouTube at youtube dot com slash

49:18

useful idiot for clips, live streams, and show

49:21

episodes. Also, subscribe to us wherever

49:23

you find your

49:23

podcast. All on Twitter are useful

49:26

idiot pod and use the hashtag

49:28

useful idiots pod. Join

49:30

us Mondays at ten AM for the useful It is

49:32

Monday morning show where we discuss the Sunday

49:35

morning

49:35

news shows, so you don't have

49:37

to watch them.