levine has declined to comment. a local press tv correspondence has more on mondays incident at about 2 pm local time. here in damascus, syrian capital damascus heard sounds of last an explosion. i've heard them. i was driving my car. i are traces of syrian air defense massage in the air or ford and ask us so which turned out to be an a rated strike according to an official military source which hit various parts of damascus and its countryside through an air defenses were able to intercept several m. e m a solid. however, some of them hit their positions and injured to military personnel and caused some material damage. it's not actually expected to see western media sitting light and focusing on fox news that is attacking new. yeah, we all know that there has been international silence over such attacks on syria

by israel. the international community has not been issuing any even condemnation on such attacks, despite the fact that such it's really a trice, are undermining serious sovereignty or prolonging the crisis and syria. there are again, international law and against the un charter. but yet, we have not heard of any condemnation by any western countries over such attacks. that's all for now. for sure. check out r t dot com for all of the leave is breaking news and updates. we'll see you right back here at the top of the hour. ah ah mm

hm. to welcome to worlds apart. the 60th anniversary of the cuban missile crisis, which for this month might have been of interest only to specialist historians if it weren't for the renewed confrontation between moscow and washington. with the spread of nuclear strikes, making a come back into the public consciousness. can we still learn anything from the way the 2 nations dealt with potentially apocalyptic animosity back in 1962? well, to discuss it, i'm now joined by norman solomon, executive director of for the institute for public accuracy, author or war made easy. how presidents and pundits keep spinning us to death. mister solomon is great to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. thank you. now i know that you were born in the early 1950 sam grew up in the

washington d. c suburb. so i assume your childhood was colored by the years of my mushroom cloud when you compared the current situation to the events of your childhood, which i know you started professionally. which parent do you think is more dangerous? yeah, well i rely on a lot of the experts such as the bulletin of atomic scientists in the last decade. the danger have been more and more extreme in terms of global nuclear war. and we see just in this year that in the 10 months or so since they both made this last assessment, which was quite dire, the worst and decades it's gotten even more dangerous situation. so subjectively, we've all, i think grown up with these fairs, if we're paying attention, but in terms of expertise. and those who assess with great background and

professional knowledge, were now at an extreme danger point, perhaps even more dangerous than 60 years ago during the cuban missile crisis. you know, i was looking through some of the letters that make it a cash offer and john f kennedy exchanged at that time and i was struck by the sense of shared responsibility that the were in those letters. for example, president kennedy is track that the united states is very interested in diffusing tensions and limiting the arms race. general secretary khrushchev was calling for, stayed with them and suggesting that both sides need to resist as cal atoria dynamics. do you think that mutual sense of both impending danger and sharing beauty is present today? one of the most disturbing aspects of what we're facing now here in the autumn of 2022 is the absence of exchange of information and any semblance of authentic diplomatic dialogue where there are great differences of opinion. i have

great differences of opinion with our team, for example. and yet i think some discussion about the overarching dangers of nuclear war are absolutely crucial because let me just to step back for a moment in terms of overall perspective. the best scientific information says that a thermonuclear exchange, for instance, between the and i, states in russia, would result in nuclear winter as its been called. and as a consequence, 99 percent of the human beings on this planet would die within a year or so if we step back and we say only one percent of the human beings on this planet would be alive after a few months of nuclear exchange. that helps us put in perspective, what does that steak right now? and so when we hear talk list talk coming from the kremlin about use of nuclear

weapons, that is absolutely important. and i say this as somebody who has worked very strongly for decades now to oppose us no interest to oppose yes for escalation of nuclear war. and so for us, we are putting to say that hiroshi and not saki, our precedence is an absolutely unhinged and extremely dangerous statement to make . there is one of the presidents of the united states using nuclear weapons, the only country in history to do that. and when you say the, what does that mean? that means that the united states is on record of using nuclear weapons. and what you describe as he's loose talk, he never said, let's last one. i gave all that's all washington. he said that russia, if pressed, will use nuclear weapons to defend its security. interesting, that is, that that's established doctrine, but also to say in this current crisis that corrosion and nagasaki are presidents

for using today. i think this is a historic i said, and then do we want to say what the, excuse me, do we want to say that the 3rd right, is a precedence to we were there is precedent for all sorts of atrocities on a massive scale in this crisis. for president prudent to say that her roshan, nagasaki, or precedence is a way to terrorize the world that is absolutely unacceptable. now, in addition to making that statement, present, put in repeatedly called for negotiations with keith with washington. but i didn't hear anything of the source from the bite and administration. in fact, all we are hearing from the american administration is that they're ready to support the ukraine, kill the and whatever that and actually means i would like to ask you, what's it, what's your sense of this conflict dynamics? do you think we can actually wish to point when not only moscow,

but also washington would be interested in not only pursuing its geopolitical gains, but actually cutting losses, including losses, where you crane and for humanity, which you're so concerned about. well, what we have to have is diplomacy. what we have to have is negotiations. when we look at the reference to the cuban missile crisis, what prevented the world from perhaps being essentially blown up was authentic dialogue, authentic diplomacy. and that has been absolutely lacking for all of this year in terms of the current crisis. now the crane war, so certainly and rich action dot org were supporting absolute dialogue. and that 1st begins with a cease fire. and i'm not hearing any reference to support for a cease fire coming from either side. and i have to say, when we have the russian forces bombing kids and other cities, that is

a war crime. and i say that as somebody who has opposed us war crimes, if you look at the bombing of electrical grids, for instance, that directly affect the livelihood and the lives and the existence of civilians. how can we support that? and in the context of nuclear war, we cannot support bombing and terrorizing civilian areas and then say that has nothing to do with this question. because if towards new war, because it does and would actually want to join your in your call for diplomacy. and i don't know if you've seen it, one of the former advisors to richard nixon, mitre science recently published an article in their national interest in which he also called for, quote unquote, a diplomatic wheel, which i think is a striking statement in and of itself. because even in the most rasping moments of the cold war, we had that channel diplomacy going on between the 2 capitals. we have nothing of this sort anymore. do you think the,

the bite and administration can even afford any negotiations with the credit because they come in, according to put in is ready, can divide an administration, afford any negotiations with putin. and they put in administration after all the regime change statements that mr. biden has made well, i hope that both sides will be willing to engage in genuine diplomacy, both back channel and in public problem is that when you have major cities and towns being bombed by russian forces, that hardly is an incentive for science to say there's a basis for negotiations, therefore, we need to see fire. we absolutely need a cease fire in ukraine. well, i agree with you or do you think americans are ready to support your call or if you think so, can you cite any single statement from the by the administration that will actually call for cease fire in the ukraine over the last couple of months?

well, if, if you agree that the us and russia should have to pharmacy and we're on the same page, if you also agree that the russian government should stop bombing ukraine, cities and towns than we would also be in agreement, i think that is absolutely essential. well, mr. solomon, i think the one the russian and military is doing in the ukraine, is fighting not only with the ukraine, but with nato, which keeps pumping your crane with weapons, with military advisors, which is, which is continuing to use the land of ukraine for its own very aggressive policy, so if you want the russian military permission to stop, which i actually want, because i have relatives in ukraine than i think the united states needs to stop sliding a proxy war with russia. don't you agree with that? well, the 1st step is that the invading force stop making war on the country that it invaded . i speak of somebody who went to jail a,

posing the number by gone to jail opposing us militarism. i'm somebody who denounced us bombing of civilian grids in belgrade in 1909 days were all work crimes. just as now the kremlin is committing were crimes inside ukraine. so we have to say stop to war crime. so we can have a c, fire and negotiation. well, i agree with you, but i don't think you can hold my country to a higher moral standard than you hold your country. i think this is fundamentally unfair. international law only works when it's ubiquitous and universal. when only one country can afford not to apply it, then it means that the international law becomes a tool for oppression of weaponized rather than what it's supposed to be. it reaches the protection for the civilians. well, if you want to have a race, the bottom of barbarism, tundra county, we can certainly have a race to the bottom. and the end of that is nuclear war. so if we're going to have

a single standard of international law, that means that one country doesn't invade another and bomb civilian areas. you mentioned that there are the lines of communication between the kremlin and the white house was fairly poor. and i heard former president obama the other day voice, the same concern. he also said that the united states has to be very mindful about the kind of weaponry it sounds to your crane and think about where defense stop, stop being a defense and becomes an offense. do you think the divided administration would take any ques from it's score my associate? because present president obama doesn't often break his silence if he does it. at this point of time, it means that he can off is concerned not only the war in ukraine and the potential of a nuclear pockets, but also the actions of his former colleague. well, you remind me of something that martin luther king jr, spoke of. this is a phrase,

here's the madness of militarism, and that madness is fully in place in moscow right now, i'm afraid that the kremlin has made a decision that it's ok to subject enormous suffering for enormous people of ukraine. normal numbers of people and our organization rejection dot org has been on record opposing nato expansion for years. so we can certainly do a back story analysis and see how the tensions have been exacerbated by nato, as well as by russia. the question is now, what do we do now? and what we do now is we de escalate. we have diplomacy, we have a cease fire, and i think it's certainly within the power of the invading country. russia to declare a fire, then you can have better opportunities for genuine diplomacy. well,

what we also think we'll have to do now is to take a short break, but it will be back to this very important conversation in a while. please stay tuned. ah, for a while, come back to this norman solomon, executive director of the institute for public accuracy, author, all war made easy. how presidents and pundits keep spinning us to death. now, mister solomon, going back to the nature of the style of the russian military operation in ukraine

. in describing, if you use such terms as, quote, the murderous rampage, barbaric, mass slaughter, killing spree. and you essentially equate the russian style of war to the way americans bought the wars in afghanistan and iraq and indirectly in syria and leave in as a, as a form of water water. i absolutely reject this comparison because i think there's a massive difference in a way the russians do. and the americans do it. sure any war is horrible. it's the worst possible outcome. but one of the reasons why the russians have been progressing so slow is because they actually didn't allow themselves to carpet blong cities the way the americans do it. again, we both agree that war is horrendous. but should we also be more nuanced about the way military is doing that about the way the war fight is proceeding?

well, what you just said is reminiscent of what the us government said during the vietnam war during the afghanistan war during the invasion. and for years afterwards, many war went to a 100 or a. we do a humane war on life, our enemies, this is complete nonsense. the terrorism from the sky that is coming from russia into chief and other cities is absolutely indefensible. there's nothing humane about it whatsoever. it's not the military operation. there's a war, it's a war that includes a war answer to land. and we should have post that just as we are post us invasion and war on iraq. and on the canister, we need a single standard. you mentioned that you've been speaking against the madness of the u. s. military and for many decades. it left a pretty horrendous track record in the world. i just wonder what other means. russia could have used to repel native encroachment to which is what is something

that we see as an existential danger. we've seen what happened to you slot a. we've seen what happened to leave there. we've seen what happened in the magic that the united states is dangerous, and when the united states was using and this is public record ukrainian territory to pump arms there to send that military advisors. what other means? we, as a nation, had to put an end to it. i can tell you what news does not exist that should have been pursued and that is to invade and then make war on your credit. that should have been off the table. and then negotiations and diplomacy would be nothing that weren't negotiations and diplomacy put in and bite in math in 2001 in geneva. and they talked about. 1 not pushing the situation further, but the americans still continue doing that, arming ukraine using its land for its own military purposes, even not making it a member of nathan with all taking any defense obligations whatsoever. how could we

have put an end to that? well, i can tell you that invading and then slaughtering people and ukraine is not a solution, nor does it reduce the chances of nuclear war. in fact, it increasing the chancellor nuclear war, which is what we began talking about. i have a national security interest for the sake of ukrainians, some of which are supporting that government that is using that land as a, essentially a black arm for, for an offense against russia. well it's, it's an odd concept of national security to look at what's happened since february and think that enhances russia, nuclear security or national security. it does not. so we need other pathways. this in no way defends the expansion of nato, as i said personally, and my organization has been opposing especially of nato for many years. and we

know that it was wrong. we know that it was a betrayal of a promise made when the berlin wall fell. we know all that. the question is, how are we going to proceed in a constructive way that will reduce the chances of nuclear war rather than increase the chances, which is what has occurred this year. you know, when i talk to a respectable a russian expert, especially those who are old enough to remember and they, and the cold war and the nuclear scare of that time. many of them are telling me that what kept the world from being destroyed at that time was the mutual sense of fear that the americans actually believed in the credibility of the russian nuclear deterrent. and russians to believe in the credibility of the american nuclear deterrent. i wonder if part of the reason or perhaps the whole reason why we are where we are, is because america total believe in it's, i mean, if a tense and it's believe in russia's total impotence, the believe that russia would never,

ever use the nuclear weapons to defend itself. well, certainly there is a thing that has been perceived as nuclear deterrence. if the way that we think russia can defend its interest is to threaten to use nuclear weapons to explicitly. then i think that's of terribly dangerous stance to take, which threatens really the survival of almost all of humanity, of course, reference the survival of almost all of humanity. that's what nuclear weapons of war. and that, that's actually, again, according to the russian doctrine, at least, and according to many russian specialist, that's what the camp will save because the americans had this visceral fear of extinction which kept diet policies. these are the russia, or was it, is this only if you know the time contained within the limits of sanity, do you think that americans, at this point of time, this divide administration,

do you think they believe that russia is not glossing when it says that it will defend itself. well, i think russia is going to defend itself, whether russia interprets or president couldn't interpret that to mean to, to, to actually use nuclear weapons would be a descent into kind of global barbarism that is unimaginable in terms of, of human beings. so i can't say what i know is inside the head of president biden, but i can say that to pursue as though the implicit doctrine of both countries should now be made explicit to threaten, perhaps, imminent use of nuclear weapons should be. so beyond anything that is acceptable or imaginable that it doesn't happen. and yet, one of the horrible things that has happened this year, an ominous thing is that this threat has been made explicit by president. that is

simply wrong. it's hard to say how wrong that is because the consequences are potentially so catastrophic for all of humanity. that said, we know that the doctrine of the u. s. and the russian military both accepts and embraces the option to be the 1st to use nuclear weapons. we know that's the doctrine of both countries, extremely dangerous, that's bad enough. but to threaten as the kremlin has to actually go ahead and use it in a specific instance, i think is just beyond the pale is absolutely unacceptable. now, despite the fact that, as you say, present, put in, made that threat explicit. you also write that after going through more than 60 presidential statements documents and communicate that the white house has released over the last couple of months. and there is a complete absence of nuclear weapons on mentioning the nuclear war. dangerous.

why do you think that it's i think there's a real effort by leaders of the united states and russia to hide the reality of nuclear weapons and nuclear war. i'd rather have happy talk, rather talk about our national mission and ring some jingle or stick nationalistic bells than be honest with people. and i think what we need from, from buying them from, couldn't, is to be honest with their people in the people world of the world as gorbachev. and reagan said, no nuclear war cannot be one and must not be fought. it's not enough to say that that's necessary, but insufficient the posture of the behavior of the statements. and the actions of those leaders have to be in sync with that understanding. and we're really not getting actions that are in sync with that attitude from either side, right?

now, well, i think the attitude of leaders have to be in sync this reality. and i don't know if you're aware of that, but the russian cds are also being born than russia being bogged by the ukrainians . being shelled at least, and russia has offered refuge to more than 5000000 ukranian refugees. so i like this for the united states for us. the war is very close to home, both within the russian territory. and as i sat across the water in your crane, where most of us have relative, do you think the 2 sides have the same amount of issues at stake here? they think this war means the same for, for russia as it means for the united states. well, is completely convincing for russia to place a victim in this war, since it's russia that invaded ukraine and continues to bomb major cities from the air and new cray. i don't have any sympathy for the russian,

ordinary russian people who are being killed in those strikes and that's just goes with them being happens right. i have tremendous sympathy for everybody who dies in a war. i have tremendous sympathy for people who are drafted, conscripted or bombed in a war. that's why we should have posed or not just an abstraction, but continue to work towards diplomatic solutions and say that it's not ok to send people in to battle to kill others. and to kill civilians. i also heard you say that the world is in a desperate need for some sort of a single standard of non aggression and human rights. and i agree with you on that and having seen a lot of war zones and, and a lot of suffering that's going on there. but i have to ask you again, not as a propagandist russian propaganda, but as a, as a person who was exposed to a lot of war suffering. is it possible without the united states abandoning,

it stands as an indispensable and omnipotent country, because on the ground, it usually means that the united states can, can meet any crimes, any work comes with totally impunity. and it doesn't matter whether it's, you know, richard nixon or i could bama joseph bite and who are in office. and when you have that kind of behavior strong, the self proclaimed leader of the free world. can you expect anything different from other countries? the united states has been in this century, the biggest profit gator of violence and killing and war here in the world. and it seems now this year that russia is trying to catch up. that doesn't mean that what russia is doing is in any way justify, well, it's not justified in the moral sense. it is justified in the military sense. and

when i talk to my guest from all around the world, nobody supports the war action. but many of them say that this is a time when at least one country to woodson and to this absolutely unrestrained behavior of the united states. and i have to be honest with you, that one of the reasons why so many countries are trying to remain neutral to the u . s. pressure to sanction russia is precisely because of that because they're fed up with american hegemony. do you think the united states will abandon it's superficial? rise to command the world without trying to burn it down? well in a military sense. alas, so often it seems to make sense to attack other countries and slaughter people, including civilians. i think whether we can move forward as you allude to as a possibility to whether we can move forward to a more rational, decent,

humane world, depends on the people of the world. we need anti war protesters in the united states and in russia, when a russian anti war, protesters are put in prison. that is indefensible. it has happened to thousands in the last few months just as elsewhere in the world when people challenge non violently. the madness of militarism are thrown in prison. that must be understood as a struggle between people at the grassroots who suffer from war and who understand and empathize towards those who suffer from war. rather than going along to get along with the war makers anywhere, i am greatly appreciative of your time with us today. thank you very much for expressing your thoughts. thank you. thank you for watching hope to sir again. well, to part with

. mm. ah, we will regard the use of the dirty ball by the key regime as an act of nuclear terrorist. russia called the un security council meeting to discuss a pressing radioactive issue. also, the small russian found on the very border with ukraine is now a front linked out that lives in constant anticipation of yet another ukraine. try kick in to the ones that destroyed this shopping move. are 2 things. first hand, the damage in russia fell abroad breathing cars like p as shelling and egypt. and now those plans john peg.