run by the sense of fly share to 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. and general secretary khrushchev was calling for, stayed with them and suggesting that both sides need to resist as calla tore dynamics . do you think that mutual sense of both impending danger and sharing beauty is present? they? well, 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, authentic diplomatic dialogue where there are great differences of opinion. i have great differences of opinion with our to, 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 united states and 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. 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 it steak right now? and so when we share 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 the us escalation of nuclear war. and so for, i'm a couldn't to say that erosion,

another saki precedence is an absolutely on hinged and extremely danger statement to make. there is one of the precedence of the united states using nuclear weapons, the only country in history to do that. and when you say the same, you know, that means that the united states is on record of using nuclear weapons. and what you describe as he's loose talk. you never said, let's last one i gave all, let's bond washington. he said that russia, if pressed, will use nuclear weapons to defend its security. interestingly, that is that that's established doctrine, but also to say in this current crisis that corrosion monogamy are precedents for using day. i think this is a historian, i said, and then we want to say that this is 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 putin 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 by an administration. in fact, all we are hearing from the american administration is that they're ready to support ukraine, killed the and whatever that and actually means i would like to ask you what's, what's your sounds of this conflict dynamics do you think we can actually reach the 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 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 crane 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. i have to say when we have the russian forces bombing kids and other cities, that is a war crime. and i say not as somebody who has opposed us war crimes. if you look at the bombing of electrical grids, for instance, that directly affect the livelihoods on 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 escalation because if towards nuclear 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 the one of the former advisors to richard nixon meter science recently published an article in their national interest. and we, she also called for, quote unquote, a diplomatic wheel, which i think is, is tracking as statement in and of itself because even in the most and racing moments of the cold war, we had back 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 is a basis for negotiations, therefore, we need to see fire. we absolutely need a ceasefire in ukraine. well, i agree with you. 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 course these 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 that when the russian military is doing in the ukraine, is fighting not only with the ukraine, but with nato, which keeps pumping ukraine with weapons with military advisors, which is which is continuing to use the land of ukraine for its own. a very aggressive policy, so if you want the russian military operation to stop, which i actually want, because i have relatives in ukraine than i think the united states needs to stop writing 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 as somebody who went to jail a, posing the number i've gone to jail opposing us militarism. i'm somebody who denounced us bombing of civilian grooves in belgrade in 1909 days were all war 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 center talley, 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 for my 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 weapon read sounds to your crane and think about where defense stop, stop being a defense and becomes an offense. do you think the divide and administration would take any ques from it's for 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, himself is concerned not only the war in ukraine and the potential of a nuclear apocalypse, 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. norma's 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 to close, see, we have a cease fire, and i think it's certainly within the power of the invading country. russia to declare a cease 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,

or pay in oh, well, never be a victory for russia. wait solution, see what you're still waiting my to a new modem, but look at 8 me. crane war is a proxy war. this is a war between russia and the united states. naz on on media comes to last you get done in carbon dioxide. america forces are and you're not in europe to gauge in conflict with russian forces. the american forces are here and defend nato allies that bridge that nato escalates even more indiscretion. military operations become a war. when you put they'll have a show and that was a 1000 is my store. i see it that i see your to us thinking possibly really live.

so you sleep, he sure week and you stuff to with only the still foolish there in your sewerage, no secret to the girl who's who ah ah, my son as it were you. wow. div easy while furnace us? ah. yeah. doing it's

a fun flight yet. if south, yeah, thrashing south was actually within your dock. awesome. but you know watch them up all mutable. upright people in the is emma? yeah. full video from trulia can room should sort video to watch the ela. a bill? yes. my vote or to an invalid. again, your fortune pretty up my be a lot about it with search financial. ah ha. ah

ha, welcome back to wings and forth. 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 are going back to the nature and the style of the russian military operation in ukraine. in describing, if you use such terms as, quote, de murderous rampage, barbaric, mass slaughter, a killing spree. and jo, essentially acc, wade, the russian style of war 2, the way americans bought that wars in afghanistan and iraq, and indirectly in searing libyan 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 slowly 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 shouldn't we also be more nuanced about the way military is doing that about the way the war fight is proceeding? well, what she 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, many more than 200000. we do a humane war on life. our enemies, this is complete nonsense to 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 on surveillance. and we should oppose that just as we opposed 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 us mail train 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 nader's encroachment to what is what is something that we see as an existential danger. we've seen what happened to yugoslavia. we've seen what happened to leave there. we've seen what happened to ran out. imagining that the united states is dangerous, and when the united states was using and this is public record, ukrainian territory to pump arms their to sunday and military advisors. what other means? we, as a nation, had to put an end to it. i can tell you what it means to not exist that should have been pursued and that is to say, and then make war on your credit. that should have been off the table. and then

negotiations and diplomacy would be nothing. they weren't negotiations and diplomacy put in by the, in math, in 2001 in geneva. and they talked about that not pushing the situation further, but the american still continue doing that. army ukraine using its land for its own military purposes, even not making it a member of it without 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 in 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. a national security interest for the sake of ukrainians, some of which are supporting that government that is using that land as a essentially blogs are 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. the 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 talked to respectable a russian experts, 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 it tends, and it's believe in russia total in pretends to 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 a 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

a for. and that, that's actually, again, according to the russian doctrine, at least, and according to many russian specialist, that's what the cap that will save. because the americans had this, this arrow fear of extinction which capt. diet policies. these are the russia, or was it, is this only if you know that time contained within the limits of sanity, do you think that americans, at this point of time, they did 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 dissent itself, whether russia interprets or president put and interpret that to mean to, to, to actually use nuclear weapons, would be a descent into the kind of global barbarism those 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 us 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 thread exclusive. 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 land nuclear weapons on mentioning the nuclear war. dangerous . why do you think that it's i see there's a real effort by leaders of the united states and russia to hide the reality of nuclear weapons and nuclear war. but 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 far. it's not enough to say that that's necessary, but insufficient the posture, the behavior of the statements, and the actions of those leaders have to be in sync without understanding. and we're really not getting actions that are in sync with that attitude from either side. right? well, i think the attitude of leaders have to be in sync with reality and i don't, i don't know if you are aware of that. but the russian cities are also being born than russia, being bogged by the ukrainians. being shelled at least, and russia has offered refuge to more than 5000000 ukrainian refugees. so i like this for the united states for us. the war is very close to home, both in the russian territory. and as i sat across the border in ukraine, 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 unconvincing 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 ukraine. don't have any sympathy for the russian, ordinary russian people who are being killed in those strikes and that has goes with them being 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 a lot of suffering that's going on there. but i have to ask you again, not as a propagandist russian propaganda is, but as a, as a person who was it exposed to a lot of more 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 commit any crimes, any war crimes with totally impunity. and it doesn't matter whether it's, you know, richard nixon, black obama, joseph biden, 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 warfare 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, 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 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 no watchers them 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 ah ah ah,

because these are the fee, i don't this a piece mission funder was issued for the that's shown on else needs to be fun, claudia, with my job. and i was gonna tell the guys i spoke with, i may come soon as my means in your domain. you can put a little partition, you show a teacher gisela for and you don't know if she like, we did always get a minute. looks that on the get a minute, those numbers, but from the social, but i motions to get a minute. those new with grease ga. gov to other but i should got or should. i mean thank these until one ish or so bad. and also washington dick, tier 2,

dash $12.00, twist jesus. so why is his name in v fan to the physical as often could do a dead voice from the son behind his bill? eventful by my daughter, that will probably to my, me look on asian ones. when i sponsor dawson with a crate, will never be a victory for russia. ukraine war is a proxy war. this is a war between russia and the united states. milan are made, it comes to last, you get them in carbon dioxide. america forces are and you're not in your engage in conflict with russian forces. the american forces are harris, defend nato allies. nato escalates even more in the special military operations. become a war with rules and.