called for breaking up russia to 3 parts. well, there are red lines so far. i mean, the, the u. s. has, and the bottom ministration has made a clear, doesn't want the, the landscape government to attack russia itself. so therefore, it has not given us the lensky medium range missiles that would allow to strike hundreds of miles inside russia. so yes, so, so the u. s. is, is still operating under certain limits and, and constraints. and i think that there are hawkish elements in the, in the u. s. military establishment and foreign policy establishment. who want to use the war to actually attack russia itself. right. by rob. this news i've met is often a boy because he's on the father for moving back on the top of the hour more. ah,

ah ah oh mm. mm. mm. hello and welcome to worlds apart, rushes massive. retaliation for ukraine's attacks on infrastructure has moved the one much closer to home for many of craniums, but is it persuasive or frankly frightening enough to change the character was not

only in here but also in washington? well, to discuss that, i'm now joined by a daniel about adjunct professor of international human rights at the university of pittsburgh school of moral prophetic of i think it's good to see you. thank you very much for being available. thank you for having me. now we are recording this conversation on monday afternoon, most good time when the full scope of the russian strikes implement. ukrainian infrastructure is still unclear, although i think we can all admit that it's extremely distressing. on the human level, seeing people sheltering in the subway running, destroyed down the streets. but i think in the olympic liam as a, as a former war correspondent, it's kind of predictable, especially in the light of sundays attack on the crimea branch as well as the previous attacks on the, on the russian gas pipelines. do you expect further escalation at this point, or do you think it will stop here?

unfortunately, i see this. yeah, it's very possible it's going to escalate further up. and i think largely because the west wants it to escalate, in particular the u. s. and the u. k, um, you know, i think the whole purpose from the western point of view for this war was to undermine russia to weaken russia in the way that the afghan war of the eighty's was intended to do the same to the soviet union. and it did actually have that, i mean, it succeeded to that extent. it's my perception that russia would be happy to end this thing. now, to up with those 4 republics that have voted to join russia, joining russia, crimea, staying with russia, leaving the rest of the ukraine and ending it there. now for her sake of all, this war has been going on for several years, but i think over the last couple of weeks we've seen a notable moving of the gold post and something that used to be off limits,

at least for the state. i'm talking about with industrial sabotage and industrial terrorism. seems to be pretty legitimate or at least normalized by the strikes on the russian gas infrastructure, as well as, according to russian intelligence. previously undisclosed to tax on a nuclear plant power plant in the russian city. of course, why do you think we are seeing such a rapid escalation to essentially terrorist tactics at this point of time? i think the u. s. in particular who's leading the charge here is getting desperate . i think they see russia winning this thing. i don't think they want to allow russia to have victory and so yeah, they're now turning to terrorist tactics. i think the attack on the north stream to pipeline was the most dramatic. and i, i'm assuming the us did, i obviously don't have proof though there is some evidence. anyway, there is some circumstantial evidence,

but i'm pretty certain us did do that. and what's important or dramatic about that is not only was that an attack against russia and attack against germany, right? i mean, it really what the u. s. i think intended to do there was to make it impossible for the natural gas to flow again from russia to germany and just they are for make in exit auction for russia more unlikely. so what we see is the us trying to cut off all avenues of exit from this conflict. that's what i think you're seeing happening. even in the united states is behind the attacks on the, on the pipelines. it's still carrying on teens a certain degree of plausible deniability, but when it comes to the crimea bridge explosion, i think the, the ukrainians are actively celebrating. and i mean they're so we're just not sure they're calling a national holiday on that occasion. and i think what as an additional detail to

this whole thing is that the explosion happened on the line and put in 70th birthday and was celebrated as a very dark present to him. i mean it's the ukrainians after all, for bearing the brunt, both in terms of casualties and in terms of the loss of infrastructure. why would they be so eager to, to go to well along with that? well, the question is, who's day? right? i don't think the ukrainian people, well, there may be some ukrainian people happy with it. but, but i mean, i think you have to talk about the ukrainian leadership, who's in charge of all this. and i don't think they really care about the ukrainian b. right. i mean, i think they are basically just tools of the united states. i think they're happy to be that. and i think they see that no matter what happens there are lands find zalinski ill, be

a billionaire somewhere on that island or something. so they're willing to do crazy things, even things that hurt their own people to at least continue to have favor with united states. that that's how i view anyway. but they know that the well and the russians making a secret of that, russian intelligence services have per day along hands, as we say here in russian lighting important is usually pretty straight forward and expressing his intentions. a couple of weeks ago, he explicitly said that the russian is going to retaliate and retaliate strongly that tax on its land on its infrastructure continue. and yet everybody seems to have ignored that warning. why do you think i put in is not being taken seriously? neither here nor in washington. i think he's being taken seriously. i mean, obviously he warned about the intervention in february. you said that was going to happen if these red lines were crossed and they were crossed. why?

because the west wants this war. i mean, let me clear the u. s. wanted this war to be good with. they crossed the red lines in order to make sure the war happened. and now, i think they see the escalation is working to their benefit. because what, what kind of benefit? because, i mean, we're actually talking about russia that has pretty strong weapons that has a much better equipped army the, than the soviet union have. clearly put in has shown that he is willing to use that army or those weapons to defend russia's. what do you think the american council is here? that it will trigger the right of, of the nato to respond more aggressively against russia in what way? so i have learned incursion, of need or interaction. do you think nature is up for that? really, there's probably someone in washington for that. i think that's probably not the prevailing view, but no, i think they want to suck russian further into you and to attack russia,

they are obviously potent is mobilizing what 300000 reserve us in the ukraine. well, that's 300000 potential russian targets, right? for nato. i mean, the more this goes on, the more this escalates the more they're going to have. the chance to um, take more russian lives and treasure. that is the goal here. there is an opinion here in moscow that one of the key reasons for being where we are today is the complete loss of fear on the part of some washington decision makers. i mean, the kind of fear that prevented the russia or rather the soviet union and the united states, stumbling into a major nuclear confrontation during the cold war that here is ass. and do you think this late a series of strikes can bring that here and back what you think it would be fully north in washington?

i'm honest. see shocked at the lack of fear about just in washington, but honestly in the streets of the united states. i grew up during the 1st cold war i'm, i grew up in the seventy's. i grew up in the eighty's and i is crazy. as our leaders could be as crazy as ronald reagan could be. they seem to at least want to prevent a nuclear war. and there was a large peace movement who was demanding that that never happen. right. now we have leaders who seem, as you say, comfortable with the idea of a possible nuclear conflict. and we have a population in the united states. it doesn't seem to give a day. there is no peace movement that's on the streets. at a time when we know when our own president, our own president said, we're on the verge of a nuclear. she said these words, he didn't say he had a plan to stop it or prevent it. he just said we're on the verge. and the response

was crickets? sure. as we say, no say. it's the most bizarre thing i've ever witnessed in my life. i mean there's something very wrong in america. i say that very, very dangerous as well. you mentioned the nuclear, the possibility of a nuclear apocalypse. and just before the start of the russian military ration in the ukraine, the ukrainian politicians openly discussed a possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons, including a dirty bomb. this is something that led to ms. lewinsky, the president of ukraine, mentioned, don't believe the minute security conference, and none of the western leaders that commented on that did despite the fact that there will formally subscribe to the regime of non proliferation. given that everything seems to go when it comes to fighting against russia, do you think there is indeed a danger that the ukrainians will think in that direction?

as we say here in russia that they will not stop attacking a critical infrastructure of objects here in russia, but actually go for something that would really provoke fear in the west and bring the west to the ukrainian help in, in a more active way. well yeah me, i think for the reason you say that i do think they're willing to do it. if you look at zalinski words, when he talks about the west should engage in a preemptive strike against russia for example. and as you say, mentioned the sturdy bomb idea and frankly the ukrainians are already kind of carrying out this 30 attempt by shelley the nuclear power plant, right, which they've been doing for months. this is becoming a suicidal conflict and yeah, very disturb. i'm very word and as i say, i'm equally horrified by the lack of response by

people in the united states to say, hey, stop this. well, this is actually a very interesting question of who is calling the shots in care every time there are some moderate successes on the battlefield. washington is eager to claim the credit, but after a recent series of terrorist attacks, dividing the administration side, the key for is fully independent in decision making and target selection. i want to how much influence a thing washington has on its allies and care? i think they're in charge. i think the u. s. u k are running this war and yeah, i mean, they're just doing what a lot of people do in life. they take, they take credit for the good things and they deflect blame for the bad things. but they're in charge, they're in charge for the good. and the bad mom, dad is very clear. this is a nato operation against russia. let's just be very clear. that is what this

conflict is about. and the core ukrainians are the cannon fodder that nato is using for this conflict that that's what is happening. well professor, come out like we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments. stay tune ah ah ah ah

ah ah, welcome back to will department daniel kovachick adjunct professor of international human rights at the university of pittsburgh school of law, professor kabbalah despite the fact that you believe that the it's and not only you but i guess a lot of people around the world, if he's i interview, believe that the united states is a driving force behind this conflict. i think we can the place our bad. we are going to hear lots of western decision makers accusing russia, yet again, of unprovoked aggression and the gross violation of international law. given your experience actually lead to gating international law, do you think they have

a case in this? in this particular case, the truth is what the attack civilian infrastructure, whoever does it, that's a war, right? that's violation the geneva conventions, and i think both sides are doing it. i do think russia has tried over the last months to avoid doing that. but now i think they feel in retaliation they, they want to do that. i think there's under international law. the truth is there really is not a justification for attacking civilian infrastructure, even retaliation, right. so the answer is, yeah, there's a case to be made for sure, but there's also a case to be made against here for numerous assaults, against civilians and civilian infrastructure. and there's also cases to be made, of course for the u. s. to be tried as well in multiple theaters, right?

but what we see, of course, is we have an international system just frankly, is not fair, but that generally operates to the benefit of the west in the u. s. in the us acts with impunity and but others are not right. others are punished for what the us does. so i mean, i think go, we'll see, i'm sure there will be some international cases that come out of this. my guess is they will be focused on russia. ok. but will say, i'm sure you know that quinton is a lawyer by training. and if we listen to his fishes and he has this legally serving taishan, he always tries to make a legal justification for his action. but in this case, can clearly judge that the use of high precision weapons would be the most persuasive argument. and that makes me a wondering, even if a person like putting who someone say in russia has an, an unhealthy attachment to,

you know, legal is precision. if he ignores that international law, do you think the international law matters at all in this age? it hasn't mattered for a long time. i mean is the truth. let's face it, it's always been essentially the tool of the strong to rule the week. i mean, that's a fact i teach international law, right. and so for me to say that is kind of a, a huge concession because i'm saying that the law teaches is fairly meaningless. but let's face it is, i mean, i mean, just to throw out some examples. the one of the main biggest international on cases ever one of the most seminal cases is the net case of nicaragua versus the united states in which nicaragua want to case before the international court of justice against the u. s. for its. busy war that it waged against nicaragua in the 198

through the country. and the u. s. simply ignored the decision and even said ok, well now we're not even going to submit to the jurisdiction of the international court of justice unless we want to. that is, we'll just decide what cases i will be subject to. well, that's not law, right? i mean, when you just pick and choose what laws and we see this, you know, over and over, i think another big inflection point was the nato war on serbia, which had no basis international law, which did not have security council authorization. and then of course, you had the 2nd gulf war as well, no security council authorization. so international laws been, you know, it's been widowed down over time to the point that it's not impactful. it, again, particularly against the stronger states just used against 4 countries, right?

that's just the fact that the united states still, i think, to some extent, cares about their, the core, the public opinion. and i think one of the time owners message that it uses is to sort of try to narrow the scope of any conflict then presented as a, as a conflict between blood thirsty, a tyrant on one side on one side. and you know, this free loving people on the other side of the united states supports because of the goodness of the american heart and that shared values. and we've seen that theme narrative and chris being tried over and over again and disproven on many occasions. but i wonder if people that the teach at the university of people around here in pennsburg form more broadly in the united states still by the united states does a good thing for, for the benefit of freedom and liberty. and i think largely they do. yes,

i mean, that is what i see. it's called american. exceptional is right to the u. s. is this unique country. it's to speak and on the hill, it's the indispensable nation. is obama. but i, i think that is, that is in the dna of, of most americans, even when the u. s. does bad things, even when they know that their country does a bad thing in vietnam or whatever, they just write it off as an aberration. but believe that is, you know, essentially we're a good nation that acts you know, out of good intentions. and that's what allows the us to get away with what it gets away with. also, the american people i find, are more willing now than ever to frankly believe absurdities and lives. for example, that russia blew up its own pipeline,

that russia is shelling itself at the nuclear power plant. that right russia maybe even blew up its own. you know, crimea bridge these lies are being paddled constantly in the news in the, in the u. s. and people seem to basically believe that even though they make no sense . and that's scary too. so yeah, i mean, i've said for many years that the americans are the most in the a lot in the, a low jives people in the world. and i believe that to be true. you know, the western way of life, western thinking, at least in the rest of the world, is perceived as sort of very rational and materialistic people are supposed to care about, you know, the profits and the bottom line, you know, nothing personal, just business. and i think you also develop this thesis in some of your writing

readings that, you know, it's all about money after all, that the military industrial conflicts and what have you. but if you look at the structure of the american society and the people, you know, the consequences of the recent crisis, people already feeling it. i mean the, the chickens came home home to rule the americans are feeling the pinch themselves . and yet, for some reason the message doesn't last, it's very difficult to explain that from a rational point of view. so i wonder if you still believe that this, this war is because of money primarily, or is it perhaps lead by some other one know, knows what, what, which emissions is certainly about body. it's certainly about, you know, lining the pockets of the defense contractors. that's a big part of it, but it's not just that, it's also about the u. s. wanting to stay in control to be the only super power in the world at which means undermining russia. of course, ultimately,

undermining china. they haven't quite gotten to that point, but they see russia, you know, the road to china runs through russia here on that score. but also they see that you is another competitor that they want to under bond, which they are doing, right. they use it much worse shape than, than the u. s. so i think it's about dominance as well. and about empire preservation. the u. s. is a dying empire and it's desperately clinging to its empire at this point. present like we talked about the united states. so we discussed russia, we discussed the ukraine. let's talk about the rest of the world. the kremlin is now trying to frame its own cause as a broad fight against had demonic, neo colonialism. acknowledge is the 1st and foremost that pursues its own national interests,

economic and political independence and sovereignty. but i think putting in many of his speech a stress is that ultimately that 5 is also creating the ground more and more democratic international system. do you think there is any support for this kind of car within the larger and not knowing the western world? i do, i think in it that's being reflected in the un votes. i mean what you're saying is that it's really, you know, the u. s. canada, western europe, japan and australia. they're on their own against russia. really, the rest of the world is not in even you see, saudi arabia now closing up the russia. oh thing out. but the buying and the russian oil that used to be destined for the western market, they're buying it for roubles, the russian roubles. yeah, and the u. s. is furious about and this is one of their closest allies. so look,

here's my car. in the u. s. has been doing what it was without recriminations, certainly since the collapse of soviet. right. it's gone to war. wherever it's wanted to go to war without security council authorization. and. and i think the world's tired of the work, the rest of the world is tired of the united states. and so i think they are excited honestly, one from an emotional point of view to see the us getting kicked in the teeth a little bit. but also because the u. s. uses, you know, the dollar dominance to, oh, you know, to sanction other countries to try to control other countries. the most of the world's happy that there's another systems emerging that they can be

a part of that they don't have a trade on the golf. for example, they're happy that they can trade with over countries like russia and china. iran that they don't have to be totally beholden to the united states. and that's actually a very important point that that gives them a certain degree of freedom a. this is a thesis that i heard one from the russian analysts put out that many of those countries, they have very different social and political values and customs. but they're sort of a matter of value for all of them. and that is the freedom of choice and they ask people can choose their own path and develop according to their own national destiny, rather than american self serving prescriptions. but i guess the last question i want to ask is, do you think the washington will ever authentically accept other people's rights to differ and right to develop as, as they wish. i don't see that is happening. sadly, i was more optimistic,

maybe at some point the u. s. could be reformed in that way that the u. s. could become a kinder and gentler nation news. george h. w. bush, his words i. i don't see it really possible in the near future. i, i think, i think now the hope for the world is that the power of the u. s. declines enough that it stops being a threat to the world. i just think that's it. in that, in the multi poll world that's emerging as part of that solution. so that's it. i mean, that's, i think, in that sense, russia sees the conflict correctly in our way that, that the u. s. needs to be checked in a way that is not for a long time. well, i hope that check happens without that another world war. but before we go into

that subject, let's leave it here. that would be more optimistic. thank you very much for your insights today. thank you. thank you for watching hope to sir, again on well, the part with . mm hm. what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy even foundation, let it be an arms race is often very dramatic. development only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical time time to sit down and talk

with me in the care of regime has placed itself among the most a tories international terrorist organizations throughout accuses the queen of terrorism. and attacks against nuclear power stations, i'm the, the explosion on the crimea bridge. i'm following up with the, to the return fee strikes on you couldn't emergency communication and energy infrastructure as an investigation into the build fee and pipeline telecom continued amid accusations of direct us involvement. the energy gas bonded.