again, is of the possible tom before the storm, as all lies there on a run in the middle east that's up to, to around one. but it would, it's only 8. a deadly is very striking. consulate in syria down breach in central russia. lou settlements downstream, inundated with water and forces evacuation of more than 4000 people. and growing consensus, india is representative to the international monetary fund. loss is out to the organization, a consulate on the plains, the success of these countries. we mean of going on the ground is coming up next. hit on oxy international minus pizza scott's, and i'll be back with a full news run down in around about an hour some of the of

the the i'm action are tense and welcome back to going underground rule got single around the world from the you a this week and nato celebrated 75 years off to catastrophes in yugoslavia. iraq, afghanistan, syria, libya to don ukraine and venezuela. to mention a few at home nature of countries today. phase mass opposition for the relates role in arming, genocide in gaza, enabled by compliance, major nation media, a wide, a war has already begun with britain in the usa area li bombarding simon hit human

nature nations on the active war on the ron is the is nomic republics, diplomatic facilities in syria, which i'll get it in the past few days, single time use the nature of countries for billions to be defeated in a proxy war on russia through ukraine and nature, members of strengthening military forces against china, around and now it's quite hit taiwan joining me from chicago as professor john much . i'm also and co author of books including how states think the rationality of foreign policy and the israel lobby and u. s. foreign policy. to thank you so much for of as much time as are coming on nato at 75. i suppose we better just quickly start you off with what you thought. when you heard the news, the diplomatic buildings in damascus had been destroyed. presumably, with american weapons, the act of war uh, suddenly was not condemned by un security council members of britain, france, and the united states. you know, i was actually quite disappointed,

but not surprised at all. the western countries didn't condemn the israel east for attacking the rainy and embassy and damascus. if any other country had done that to any other countries, embassy, uh, the united states and its allies would surely condemn that country. i mean, can you imagine if the russians hit an embassy in any country around the world of the united states, and that's how i would have gone ballistic. but with this rule, as always, it's a different story. the israelis can do pretty much anything they want. and get away with it, and it just all happened. does that mean? there was the chinese embassy hit by mistake during the war and he was love you. but the very inviolable, the diplomatic facility in history tends to be and their conventions. so the weather is supposed to be and uh, and there's good reason for that. and the fact that the israelis violated the basic

norm and basically get a free pass, a tells you something about israel's ability to pretty much do anything. it wants in international politics. and get away with it because the united states will protect it. and do you think it was an act by the israeli government to draw the united states in as being, as, as being talked about? is iran. i clearly does not wish to be further involved. uh, it certainly hasn't done what uh some fed some wanted as regards the genocide in guys we don't have any real hard evidence to know exactly what the israelis we're thinking. but that would be my guess. these rallies have long been interested in dragging us the united states into a war with israel. i mean, excuse me, a war with iran. and i think that this was probably a step in that direction. also, i think these realities are getting desperate at this point in time of the war and

gaza is not going well at all. one cannot see a happy ending today conflict. they also have an ongoing conflict with has belong their northern border, which is not going well. and there doesn't appear to be any end to that one either . uh, and then if you look at what's happening inside is real itself, with their all sorts of protest disagreements of one sort or another. to put it more bluntly, there are a lot of sin, triple forces that play inside of israel. and given all those factors, one could argue that these rallies are just interested in escalating to see if they can get the united states involved, and that will help them solve some of these problems. yeah, we're going to speak to get in love. you have high rates on mondays you, i mean is really society though is not so much against the campaign against the b of god's i say, against nothing. you know, but i say, i mean they, they agree with the campaign on guys are. and if anything,

one more or 5 values don't guys. and there's a remarkable survey that's out in israel from a legitimate institution, which shows that 68 percent 68 percent of his realities favor withholding humanitarian aid to the people in gaza. basically says that 68 percent of the population favors of genocide is quite remarkable. and it supports your point, that within is real itself. there's not a wide differences of opinion among most people on how this war should be conducted . this is why the argument that if you get rid of benjamin netanyahu, all things are going to change and we're going to live happily ever after. make those sense. it really doesn't matter whether you get rid of that yahoo and replace them with benny gant's or not probably better, or the end result will be the same. these rallies will continue the same policies that they've been pursuing since october 7th. but this does not. this does not

contradict the basic fact that inside of is real. you have all sorts, it's in triple forces at play. and if the as rarely as in many cases are written. ready or with each other. so when the united states, i'm saying to the un security council over the seized by resolution, was it a p or operation by linda thomas greenfield? because they us entering attentional netanyahu and ignoring what you just said about a really popular support for the genocide within israel. why do you think that they have stained just before announcing more, more weapons? of course, after resolution to 7, to 8 with us? well, the thing is that the by the administration knows that it's in deep trouble. just in terms of the november election. there are large numbers of progressives,

large numbers of young people, and the air of american community in the united states that is deeply disturbed by what button is doing with regard to god. so he's not that worried is a because he announced all those weapons off to that is as we know, the michigan 100000 at the primaries as well, but by lunch here as he wants his cake needed to write, he understands that he has to play case, he is real lobby and israel's supporters in the united states. and at the same time he wants to try to placate air of americans and progressives who might vote against him. we're just not a vote for him in the fall. so he abstained from this binding resolution, calling for a ceasefire. during ramadan he abstained, which allowed it to go through. and then as soon as the resolution went through, uh, linda thomas green field said that it was non binding. and of course it is

a binding disillusion. had somebody could argue that this done binding is beyond me, but what was going on here is again vitamin was trying to appeal to both sides. when he said it was done binding, he was appealing to the as rally side by abstaining and letting the resolution go through the security council. he was appealing to progressives into the air of american community. and the question is, do you think that this is going to work? and my answer is no. in fact, there's a pull out that shows that in almost all the critical swing states, he is trailing a trunk by a rather significant number. so who is advising the, by the administration, given that these tactics are clearly just going to alienate all sides? presumably here's what you, what you think i do and it will leave it as being on this show has been talking about the think tank group think. is that what's going on in washington? they all just think of this is the policy, keep bombing them,

giving the electro constraints as of november. i think it virtually everyone who is by using bind, understands the problem here and they would all love to fix it. but there is no fix . if the sides with these realities clear early, then he's gonna alienate progressives, an error of americans and others. and this is going to cause him to lose in all likelihood in the fall. if on the other hand, he sides with the progressives, and with the error of americans against these realities, this will enraged he is real hobby. and his real supporters in the united states, and he's likely to who's in november because he alienated those institutions and individuals. so he's in a damned if you do damned if you don't the situation and there is no good solution for all the majority in polls show. they don't support the war on guys as being as

it's currently being conducted in the united states don't. yeah, there's no question about that. you want to remember by the way, that 75 percent of democrats disapprove of what the israelis are doing and gaza and they disapprove of america's support of israel in this campaign. furthermore, 50 percent of the people who voted for jo bite in 2020. this is 50 percent believe that israel is committing genocide in gaza. so bite has a huge problem here because he is supporting the is really almost completely. so the money is more important than from the donors because it was in the numbers times as you say, it's all vs the decision to take if it was purely on electro at times don't support is right. what's not only the money, i believe the money matters

a lot. it's also the influence of the law be in the media in the mainstream media. if, by the way to turn against israel in any meaningful way, you can rest assured that newspapers like the wall street journal and the new york times of the washington post would turn on by. and he would pay a significant price which would badly damaged his chances in the fall. so the media or is it enabling, you know, we have professor joseph night on this show, the other weekly coin or a soft power. the to even said that the soft power from the united states is globally be indented by the genocide. but then he said, look, there's a few pull out the other day he was quoting it, most people in 27 different countries would prefer the united states of, of china. so actually genocide and supporting genocide doesn't harm the us as reputation around the world that much. so i think that's wrong. i think that there is no question that our reputation has been badly damaged. and furthermore,

i think that our emphasis on the importance of a rules based order liberal international order, which matters so much to us has been undermined by what the israelis are doing and what we're doing with the israel lease. and i think that is going to have long term consequences. you know, he also said that he was here with the us intelligence cancel. you said the, on the, the other war, the other for him to the united states as well. that no one really had confidence in them in process in ukraine when they are being powers, the united states were talking about the states of ukrainian regions with the russia is minutes being rewritten, and it hasn't been rewritten since 20. $22.00 people forgotten about that to justify the sending of millions of dollars weapons. does lensky with the whole

situation surrounding the midst agreement is really quite fascinating because it's quite clear to me, the proven was deeply committed to making means cork so that he could solve the controversy or the conflict in the done best. and of course, that's what it means was designed to do and who did not want to war. she wanted to solve the problem in the done best, diplomatically 3 minutes. what is happened subsequently? is that his interlocutor? cuz on zillow and merkle, for example, the french liter, whole on, and parents poor shank, go who was the ukranian leader at the time. all 3 of them, those were his 3 interlocutors have admitted that they did not take the minutes process seriously. and what they were doing was stalling for time so that the west

could arm and train ukraine. in other words, they bamboozled pool and put in or giving the good faith is needless to say, furious about what happened though, the story doesn't play very well in the west these days. so you can rest assured the, in the west of the spin meister is, will go to great ways to tell a different story and they will try to blame for what happened. and they will come up with all sorts of excuses for why andrea merkel and the others are really not telling the truth, and it was really poor. no wonder mind the whole process. i mean, this is the way the game is played these days. so has a much, i'm a, i'll stop you that more after this break, the, the, the, the, the, that,

the media the yeah. because of the, of the associate. so the whole catch to enjoy to you and you're doing the properties is a bus that's just on the since i see the visualized because they have some students go to both of them. the media to decide he does that because what it is, uh my, your, it was the one year that it was the, the sites so you can take that experience fits, use it up for yourself. is that glitched, i know, got all the all the

numbers that you need use visa, stupid loyce law here. nancy, nancy e mailed click jims and then that's just me very the the only showcase is use the so i'm just going to the boys at the boys the, the name that'll be for them. i'm not sure if this slaughter doesn't want that. i faxed them. but the notes up under that to

the welcome back to going out of the garden. i'm still here with professor of political science of university chicago joint motion. i'm a resume assignment. we're talking about the several minutes agreements that preceded the beginning of the really all war in 2022 proxy war and ukraine. you know, the newspaper this week is as nature plans, a $100000000.00 fund to shield give aid from the winds of political change and goes on to say in case donald trump is elected due by blinking sullivan. newton's gone, now, think of russia is a kind of developing countries, so it's a bit like afghanistan war and this kind of will keep pouring in the weapons and eventually russia will just a cave or the region will become a a. so on stable level, we'll come to some kinds of uh and that will benefit the united states. what is the strategy? well,

i think it almost everybody in the west now understands that the ukrainians are in deep trouble. and that the russians, given the way the vents are moving or likely to win this war. and what the by the administration naturally wants to do is everything possible to prevent that from happening. so i think at this point in time, what the administration, the by the administration is focusing on and what nato is focusing on is just, i mean, the tide, making sure that the russians don't roll over the ukrainians. and the question you have to ask yourself is, do you think that's possible? and my answer is no, i think this was lost and that the russians will ultimately win and oakley victory . and the longer it goes on the terms of the piece, what we was for, whatever government in ukraine there is at that time. absolutely. i mean,

from ukraine's point of view, the best possible solution is to end the war now. because the longer the war goes on more ukrainians will, there will be more ukrainians who die, and ukraine will lose more territory. i believe it's in ukraine's interest to try to shut the war down immediately and preserve as much of the territory that they now control as possible and minimize the number of ukrainians. ready moving forward and to do that, what ukraine has to do is turn itself into a genuinely neutral country. it has to make it very clear that it has no intention whatsoever of joining nato. and it has to completely break off its security relationship with the west, especially with the united states. that could be no more arms transport transfers. there could be no more aid from the united states to ukraine. that relationship has

to be completely separate. and again, ukraine has to become a neutral country, and the sooner this is done the better. but of course, i think there is very little chance that ukraine will do that. and the west will agree uh to push ukraine down that road in the end result will be that ukraine will lose a lot more territory. a lot more ukrainians will die, and ukraine will end up as a dysfunctional, rob state. and when you say that you're coming from the perspective of saving the children of ukraine and also improving the strategic security interest, sol, west in europe and of the united states. so why don't they just do that to? i don't understand why say, don't do that. i mean, a slightly different question is, why did we start this more to begin with? uh, why did we, uh, push nato expansion into ukraine when the russians made it clear that they be it,

it is an x, a central threat. and if we didn't stop, it would lead to war. uh, that was manifestly clear for years. and nevertheless, it every term we double down and in wait 2021 early, 2022. when it looked like a war was about to happen. and the russians actually made an attempt to solve it diplomatically in december of 2021. we basically told them we weren't interested, and we allow the war to happen. and then after the war broke out, and there were negotiations in this bundle, it looked like it was a serious possibility. the war could be shut down. we basically told the ukrainians to walk away from the negotiations and to pursue war. this is remarkably foolish, the end result is that ukraine is going to be destroyed. so i think the fact that we're not moving now to push ukraine to become neutral is hardly surprising given how foolishly we have behaved in the past. we of course,

meaning the west here and that includes the united states. you say, you don't know, but then in whose interest i mean is it the military industrial complex? because even that analysis that you just gave me is, you know, is more or less a band in the media or of nato nations that are boring the weapons in, in the, in the free media of nato nations. i mean, obviously we know lloyd austin worked a great the on and the anthony blinking though is a west exec because it really that base that it's military contracts. what i mean, they're very open about the importance of military keynesian. is them as a strategy regarding ukraine to improve jobs at home? is, is about money that way. i think it's a somewhat complicated story. i think that for many years, up until 2014 for sure. maybe even up until the war broke out. in february of 2022, we thought that we could shop nato expansion into ukraine down the russians throat

. if you wanna remember that we had 2 big traunches of nato expansion before the whole ukraine fiasco. one was in 1999 that's from poland hungry and the czech republic came in. and then we had another big expansion in 2004. that's when the baltic states remain your boat. gary and a handful of other states came in and, and all those cases, the russians were deeply opposed and made their opposition very clear to the west. the nato expansion was unacceptable to them. but nevertheless, they were weak and we forced it down their throat. and i think we felt that we could do the same thing with ukraine. okay. the russians don't like nato expansion in to ukraine. but what are they going to do about it? then when it looked like a we're was going to break out. i think we came to the conclusion that we could beat the russians. i think this is why we told the ukrainians to walk away from the negotiating table in this tumble in march,

april of 2022 right after the war started, we thought we could be the russians. we had a theory, a victory, of course, that your victory was fundamentally flawed and things, if not turned out the way that we believe that they wouldn't turn out. and now we have people openly talking about the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons. i mean, we had a former assistant secretary defense, larry called for the reagan administration, saying, of course, if necessary, the united states was use nuclear weapons based in labs the now based on germany, to save the people of ukraine. how far is the united states just talking about the importance of ukraine now it's go to this stage. have they privately, as far as you know, just realize that it hasn't worked out the way you just said they hoped it would as well they have. they certainly realize it hasn't worked out, and i think almost everybody at this point in time understands that the ukraine

could collapse and end up is a dysfunctional run state. and the russians could end up control, sorry to interrupt progressive. but, you know, with the native celebrations of 75 years, all those leaders, i don't, uh, i'm not saying anything like that. obviously. no, they'll be celebrating, look, see if the russians, when, even if it's an ugly victory, this is going to be a devastating defeat for nato. and the leaders in washington, or celebrating the 70 percent of birth rate of data are going to want to go to great lengths to downplay what's happening in ukraine and celebrate the alliance and talk about its wonderful future. so you won't be hearing much discussion of just have desperate things are in ukraine. but the fact is, the situation is developing in ways that are going to be disastrous. prenatal you see, you know, get rushing media and global south media. there's talk of doubling down by nato

countries. the crocus, whole massacring must go the ties to the. i mean, you might want to explain what isis k is, because i think most people around the world see it as a capitalized by us policy in afghanistan and iraq. and syria, people are saying they are doubling down on it and fronts a has plans, according to the russians. i'm sending more than a 1000, maybe one uh 1000 foreign legion nato for it. and he chose a country member of soldiers to help zalinski of which page. and it said that they will, they will um, react to that military. i don't believe the french are going to send troops into ukraine. i believe the americans will tell them in no uncertain terms that that is not possible and the germans will do the same. and i think they'll be significant resistance within france itself. if i'm a chrome tries to do that,

or you were talking before about the possibility of the west using nuclear weapons to defend ukraine, should the russians, when i think that's extremely unlikely, i think the noted states is not going to initiate nuclear use. i don't think we're gonna think seriously about that possibility. and again, i don't think we're gonna send in troops either. i think that we will just have to accept the fact that we lost in ukraine, and then what we will do foolishly, i believe, is everything possible to undermine russia's position in those parts of ukraine that it ends up annexing. and more generally doing everything we can to cause trouble for russia moving forward. so even if we get a frozen conflict, i think what's likely to happen here is that you're likely to have an intent security competition between ukraine and the west on one side at russia on the

other side for the foreseeable future. and the potential for escalation in this competition, this nasty competition will be significant. what's it like being a scholar in international affairs? right now? i know in the media, i mean in britain it's a legal factor to mention that there were any nazis or near the think no head ceiling groups in ukraine. israel is just band l g 0, a t is band and c g t and the chinese and the radians tv stations in britain. academics and scholars, the tools like you, you just don't see on the media or in the big think tags. i've interviewed menu, say, no ukraine, so as a chance it can and get crimea back. what's it like being a scholar these days? if you have my views, it's going to be a rough road to hole in the main stream media. and in fact, you're going to be basically iced out, they're not going to be interested in hearing your views. there will be, you know,

if occasions where did. ready you slipped through the iron wall and you get to make your case, but those occasions will be few and far between what we have in the west is a particular mantra about the ukraine conflict that is dominant. it dominates the discourse and anybody who challenges that dominated view is going to be attacked. uh and, and is going to be frozen now. is that one of the reasons for the failure of nature? i'm not hearing all of the sites. i believe that i believe the fact that we in the west have in effect, shut down the marketplace of ideas when it comes to talking about ukraine has led to all sorts of trouble. i thought if we, i think we had had a more open debate about ukraine and the idea of bringing ukraine into nato after.