often very dramatic development and getting to disease. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical. i'm time to sit down and talk with me turn welcome to well support. a ticket ago when historians were revisiting the origins of the 1st world war,

the term sleepwalking became very trendy in describing how divergent actors and self serving actors tangled together to produce one of the biggest catastrophes in human history. as the world enters yet another period of tribe. are we still some be leading, or are we being deliberately lot into an obese? well, to discuss that i'm now joined by benjamin abil, all author, all how the was brought war to ukraine. mr. abdullah was great. you see, thank you very much for your time. thank you. thank you for having me. now the title of your book, how the was brought war to ukraine is quite self explanatory and unambiguous. but the contrary in me wants to challenge it immediately, because after all, it was russia that launched this military operation on the ukrainian soil. and this is something that both decision makers and opinion shapers in the west are trying to frame as, as an act of aggression. that totally unprovoked act of aggression that goes

against international law. and i have to say there's some validity to this argument . why do you think it was the was that was the main driving force behind this conflict? one of the points i make in the book is to try to distinguish between what are referred to as proximal causes. the causes that immediately proceed to war. and the deeper causes that can extend back in history for there is no natural starting point for 1. 1 tries to establish a sequence of events. so that while i make clear that the immediate cause of the war was mister, prudent decided to launch the war. he and his military staff for whoever else in the kremlin, was intimately involved with decision. and that sense they bear responsibility for initiating the war. and if the war could have been stopped and preventative is at points that he bears responsibility. and of course, that the russians bear responsibility for how the war is being carried out. what i'm focusing on the book more is not so much the proximal causes but are for the

distal causes, the causes that extend further back in time. that are now kind of hidden from sight that may have been on the newspaper papers, you know, then the newspaper on the pages of the newspapers years ago. and have been forgotten. or they may never been on the pages of the papers at all. so it's, i'm focusing mostly on the distal causes and the causes leading up to the current moment. and you know, in your book i remind me reminded me a bit that just 1012 best seller by christopher clark on the origins of the 1st world war, this leap walkers and one of the reasons that book was so popular is because he tried to break the old paradigm of assigning a culprit than focusing on the who and the why. and instead, he was more interested in the structural dynamics of swelling, animosity when you observe on the way the, the winds develop on both sides of that line to do you think decision makers are

cognizant of how dangerous it could be? and perhaps of the historic lessons of the previous conflicts. yeah, that's a great way of framing. it was sleepwalking. i, i've would make just a couple of points 1st. i think i can't speak for the inner mind of the leaders, but just going from what statements i see being made publicly on both sides. i'm sure there's some cognizance of the threat of nuclear war and the danger of this getting out of control. i don't think there's enough, and that's my fear or, or one of the fears connect with this conflict. i'll also just a riff for a moment on your comment about world war one. i think very often in the west and, you know, different people have different opinions, but i think the mainstream view that's coming out of washington and in the media i is trying to impose the model of world war to a sort of hitler like expansionist. and unfortunately, there even some who refer to mister putin as the new hitler or whatever. and this

is i would call schoo warning a past event into a, a current event into a past model. some people referred as a pro chris, pro crusty in bed. and i think that the model that people is this actually more appropriate. and the greater concern is the model of world war one, where an uncontrolled arms race between, as it's usually described. and there's complications this, but none control arms raised between britain and germany through a series of events in a series of uncontrollable circumstances. contingencies led to the outbreak of a war that was a catastrophe. and i think there's a great danger that we may run into that kind of problem now. and it's that world war one model that needs to be attended to closely in the west. and also in russia, of course, what, how the united states to accumulate. they cannot make potential, and there are lots of people, not lots, but some analyst here in moscow who believe that the americans are interested in

having an and not their global conflict. as a way of overcome the, the multiplicity of comes off crises that we are facing right now. the question capitalism, the crisis of global governance, ecological crisis. what have you done? and i would claim that there are some historical precedents of that. i mean, i only klein's book the show doctrine clearly demonstrates how the capitalist aims could be served by the used by the sanction use of state violence. ultimately, is this a conflict about values as the by an administration claims, or is it a conflict about resources and, you know, getting preferential and keeping a preferential condition that the united states has accumulated as a, as a german. yeah, i, i don't see this conflict, so as being one over values. that's not to say that there might not be differences

in values between ah, you know, elements of us population or elements of the u. s. leadership and elements of the russian population in russian leadership that there may well be some differences, but i don't see this conflict as having to do with that. i see this primarily as really, frankly, a proxy war on russia's border that is being pursued by the u. s. than, than it, oh, powers. i, i think that there it's, it's not to say that it's all poorly intentioned. i think there are probably a range of motivations. some people probably are not seeing clearly, some people are probably very well intentioned, but are imposing outdated models and incorrect models in their interpretation of events. ah, but i think so. so i think the g, a strategic thing is very central. there are certainly people in elements in the u . s. deletes that. do want to weaken russia, you know, this whole question of a unipolar world. there is concern about that is the wolfowitz,

dr. and et cetera. et cetera. so i don't see that that's actually a, i don't like that i don't like what's going on with respect to that. as far as the financial, the monetary issues, you know, there certainly are questions built in the background about the, the role of us dollar is the international reserve currency. there's questions of course, about, you know, how international markets work. on the extent to which i've really thought about the financial elements of this is, i do believe there's actually much truth to the concern about a military industrial complex. and i'm sure your viewers are aware that this is a term that originally coined and popularized by president eisenhower, who's a 5 star world war, 2 general and hero. and in his farewell address to the american public, his final televised address. he warned the american public of the combination of military garak, democratic power and financial interest of the arms industry. and in fact, he even seemed like he was going to go so far as to bring in the question of

financial conflicts of interest within congress. but was told mister president, you can't go so far. so i think that there are conflicts, financial conflicts of interest and power, conflicts of interest that have played some role in motivating the western stances towards what's happening in your book. you make the point that for 200 years of the u. s. as defense policy, it was based, if not on the respect of done at least paying some attention to the opponents, red lines or secured to sensibilities. and that's when it came to russia. the united states and nato disregarded this, this principle. question number one, do you think they made that decision deliberately? was it a conscious choice? and why would they do that? given that again, russia is, is not some 3rd world country has nuclear weapons. it has a strong army, it has multiple resources. what do you think would be the, the ultimate goal of what do what they would be trying to achieve achieve if they

had their dreams fulfilled? yeah. so let me just back up one step before i try to respond to that. hopefully i won't lose lose the thread of your, your actual question has i do this. i just want to make a little clear the notion of the geography and the red lines. and the question of i referred to in the book the monroe doctrine is a doctrine course. it wasn't referred to as a doctrine initially, but it's based on a statement by then present. president monroe in 182003, that really at that time had to do with colonialism. but ultimately has been interpreted in different ways. having to do with the idea that a foreign power that places a potential opponent to places military forces anywhere near u. s. borders anywhere in the western hemisphere even knows it is crossing a road line. one can only imagine what would happen if, for instance, russia had formed an alliance with canada or mexico foreman cuba. is it that sense

or even you, right, which is right. yeah. cuba right? of course, and even that's further away than right on the border. and we could see during the cuban missile crisis, how aggressively the u. s responded, or i don't want say aggressively could be defensively. but how, what sort of intense fears of attack that aroused on the part of the united united states to recognize it as it's legitimate security interest. and i think everybody else, including the soviets, actually understood it. that's why they were a settlement. yeah. yeah, yeah. i think that's very true. so you know that there's a chapter in my book re call putting the shoe on the other foot by which i mean to say, how would the u. s. respond if russia or china, it's on something sort of equivalent, forming an alliance with, with canada and mexico. we saw what happened, even with respect to cooper, cuba off the coast. how about if was right on the border as ukraine or georgia or other places are right on russia's border? so i think it's very important to try to the opponent as your moral equal,

and that's what he has trying to say. but the united states clearly doesn't see as, as, as equals. yeah, i think there's some truth to that among many people in washington. i think another way to look at also is there's the writer and blogger, robert wright, who use the term cognitive empathy. and by that, what he means is sort of your ability to mentally or psychologically transpose yourself and the other issues the other person. and i would say, you know, i think there are people who you could say they have a very they have a view of russia as intrinsically evil than a hayton. they hate. there certainly are people like that. but i think they're probably others who i would simply say they've lack cognitive empathy by which i mean an inability to transpose themselves into the position of the other side and see how they would feel well, even to reverse the picture and see how they would feel hear this, i did the same thing, especially if the american own security doctrine doesn't allow for that. i mean, if you actually look at the american strategic documents,

there is no space for empathy of any kind. that there is a simple statement of had gemini, that needs to be protected, but which mr. abeline, let's continue this fascinating conversation. after a short break that we have to take right now. ah, for a look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the order given it by human beings, except where such orders a conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about official intelligence. the point obviously is to place a very job with artificial intelligence. real summoning

a robot must protect its own existence with ah welcome back to wells appointment. benjamin avalo also of how the west brought war to ukraine. mister abeline, when we began talking in the before the break about how the lessons of the world will, 1 may be relevant in considering the swelling crisis. but i think there are also many bursts that we haven't seen. and one of them would be, as far as i would claim, is the 1st the explosion at the north stream pipeline. the act of industrial

terror in something like this never happened before, even during the cold war. and also the, the nuclear threat, the, i'm sure you follow the, i know that you have a keen interest in nuclear 1st used to lobby congress on nuclear issues. and we all know that there is a huge nuclear station, right in the middle of this war zone. that is a nice, according to the russian narrative is being constantly shelled by ukraine. so let's consider this. first of all, i want to ask for your reactions on the, on the explosions are at the north stream pipeline, because every garland of cool on is to blame. i think it really our shift the frame because it introduces a new norm that though a side can one side can attack the industrial infrastructure. and 2nd of all, it also shows that in the area, nate, the naval control,

no infrastructure is safe and could be, are in fact vulnerable to industrial terrorism. well, i have many things to say about this. i'll try to keep it very brief. ah, and you'll keep me on track if i could go sad thing. yeah, i just, you throw a throw rock at me. i'm a 1st obviously, this is an extremely dangerous a movement. i'm not quite sure i'll call escalation, but let's talk a movement of conflict into another sphere where this was carried out by russia, by the united states, by other nato powers. i don't think anyone knows for sure yet, although i have an opinion of what i think is most likely. so as a starting point, i want to say that i think this is very dangerous and it could lead to a type of sort of escalation of attacks on, on infrastructure outside of the current battle field. and this, there's no end to this where this could go on. number 2, i want to make

a comment about the reasons why i think more attention needs to be taken to the possibility in the west of the united states is actually behind this. and then finally, i want to comment on something about the western media, which i've been extremely disappointed in. ok let's, let's make it one by one i. why do you think the united states may have some associations with that? apart from a secretary of state anthony blinking, presenting that as a great opportunity. yeah. well, i think the things are most persuasive to me are statements made by both president biden and by the under secretary of state for a affairs victoria newland. both of them are in the 1st period before the war started. ah, but when russia was ready massing on the border of both of the stated explicitly that they that the u. s. i have the actual quotations archie, read them, because i don't want to rely on what is the paper. i went back to the video which

anyone can find on line just search. mr. biden la north stream to, ah, we will end this pipeline, mr. by the state explicitly, this was made on february 7th at a press conference with the german chance of shots on the, on the podium with him. if russia invades that means tanks or troops crossing the border of ukraine again, then there, then there will no longer be a north stream too. we will bring it to an end. and then a member of the press said, ah, how will you do that exactly. since the project and control of a project is within german control, and mr. biden responded in a very knowing tone, i promise you will be able to do it in a separate presentation. victorian newland, the under secretary of state, stated if russia invades ukraine one way or another nord stream to will not move

forward. ok. i the, i think that those statements alone, they do not prove that the u. s. did it, ah, and i, but in an ultimate sense, i'm withholding any judgment with certainty. but i, in medicine there's something called prior probability. you look at the full constellation of data that's available before you can undertake a definitive diagnostic test. and you say, how likely is that that one party one disease or another disease or one party or another. and i would say that these statements were explicit statements about what would happen if russia evaded. and then russia invaded. and then this did happen. i would say this place is a high, a high prior probability that the united states was behind. this does not prove it, and i remain open to new evidence, but i think there should be much more concern than there is if this is what happened. but i think i need to make an important clarification for our viewers

that mr. barton made. that statement about nor stream to pipeline the new pipeline that russia constructed. where's the explosions took place? i've been north stream one pipeline, which still is pretty much still the same because that pipeline was intended and was, was intended to bring natural gas to germany as well. as to many other countries, now the americans like to talk about the solidity of the alliances, particularly that alliances with europe. and it's pretty clear to anyone who's, who knows anything about how industrial or is that german economy to large extent then many other european economies were built on the access to affordable russian energy sources. that's the very foundation or one of the foundations of the european prosperity. if we take on that hypothesis that the united states was behind it one way or another, or that it even sanctioned it that it approves of it which you know,

anthony blink and sat it explicitly that it's a great opportunity. what do you think would be? what do you think that would say about the american attitude towards if it's european allies, do you think they will be able to function to maintain the industrial capacity without having energy? yeah, well 1st, so let me just comment briefly on your point about nordstrom one versus nordstrom too. and i think that's an excellent point. one that i've not been focusing on, i do want to make what i think may be one small correction. unless there's some new news today, my understanding was it, at least as of yesterday, they were total of 3 explosions. are affecting both pipelines however, each pipeline has to is a double pipeline. so my understanding is that both of the, both of the pipelines of the duplex pipeline in north stream one were damaged and one of the 2 in north stream 2 were damaged. my suspicion is that the other one that whoever was planning this actually intended to hit all 4, but things get complicated. it

a 250 feet below the ocean surface. and so i think that is a valid point of the raising and, and perhaps it should make one a little bit less certain or little bit less confident that it was the u. s. and maybe it takes a little bit of pressure weight off the statements of biden newland. ah, what does it say about the relationships about it? if the u. s. it did in fact carry this out and i want to get to the press also. maybe you can focus my question after that. but what is the say about the relationship? if this happens? certainly the united states has long been opposed to the north stream to pipeline. certainly some people have pointed out that this if, if the north stream to pipeline ortho north stream, one also stopped operating that this would create tremendous markets, new markets for liquefied natural gas coming from the united states. certainly there, there could be influences along those lines. i am not quite so mercenary, and as cynical in my interpretation there, i think again that some of this may have come from what were, among some people,

at least, you know, well intentioned, that they correctly or wrong correctly or incorrectly had a deep fear of russia and did want not want a closer alliance between russia and germany. and they saw the supply of natural gas as a important element in. and one of the motivations that one could pause it would be, you could almost call it a desperate attempts to keep up russia and germany from developing a closer connection. that perhaps germany would be peeled off, so to speak, from the western atlantic alliance and move somewhat closer to russia. if in the winter, the german population began to become extremely uncomfortable with cold weather, et cetera, so on. so i think i'll leave it at that for the moment. now, before we go to the press, if you have time for, i want to use your expertise as a, as a nuclear expert, because this jason surrounding these approach nuclear plants,

as well as other nuclear capacities that ukraine has, is pretty troubling. and there are some times, at least in russia, i believe that the ukrainian leadership is using nuclear threat and the thread of nuclear accidents as a bargaining chip, not only with russia, but even more. so with the west. do you think these explosions are gas pipelines that may change the stance of the ukranian authorities or maybe the understanding of what's permitted and what is not? and when you ask was from it or what's not, are you have a specific type of attack in mind? well, it's pretty clear that an attack on their gas pipeline is pretty dangerous and not only in terms of ecological impact, but also you know, thank god nobody has suffered. but if there is a continued shelling on the nuclear station on the damage could be a far more significant then, yet both of these possibilities to represent

a case of an industrial terrorism. yeah. well of course ukraine is claiming that russia is shelling the yeah. while the russian forces are being stationed there, right, right. i again, i would say i withhold 100 percent judgment, but i find it rather implausible. the idea that russia will take over the plant and then shell its own forces and attempt to destroy the power plant except this, this for the nuclear reactor there, i don't really see what motives are i also, i think that it's true that within the ukrainian forces there is probably quite a range of players involved. although group such as the as of battalion or the far right, the quote unquote neo fascist or whatever names you want to use. certainly far right. highly nationalistic elements, although they've been more fully incorporated into the ukranian forces and they used to be, they used to operate to some extent, semi autonomously. i think there's probably still

a much wider range of and much less top down control than there might be. and i suspect that there is within the russian forces. so i think it's possible that there are either elements within the ukrainian forces. it could also be something really from central ukrainian government. but so i don't know the details there. i also know 100 percent. it's been years since i focused on some of these issues, whether an attack there could actually initiate a meltdown of the reactor or whether it's simply disposing radioactive material either way it would be a disaster. yeah. can i ask you something very quickly and we are running out of time very, very fast. but i don't know if you, if you heard this news, but just a few hours ago, the current president led him is events he called on a to, to strike russia preventively to neutralize the so called nuclear threat coming from russian by nuclear threat. i suppose he meant the russian nuclear capability. that's a, that's a statement that was interpreted in moscow and as an invitation to strike russian

nuclear capacity of russia, nuclear facilities. what do you think the chances of the west responding positively to something like that? i certainly hope not. i would like to believe that same voices will pertain in the west. look, this is soleski is in the middle of a war. ah, he's dealing with what i call imagine is extraordinary psychological stress and extraordinary precious from within his own government. and the fact that he is in that position, and that he perceives himself as the aggrieved party, ah, may lead him to make statements that are not at all prudent. for anyone they are not true to for ukraine's that are not pruned for the united states, and they are not prune for russia. so is certainly my hope that the us will not take any imprudent actions based on begging, pleading protestations or admonitions coming out of ukraine. ultimately,

united states exerts control of ukraine. we sometimes lose trace of that fact. ukraine makes a statement. we must have high mars, we must have long range, high mars. we must do x or y. the united states must acknowledge the simple fact that ukraine ultimately do whatever the united states wants to do. that's the simple fact for better for worse, that's the way it is. we are not controlled by mr. lensky. mrs. laskey ultimately is controlled by us. so there's no way in the world that the u. s. should be acting on every statement is mrs. lensky makes, and they certainly should not be acting on statements they could lead to rapid escalation and nuclear war. well, let's leave it at that. thank you very much for your time, and congratulations on the book. thank you. and thank you for watching cold to see her again on will the part ah with

mm ah, i mean with,

[000:00:00;00] with many in the west and ukraine celebrating the explosion on the crimean bridge. russia slums, the reaction as revealing to quote the terrorist nature of the kiev regime and is nato partners. pavilion areas up the next remain under ukrainian shelling as a local school is hits and the attacks on the store is the shape. the news this week, us lawmakers, slums, saudi arabia, royal back stabbers, following the opec close decision for slash oil outputs. we are,