the united states has announced as was told from the historic nuclear arms treaty with russia how serious of a setback for two countries relations and global security. contributing editor of the nation magazine professor emeritus at princeton university and author of the book war with russia stephen calling. congress leaders of russia. iran calls for a new face to face meeting. out of the. nuclear security cold war. doesn't.

seem uncommon contributing editor of the nation magazine professor emeritus as a christian university welcome to the show great to have you with us as usual it's been a while the things change so we've got a lot to talk about i mean last time trump and putin met in helsinki. there were such big hopes there really really big hopes. that something would come out of that relations will improve but not much really came out of the summit and got a lot of flack at home for a meeting they were russian leader i mean it's hard to expect a major breakthrough this time around in paris what do you think. well there's a big struggle everybody knows about it going on in washington over trump's policy toward russia. it would seem and this has been the case i think you and i talked back then when he was a candidate that he said he wanted to cooperate with russia we used to call that detente and that's been pretty much his policy overall policy since he became

president but he's also done contradictory things and the question is are these contradictory things the result of his own inability to be a consistent leader or are people in washington preventing him from doing what he wants to do with russia that's the big question at the moment what do you think is it him is it is it he's like a mask of. portraying himself as someone who appreciates put in but then you know behind the doors he does whatever he does or is it really he's helpless and he has to do what that ministration tells them to do. i guess i've been following for soviet in a russian american relations for nearly forty years i don't put a lot of weight or importance on whether the two leaders like each other or not the real question is do they see in the other a partner a partner for their own politics a partner for their own national security that so for whatever reason trump thinks

it's extremely important to have a detente like relationship with putin now remember one thing it's forgotten here the three major episodes of the time and in the twentieth century were all done by republican presidents correct eisenhower nixon and reagan trump is a republican president maybe a strange republican who but a republican so he's in the republican tradition on the other hand you have him in washington today i think more than i've ever seen in my long adult why. time following this such demonization of russia and putin in particular but such any russian feelings and lobbies with almost no pro russians. lobby that trump looks to be almost alone look what happened when he withdrew from the i.n.f. treaty this was the big stuff this was what we did actually talk about ryanair

agreed to report here and the and withdraw all in detail before we get to that you just hit it on the nose because putin has been invited to visit washington in early two thousand and nineteen who what is the white house hoping to get out of this visit seeing how mr putin is so demonized like by the american elite like you said and the press. i agree with you completely if i understand what you're suggesting to me i think it's a bad idea not that having the leader of russia in washington in general is not a good idea we remember past visits or even boom was here earlier in his leadership and we remember the welcome the gorbachev got it can be very positive but sophie i tell you you must know sitting in moscow you must sense that we are in an unprecedented situation the bad feeling the hatred the loathing of rush or at least the kremlin or putin in the united states is so strong it's hard to imagine what's

going to happen when mr putin and president putin comes there i don't think it's the greatest idea they'd probably be better off continuing to meet in foreign capitals capitals but you mentioned the treaty of trump ministration wants to pull out of the u.s. russia treaty banning short and mint range nuclear missiles but judging by the latest examples like nafta a for instance attempts to deal with north korea and the tariff war with china transpersonal art of the deal can be described as break first and then create a problem and then find a solution on his terms in case of iran after eighty are we seeing the same game play out here. maybe i think you're right it is possible we don't know if this decision announced to leave and trump announced it and then his national security advisor john bolton announced it again and moscow so our lee appears that the united states is going to submit the documents i think you have to give six months

prior warning according to the treaty that you're withdrawing so i you're right it may be part of a quote strategy or an art of the deal as you say to renegotiate the treaty in a way that washington thanks morse makes more sense but let us focus on the moment sophie because you know this because your grandfather was involved in this edvard shover nazi in one thousand nine hundred eighty seven thirty years ago thirty one years ago. president reagan and then soviet leader gorbachev did something historic that has never been done since they abolished an entire category of nuclear weapons now new an army think that nuclear abolitionism getting rid of all nuclear weapons however wonderful that idea is never going to happen but imagine remember the precedent set thirty years ago when the two leaders of the two nuclear

superpowers abolished for the first time then and ever and the entire category of nuclear weapons so that was the first active nuclear abolitionism what trooper's done now is abolish that president of abolitionism so symbolically politically strategically historically this is a turning point if they're serious about this and we ought to hope that they're not that they want to new treaty in its place that might include china that might include weapons that russia is developing right also so don't miss the historic moment so for the let's let's let's go through that indeed how about for us i just want to point out to some of the russian military people and politicians here believe that the treaties related to nuclear disarmament where unfair and were signed on bad conditions during hard times in russia's history but now surprisingly we see the american establishment also says dan after a b. is unfair or so they say because it damages national security has this treaty

really run its course has it lost its value today like you said maybe a new treaty is needed actually in stat. i will give up my point that what was done in one thousand nine hundred seven signed in and implemented abolishing these weapons was historic absolutely a story a precedent that gave us hope for the future now i agree with one thing that bolton sad because it's true when gorbachev and reagan and your grandfather participated very centrally in that decision in one hundred eighty seven we were in a bar lateral nuclear world and today we're in a multilateral monthly or world that is back then only two nuclear superpowers had these kind of weapons now a lot of countries maybe as many as six seven eight have these so-called intermediate range weapons so the treaty only affected two countries but if somebody needs repair but it's good you try to fix it i mean if you have an

illness you go to a doctor you don't commit suicide you say to the doctor let's fix it or you have a car that store runs well but it needs a new carburetor you replace the carburetor you don't jump the car so the question is yes there are complications with the treaty but it is so important why not bring in china or try to or why not agree with moscow that is my place in violation to there that is my problem because you hear it in the americas a debate and sergey lazarro sat that the real reason for the u.s. withdrawal from the end of treaties actually chinese made range missiles which the u.s. sees as a threat to its position in asia pacific is strong by was drawing from this treaty hoping to put some pressure on china really not russia maybe and you're right and whoever you quoted is right china cause it is still operating as

a regional. not as a global power it's a merging as a global power but it's still operating preached as a regional power likes these missiles now let's remind your audience what these missiles are they are called intermediate range it's a little bit what does it mean intermediate well there are these battleground tactical nuclear weapons that are like artillery shells short range then there are these monsters we all know about from the movies that can fly from russia the united states the united states to russia those are intercontinental and the intermediate range is like i forget the kilometers but in miles five hundred miles the five thousand model so basically they target in europe that's where they were based in europe was the bull's eye and the politics of getting rid of them was centered in europe as it will now be again but china now comes to this story newly

so any agreement would have to include china would that be hard it would be very hard but given the close relationship between russia and china today it's possible why not try and the answer is because of the politics not the security thing but the politics in washington today in one word i am this month publishing the new book called war with russia with a question mark and the theme of the book and i put it in personal terms is that the first time in my long life at least since the cuban missile crisis of one thousand nine hundred eighty two i think there's a real chance a war between the united states and russia and we can't assume that if that happens it won't end in nuclear war so that's why this moment you and i are discussing sophie is so important well on that very dire note holder thought there were going to take a short break we'll be back with steven cohen contributing editor of the national

magazine professor emeritus at princeton university. talking about the implications of the u.s. withdrawal from the i naturally for the global security say words. seem wrong well we just don't all. get to shape our. culture. and in again it was betrayal. when so many find themselves worlds apart we choose to look for common ground.

there's no abode around break here and no one to know why says terrorists plain. old bad memories. twenty four years ago this country's soul a real end of the world. after the genocide there a mob women in rwanda that man. fell to women to fix what the men had broken. i've been saying the numbers mean something a matter of us is over one trillion dollars in debt more than ten white collar

crimes happen each day. eighty five percent of global wealth you longs to be ultra rich eight point six percent market saw a thirty percent rise last year some with four hundred to five hundred trade first circuit first second and bitcoin rose to twenty thousand dollars. china is building a two point one billion dollar a i industrial park but don't let the numbers overwhelm. the only numbers you need to remember is one of the one business shows you can't afford to miss the one and only boom box. and we're back with stephen cohen contributing editor of the nation magazine professor and the reddest at princeton university talking about u.s.

russia tensions so we signed else. talking about china partially why hasn't this deal i.m.f. been proposed to china so far i mean u.s. national security has a jump out and says russia and the u.s. need to hold strategic talks about china missiles which pose a potential threat to russia as well that's what is that that's how he put it today maybe washington is seeking to pick moscow and beijing against each other where you remember or i i don't want to make you older than you are you you won't remember but you've read about it that during the nixon year the idea was to play the so-called china card against the soviet union to china toward washington and away from moscow and the rest there is no china card any longer the old kissinger idea that you could play off china against russia is gone russia and

china are becoming perhaps a story kallaugher is economically politically militarily strategically this has happened due to a lot of factors however you're right i mean china now has to be included in any new nuclear arms arrangements that involve these regional or intermediate intermediary misses my own feeling is that the struggle over china policy in washington is almost as intense over russia policy though it's less so because of our dependence on trade with china the real question in my mind is what the russian leadership wants to do now if they really want to save this treaty it's the kremlin i mean the putin leadership. that could negotiate first with china about whether china would join but here's the problem solve all

international politics is reaction. reaction to a perceived threat if china perceives itself as being threatened by american strategic power in its region it is never going to give up these regional warheads and missiles so russia in my mind becomes the key actor here and we will see i just don't mean you have let's be honest you have in moscow not you personally but russia has people who are very happy about what trump did they want to build these weapons anew and we have the same kind of people in washington who are happy who want to build these weapons and no i don't know the political situation in china but to a certain extent there is a lot of political or financial power behind any decisions that leads to building more weapons and we're already in a new nuclear arms filled defense a lot will we be and then there we are aryans the europeans and they really are

unhappy about the us to the point fearing that they will once again become law again the miss elliston of which russia and america can europeans flat out refuse to play as american weapons on their territory for once in their lives can they do something on their own well back in the one nine hundred eighty s. it was the europeans where american missiles were these missiles were based and which were targeted by the russian intermediate range missiles the ones that the treaty got rid of that are now coming back it was european politics that was partially driving the the detente the disarmament forces now what do you see first of all we have to have question. washington calls european nato countries our allies did trump consult with european leaders before he left history doesn't seem so secondly you're right the europeans are upset they don't like it

they're protesting why because they know they will be targeted so you raise a central question will european politics now play a role and what happens and i would mention only one thing to you what we say if we sit back and look at the bigger picture is europe's lonely drifting away from washington in regard to russia everybody says oh it's trump it's because he's such a bad president this began long before trial it began partly over syria where russia turned out to be corrupt so the question is will this new step by trump to leave a treaty that protected europe it did protect europe in the absence of these missiles these weapons will this now further push europe away from washington and continue its drive politically i mean for moscow this is very important as well so the trumpet ministration has actually done much more than just

the withdrawal announced withdrawal from the i.m.f. treaty to annoy europeans think iran do collapse made the europeans suffer as well now the i.m.f. collapse makes them less safe like you sat there some of a trade war which will hit the e.u. harder that it will hit america has occurred and ministration gotten into a habit of scoring points and europe's expense the united states under many presidents has a long and growing have it of break in its treaty and other promises now the united states says it's going to leave a treaty again. after all the united states left the even more important antiballistic missile treaty bush withdrew in two thousand and two that was the bedrock of russian and american national security that was folly that's what led to this deployment of missile defense on russia's borders that is what led to russia

developing the kind of missile that washington is now complaining about it goes back to two events that are historical but also contemporary the decision by clinton to move nato eastward toward russia and bush's decision to leave the antiballistic missile treaty in two thousand and two everything has a history but what grow but shaw phone reagan did with the help of your grandfather when he was foreign minister was to establish a new kind of trust thirty years ago it's gone. it's gone in a more dangerous world now. and then there is the. start treaty i know it's bad news the treaty about strategic nuclear missiles that expires in two thousand and twenty one you know back in two thousand and seventeen trump says that the deal was one sided and bad so i'm sure they i now have treaties almost dad can the start treaty be dumped as well. you know you're giving me very upset because you're right

you're pointing out where all this may lead we're talking today about one treaty the trump the struggle over this leaving the i.m.f. may not be over as you said maybe it's a bargain ploy art of the deal by trade but let's assume it's over it obviously is going to raise questions about the you know whether the united states on the one hand will want to renegotiate the start treaty that has to start soon but to the point i just made sophie in moscow among serious people not crazy people who don't want any agreements with the west but serious people they're going to ask again can we trust the united states to add here to any treaty it signs including a new start treaty so a kind of cloud of mistrust and suspicion and uncertainty has come over the one element of our law gives us access to that is nuclear weapons so you're right we

don't know i'm just also trying to figure out the thinking behind all of this right so in a context where they i now have to start all those treaties were born out of mutual necessity out of mutually assured destruction threat philosophy. and it's not going to be there anymore with these deals now in question do you think america is not concerned about the russian nuclear threat anymore this also what it's all about. you know when i was writing this book wondering that came to my mind that i had noticed but as i thought about it it hit me loud and clear that a generation ago. we were worried about nuclear weapons and nuclear war all the time just look at the movies that were made back then in russia and in the united states the fear of the apocalypse the fear that somehow intentionally or unintentionally a nuclear war would in civilization i mean our kids grew up with that it was part

of our lives we don't hear much about it i don't know in russia but in the united states we haven't heard much about it for the last fifteen or twenty years this begins with clinton when he tells us because the soviet union is gone everything's great when everything wasn't great and everything got worse but there's not in the united states and hasn't been i would say for fifteen or twenty years this concern about nuclear weapons russian and american that something could go horribly wrong now here if we're looking for a bright spot and it's desperation on my part maybe what trump has done withdrawing from this really important treaty that protected all of us will rahlves in the united states. a remembrance and a reef aching about the danger of nuclear war for example we used to have in american politics a very strong so called anti nuke movement at the grassroots

people rank and file said citizens ordinary citizens who participated in politics against nuclear weapons that disappear that movement might what trump has done real way or bring that movement back in america maybe we don't see it yet well maybe the keyword here and also like in the first half of the interview that the arms race is already going on he actually mentioned this in your latest book as well war with russia so last time we took several decades of nuclear arms race and a couple of scary incidents before us and soviet leaders came to realize that nukes must be limited and controlled are we in for a rough ride for the next two decades again are we going to repeat history before us and russia will actually come to their senses and reach another agreement. well once again you're way ahead of me with the right questions those are the right

questions do we have tom to go through a generation of consciousness raising before we now deal with these nuclear threats my answer would be no we do not have to. explain i hope why in this new book i have because this new cold war is very different and more dangerous than was the preceding cold war personally i think and this gets me attacked in the united states that putin is such a leader that he is ready and willing for a grand detente with the united states what he sold mistrusted in the united states it's not clear that there's any american leader who would embrace putin as a partner though it seems trump wants to do so so that really how we're right on our i really hope you're right there is no our terms of steve that's all the time we have unfortunately for today thank you once again for this wonderful interview it's a pleasure as usual we're expecting you fareed sometime soon in moscow take aerosol

say had a catherine we were talking to steam coin contributing editor of the nation magazine professor emeritus at princeton university and author of the book war with russia discussing what the u.s. pullout from the an afternoon will mean for global stability that's it for this edition of so. maybe just maybe there is some hope for yemen and globalist suffered a major defeat in brazil. much much more on this edition of crushed.

ministry's police forces in the city administrations of many countries depend on one corporation that does what mike was hoping the board doesn't run from on the rise of the god of this company this dom is going to going to go through the. woods as the three that is up on him to see it's just a little bribing them proprietary software you don't know the source code isn't that a such a security risk when you have a black box operating in the public eye to microsoft dependency puts governments under a cyber threat and not only that i think office can put us in more on that song because softness of the sense of this is selling this is also clearly one of the more vocal almost like the wall in the midst of all of this all of those with all these and all this in the arsenals of the home study done with the all business

stopped and there was listing of all the as a fund is up and describes in the fine. you know world of big partisan move a lot for us and conspiracy it's time to wake up to dig deeper to hit the stories that midstream media refuses to tell more than ever we need to be smart or we need to stop slamming the door on the back and shouting past each other it's tolerance for critical thinking it's time to fight for the middle for the truth the time is now for watching closely watching the hawks.

what. if he or she has a choice they can either do one hundred eighty degree turn from its outlook or should actually tree bark and see its economy crumble. the usa imposes all sanctions against iran that when lifted his path of the twenty fifteen nuclear deal they target two wrongs oil and banking fact says with washington also pressing penalize foreign companies doing business with the country. and they believe that either.