of the loss of general persecutor sides of the country saw a 3.5 percent increase in terrorist act in 2023 with most of the attacks perpetrated by ukrainian radicals. and this comes out the president put in his describe terrorism as one of the biggest challenges the world is currently facing. addressing and international secuity fob and st. petersburg, he cited last bonds, deadly attack on the moscow consulate for, as i said in the example. international terrorism is undoubtedly one of the most serious threats of the 21st century. the purpose of terrorist attacks in various regions of the world carried out not only by radical groups, but also by the intelligent services of some countries, is to undermine constitutional foundations, that stabilize southern states and insight into ethnic and inter religious hatred. at the same time, the methods of criminals are becoming more and more sophisticated and barbaric.

this was once again demonstrated by the bloody terrorist attack that took place on march 22nd in the moscow region. the special services and law enforcement agencies of russia continue to investigate all the details of this despicable crime to identify as participants, including those who ordered sponsored and organized it. none of them can escape justice. a 145 people were killed in the terror attack of moscow's concept. hold a month ago, not a russian or far would you say that you create in secret services? what behind the atrocities the farm is and petersburg. we spoke with the chief advisor to be, you'll be a national intelligence and security service to describe the how of multilateralism helps fight. there was a total reason, the reason, 80 type or for not groups, sometimes even states. that's the biggest dining and the what compound speech chatting is then 10 national grid over 4 months is most working

properly. so therefore, that compounds the problem. otherwise, a patient has a to b, a u. n. type of regulation be accepted by all countries. this with that being very easy to sort glen to, to see the opinion of countries that mentioned that terrorism should really start from would be regional native. and the, the global system should be in each of a native new global or dash b s. so that we can, we can have more partnership of protecting our entire system. and that's all for me now. my colleague, wherever we associate will be with you at the top of the hour by now, by the

i'm frequently invited to dinner around washington hosted by academics, journalists, sometimes even political figures. they're more like salons really, where intellectuals or people who consider themselves to be intellectual is, can speak freely with their friends about the issues of the day. i went to one of those dinners recently and it was heavy on university professors. i happened to lecture at the university of southern mancha, in spain, and at the university of southern california. i mentioned at this dinner that i was impressed by how active my students were in protesting the warren guys that a colleague said that that was also true with his university. and that students also were out in the streets over issues like gender and police violence. but a 3rd professor said that he was disappointed. he said that all of us should be in the streets to protest what appears to be the world's march toward nuclear war. he

said that his students understand this. they acknowledge it. but they're so afraid of a nuclear armageddon, but they're silenced by that fear and all the while our governments ignore the overall danger. i'm john kerry onto welcome to the whistle blowers the . 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 when i was a young boy growing up in a small rural town in the us state of pennsylvania, our school had to practice an exercise once a month. that exercise was what to do in the event that the soviet union attacked us with nuclear weapons. it was silly and retrospect we just got under our desks and covered our heads. and somehow that was supposed to help us survive a nuclear strike. in the intervening years, the united states and the soviet union, and then the united states and russia, negotiated a multitude of arms control treaties. there was a taunt,

followed by glasnost and perestroika, american and russian leaders met with some regularity. and on 2 occasions, russian leaders even raised the idea of russia joining nato, but it was not to be the united states began to withdraw from arms control treaties unilaterally. and the us supported unfettered nato expansion in the mid onto in ukraine, in 2014, in sure, the 2 countries still have diplomatic relations. and that's a good thing. there is still in passengers and their respective capitals. but the bilateral situation is not good. and if these professors of international affairs are to be believed, we are closer to a nuclear war than we have been in many decades. our guest today knows of what he speaks. matthew ho has been a senior fellow with a center for international policy since 201-2009. matthew resigned in protest from his post in afghanistan with the state department over the american escalation of the war there. prior to his assignment in pakistan,

matthew took part in the american occupation of iraq 1st in 2004 and 5. and so heading province with the state department with the, with the reconstruction team there. and again in 2006 and 7 in onboard province as a marine corps company commander. when not deployed, matthew worked on afghanistan and iraq, more policy in operations issues at the pentagon, and the state department from 2002 to 2008. matthews. writings have appeared in such periodicals as the atlanta journal constitution, cnn the guardian, huffington post, the usa today, even the wall street journal and the washington post has been a guest on hundreds of news programs on television and radio. the prestigious council on foreign relations has cited matthews resignation letter from his post in afghanistan as any central document in 2010, matthew was named the written, our prize recipient for truth telling, and in 2021 he was awarded as

a defender of liberty by the committee for the republic in washington. matthew, welcome to the show. we're so glad to have you. thanks, john. thanks for all your back on. it is good to see you. thank you. the pleasure of mine, matthew. i want to just jump into what i think is the most important question today . you recently spoke to the united nations security council. that is an incredible honor and you spoke passionately about peace. give us a sense of what that talk was all about and what the reaction to it was. yeah, thanks john. i was invited to brief, the un security council on the war and ukraine. and i chose with the time i had to focus on the escalation of that war, the really dangerous escalation that we're all witnessing and that people, people are speaking out about uh, you know, as you referenced in your, your opening there. and so my talk, my briefing a hit those did hit that idea that we're on an extremely dangerous escal. a tory

track history teaches us this. the evidence of this warranty printing teaches us this, and that the united nations have to act. the international community has to act to en this wong. ukraine force to cease fire force negotiations in order to get us off of this path that we're on. that is leading to not just the war between a direct war between the united states and nato and russia, a nuclear war between the me. several of my friends have spoken before the security council in the past 2 years or so, and all of them received kudos from all around the world. but the media here in the united states has been largely silent about those events. not even largely they've been silent. why do you think that is, why are the voices of peace not being covered in the us as well? you know, united states, uh, this is a good question about john and in the united states as has been it been at war for

its entire history. uh, you know, with the exception of a few years at a time, you're going to look at the record and united states is almost always constantly at war in the modern era, which we can save for simple reasons, right? dates from the end of world war 2. if you're talking about the cold war as well as a direct american wars throughout the 20 late 20th century and the wars of this century, you see an american narrative that we are constantly at work. and when you have that type of understanding where that is, what is being pushed, where that is the framework in which everything is explained, that we are at war. well there can be no new wants. there can be no complexity. it is a story of us versus them. and so if you come forward as someone proposing piece, saying, hey look, it's not as simple as us versus them. this is not a simple tale of good versus evil. well, there's no room for you in that conversation. there's no room for you and that

media narrative, and you also have to understand that we are an empire, and our major media are stablish. corporate media is part of that empire. they are part of the leads that were on the empire. so they have a role, not just in pushing the propaganda, but ensuring that their place in the empire remains consistent. otherwise they'll be replaced. so we put those 2 things together. you see that it's very difficult. uh, not just now, but for the last 7580 years. again, throughout this modern era, of having people who propose peace, who proposed negotiations dialogue, who say we should have a diplomatic form policy as opposed to a militarized foreign policy to find a spot in the media. and that, of course, leads us to the point we're at now we're, we're, or in this incredibly incredibly dangerous place where the risk of nuclear war is at a point in greater than in your a, my lifetime. and really,

you can only point to a couple of times throughout the, during this a time, a gauge when the risk of nuclear war has been greater than it is today. you said something at the one that i think is very important. you said that you were not there to endorse or support one side or the other. you said you did not support the russian intervention in ukraine, but that you understood it. you also said that you, you don't support escalation in that conflict, but you understand it. can you tell us what you meant by that? and well, certainly, you know, understanding something of finding the reasons without hearing to those reasons and someone's actions are a nation's actions, is important to understand how you got into that position. what, what the circumstances currently are, as well as where it's likely to head to none of us have a crystal ball. but you can certainly look at your directory and say, this is the way things are trending. and this is how it's probably going to go based upon everything we understand now from this, this,

of that not from this particular circumstance, but from the evans of history itself. right? so it's important i thing to understand what the russians have been doing, why they've been doing it, even though you can condemn it. so if i can them russians, evasion is not saying that they were not provoked, right. it's not saying that they did not have legitimate national security interest that they felt they were so they were best supporting by invading ukraine. i don't agree with that. i don't support that, but that's the reasons i understand that. and if you yours from the west, then if you don't understand that, if you stick to this simple good versus evil, narrow us versus that right? that what we are up against is an imperial russia, a madman dictate, are hell bent on recreating the last soviet empire, which is just utter nonsense. but if that's the tail you're going to tell yourself, and that's where you interface your reactions upon. how do you ever expect to get anything achieve?

how do you ever expect to come to any type of solution when you don't even understand the problem? but this is again with the purpose of propaganda is a purpose. propaganda is not to understand the circumstance and inform the public of it, but rather to promote certain actions. and that what we've seen, of course, has been the war mongering of the last. uh, you know, particular the last 10 years in eastern europe, one of the professors that i had dinner with recently is one of the most why really acknowledged experts on the history of nuclear weapons in the world. he travels all around the world, giving lectures and meeting with both academics and world meters. he said that he is far more highly respected abroad than he is in the united states, and that he cannot even get an appointment at the pentagon at the white house, the state department or capitol hill, even with a junior person to discuss these issues. do you face the same challenges? what's the response from official washington to the work that you that you do in

support of p y? i could tell you at the un security council of about 4 minutes into my statement, the american bachelor got up and walked out. why and that, that is more or less what we see from both official washington as well as from the, you know, official media. if you will, the media, the corporate establishment, legacy media, have you want to call it is right of different reasons for that when it comes to the media. so i'm going to has to do just simple bottom line readings. you know, they don't want anyone on who's going to push new ones or tell a complicated story. they want red vs blue yelling at each other. yes. right. so there's some rather, uh, it's not a, not us, but simple reasons for it. but it also also has to do with the fact that these people, they are friends, they are fellow leads. they go to the same parties, they do not want to be replaced within these institutions that the, you know, that the institutions that run and that run america that run the empire. you have

to fit a certain mold, you have a for, it's through character type that fills those positions. and if you are not willing to fill that type of, of, if you're not going, possess that character. if you're not going to say the words that need to be said, you will be replaced, so always indicate to you and security counselor when the american ambassador gets up and blocked out, he assures himself a position there. if he engages me, if he gives me any credence, wow, that weakens his position in terms of where he actually is in relation to the seat he's building in that institution. so you know, there's just the interest in this has changed. i mean, 15 years ago, i would say that the american media was much more open to having voices of dissent, voices willing to offer complex explanations, or maybe the, or have a dissonant views. yes, but certainly particularly the last 10 years i've seen that change. many other

people have seen that change. where because of, of, of the technology that has come on the, the, the successive alternative and independent media, the reality is of access to journalism. and again, the fact that these people are who are friends at the elite level of the ability for whether it's myself, a huge on, uh, you know, the, the, the, the professor you are speaking of to be on these platforms to be in front of the american public on the established legacy corporate media. uh, you know, it has become very, very difficult. matthew ho, stay right there. we're going to go to a break and then when, when we come back, we're going to continue our conversation with nice the whole about prospects for peace and prospect for broader conflict. so stay with us. the. 2 the welcome back to the whistle blowers.

i'm john kerry onto were speaking with peace activist and former state department official and marine corps veteran matthew ho. matthew, thanks again for being with us to. hey, thanks, jeff. not walking away from a long standing nonproliferation treaty doesn't just happen overnight, as if by magic, these trainings taking years to negotiate. and they usually last for many years until they're finally updated. but that hasn't happened over the last several decades. why do you think that is, is it a function of the increasingly polarized politics here in the united states? and i think it has a lot to do that. i think certainly in the last 10 years, uh, the utilization of foreign policy and domestic politics, particularly say russia gave the idea that we are going, the democratic party is going to attach russia to the republican party. so that trump equals, who has been in defining aspect of the democratic parties. national platform for

a decade now or nearly a decade then. and that makes it very difficult to engage in negotiations with those who are trying to over throw or subvert or country very hard to again, this idea of we are at war. there's no room for nuance. there's no room for explanation as us versus that. so how do you justify going into arms control talks with the people that you are claiming are trying to destroy our democracy. you see it as well to the, the overall belligerence of the american foreign policy establishment. what's called the blog. this consensus in washington, dc for war. it's something that brock obama described that washington dc has a bias for war x, right? i n g, you know, i mean, so the idea of that this, that talking is not what's needed. we do not need a diplomatic foreign policy, we militarized for our policy, and that of course, then it's underwritten by the military industrial complex. if you go back and you

look at say, when george w bush pulls united states out of the anti ballistic missile treaty in 2001, the women full for the american military industrial complex for that, for the defense industry, off of that decision has been tens and tens of billions of dollars that the pentagon was able to invest in missile technology programs, missile defense programs, that would not, they would not have been able to under the abm treaty. and so you have a confluence of things here where it, whether it is the politics of it, this like guys, if you will, the spirit of the political situation in, in, in the country. whether it is the actual consensus of the foreign policy a week that this is the way to go forward. and then of course, to the, the underwriting that comes from the military industrial complex, and they all reinforce and feed off of each other. it becomes very circular process . uh but you that leads you to the point where you see uh,

walking away from weapons 3 or 3 and use the dissolution of those trees. but then also to, as you were saying, john, just not the, not just walking away but like, no ability to write for them or go back to them. and that's one thing that's really dangerous right now. is that the mechanics to have that type of arms control talks or no longer there? you've seen in the last 10 years say the ability of the united states and russia with ability united states in china to sit down and have those types of negotiation really, whether it goes beyond just the idea of having talks to come up with a treaty or to strengthen or to, to uh, or to, to, to prolong the treaties that we do have in place, which they are very few of. and, but also the point now that we're not even certain if there is a crisis that the americans and the russians can talk to one another. and that, of course goes back to the idea of how dangerous of place were him right now when

it comes to the possibility of their work. and how you can say that again. when i was the chief investigator on the senate foreign relations committee, several arms control treaties lapsed. and i remember they're just being a collective shoulder shrug. why has the us attitude toward sweeping arms control agreements changed? in fact, there is no longer even a stand alone arms control and disarmament agency in the us. why is that? and i think this is a danger of winning the cold war. rises the danger of being a superpower. we don't need these things. you know, there is that story that ronald reagan, uh, if people remember, i was 10 years old at the time when the television show came out the day after an american television or 1983. right. and, and it scared the heck out of a lot of people in a story is one of those people is ronald reagan, that he didn't really understand what he was commanding at that point. we have what john? probably 20000 warheads. sure russians had about 25 tasks and i think, right,

i mean, so that type of, of knowledge of, of what we actually possess, what it can do, and just how dangerous it is, has been swept away in because of the idea that we are super power that we are the sole empire. no one can threaten us. there is no reason to worry about these things . we, through our position as the dominant power in the world, can just choose to make the reality we want. and so we do not need to, uh, you know, to base ourselves i and enter into negotiations with countries that we have to feed or that we have the ability to the feet. and i think it's bad type of mindset. you know, like couple of, again with those things were just discussing that leads to this idea that we don't need this. that was something us with a cold war, but we won the cold war. we don't need to talk. we don't even negotiate. we're america, we're god's indispensable nation, etc, etc. this is, this is not what needs to be done at all. and i think that's how and politically we

get to a place as you just describe john, where you go into congress and there is no entry. now in on, jo deluxe, at the grass roots level math, what can people do to support piece in just the past 6 months? i've participated in some massive demonstrations here in washington demonstrations that attracted hundreds of thousands of people. but then they didn't seem to have any effect on washington policy makers or politicians at all. is there another way to have an impact as well? i think this is what we're up against. john is, we're up against a system that has insulated itself from the american people with money. we have a system in the united states that has protected itself using money as both a carrot and stick from public pressure. you saw the success, we also we, we know the success of the civil rights movement, the anti vietnam war movement, the environmental movement, the burgeoning success of the nuclear movement and the 1980s. uh, you know,

and the system, if you will, adapt is involved to protect itself. so you have a starting and a ninety's, a series of, of, of, of, of changes to the way the nice states conducts its political process. that allows for just so much money to come into that, that money becomes the only thing that matters. and that's how you could have not just it in this case, say with what's happening with the genocide in palestine and genocide and gaza. but on a host of issues, look at me 4 years ago. we add as many as 25000000 people out on the streets falling george woods desk, and that changed almost nothing. yes. i mean we see we see that with, with a host of other things. okay. it's a gun control legislation. how popular gun control legislation is with the american public, and yet nothing seems to be able to be done to just introduce what really are common sense gun control measures. so what we,

what this gets to though is the idea that we have to reform roommate redo the entire system. um that the i, as my friend mike fern or who runs veterans for peace says otherwise we're chasing around these mad men are serious with buckets of water as opposed to taking the matches away from them. and that's what i'm talking about. i understand it's very big, it's very severe, but otherwise we're going to be in a reactionary state uh for the rest of our lives. and we see where it gets us to. right, see, we see the what, what that means for us. we see what it means for the world. uh so, you know, one of the things though that the aspect of and people watching is i'm sure agree is the importance of independent media. is the importance of alternative media sources of 55 percent of americans according to gallop. a gallup polling last week or against a israel's military operations and god. so that's the way that it is. israel's

military operations, not genocide, but that's what it is. got 55 percent. if you have 55 percent of americans who are against what israel is doing in the context of the narrative, the propaganda, the story that the american media has been telling people the fact that almost all of our politicians are reading scripts, directory formulas really lobby the fact that 55 percent of americans are opposed what israel is doing that says a heck of a lot about what alternative and independent media are doing to inform people. and people understand. and so i would say to people, what they can do is continue to support programs like what john is doing, continues for other forms other or there are other sources of independent alternative media because that public information that public education is it has a very real effect on public opinion and the idea that that is somehow uh, this can continue uh, at least without the very let me say this,

at the very least at least it doesn't have the support of american people. yeah. which says a lot in which mail through we have an effect on the elections in 2020 is the license in november i. and if it has that effect that way, then you've now you've gotten around that money installation, right? because he, i think if you go and you look, you say, why did the, by the ministration choose besides this back to buy it and design is the believes and it sort of people. but the buy them is ration made a calculation in the fall. they're still making that calculation now to continue to support israel, even though public sentiment is against it, particularly in democratic party. while their calculation is at the money from israel. lobby is more important is about, well, if that can be offended in november, that could have a major impact on future administrations and their decision making. so this public education, public information, the helping people understand what's actually occurring is still very important.

you are active in a wide variety of important organizations from veteran intelligence professionals for saturday to the resistance center for peace and justice to world beyond war and the committee to defend julian assigned. what are you working on now? and uh, so i am the associated director for the eisenhower media network. uh, we are a collection of, uh for a military officers and intelligence officers who are you for diplomacy and fees? and uh, the purpose of our network is to get more voices like mine, like johns not, you know, folks have been there on it and seeing them taking part right into, into the media atmosphere, you know, in front of more people. because really i, as you can tell, listening me the last half hour. you know, this is where i really think is important is, is, is, is getting people understand, informing people, helping people realize what's occurring uh through the media. whether it be traditional media or independent media, a meant to that, not ho,

former state department official and marine corps veterans. thank you so much for being with us. mother, teresa once said that piece begins with a smile. it should be so simple. the truth is at peace, only comes when each side begins to fully understand the other side, ronald reagan, once the piece is not the absence of conflict, it's the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means. that is true. but that handling of conflict can only be achieved by understanding. we need more of that right now. thanks for joining us for another episode of the whistle blowers. i'm john kerry. our group will see you next time the. 2 2 2 the in

the headlines with off the international add on covering the horrors of war. bolden, 300 bodies of found that i'm not great, but a hospitalization, gaza after is ready for it is with approval from that area. an independent review says there's no evidence to box is rails claims that stop from the un relief, sidewalks agency. it's a part of the hamas october attacks. another organization size fits faces. similar to that, these are really kinda fine nations again, for me, because past procedures and i'm getting into as when you decided that the issue is not with the lack of information the kind of i to say things that all hopefully

clear out of our election.