the other country dodge is russia, and it's got on, she's been on a time, is up nights on modus operandi. will be back at the top of the hour. mm. mm. mm mm mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. hello, i'm manila chan. you are tuned into modus operandi. former us president brock obama once said quote, the united states remains the one indispensable nation. this was back in 2014. what he was saying was, the u. s. is the, you know, polar headroom on that nobody could live without america, but less than 10 years later. how well did these remarks hold up after

a barrage of sanctions against china, russia, venezuela, and a number of others fails to hit them where it hurts this week will explore the rising multi polar world order. all right, let's get into the m o. me, 20 years ago, it was almost unthinkable. the u. s. losing its status as the so called leader of the free world. wow. at least in the bubble of washington d. c. that is 20 years ago. nobody in the swamp could have predicted the rise of china like this, or the formation of the brick block. and president obama as little as 9 years ago highlighted this belief himself was. in fact, by most measures, america has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world.

those who argue otherwise, he suggests that america is in decline or has been its global leadership slip away . either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics. think about our military has no peer yards of a direct threat against us by any nation or low and do not come close to the dangers we face during the cold war. meanwhile, our economy remains the most dynamic on earth, our businesses, the most innovative. each year we grow more energy independent from europe to asia. we are the hub of alliances, unrivalled in the history of nations. for the united states

is and remains, the one in dispensable nation has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come. lot sure has changed in a decade. washington may fancy itself indispensable. but because the rest of the world agree, 20th century wars waged by the west help shape us had gemini, but in the 21st century. as bill clinton's strategist and advisor, james carville famously said it's the economy, stupid. so joining me to discuss this and the rise of the multi polar world, he's an award winning author and activist john steinbach. he's also the co founder of the hiroshima and nagasaki piece committee and the national capital area. so john, thanks for joining us. i'll dive right in here in the 20th century,

following world war 2, the u. s. emerged as i think we can all agree the world hedge them on how much of that had to do with their use of nuclear weapons on the civilian population. in japan. i would say virtually none whatsoever on many of the japanese historians and some american historians believe that the atomic bombing said, actually very little to do with the decision of japan to surrender. overwhelmingly, it was the i soviet declaration of war and their actions in manchuria which destroyed the japanese army in a matter of less than a day. that was the precipitating of factor. all that led to the end of the war that the atomic bombings were. yeah. even even when the r surrender was negotiated, the japanese leadership was not really understanding or aware of the significance

of the bombing of either hiroshima or nagasaki. so in that sense, it had very little to do with it. in another sense, the fact that the us had a monopoly on nuclear weapons and initiate the arms race. and immediately us started testing the new nuclear weapons and build up an enormous arsenal. it, during which time of the soviet union had no nuclear weapons had a lot to do with some of the initial own own successful efforts by the united states to assume are largely to assume control of the global economy. and so ever since then, nuclear weapons have been used to kind of freeze the status quo. so that which benefits the united states and, and i, daniel ellsberg among others i at least 27 times has, are, has identified times when the u. s. has used the threat of nuclear weapons in order

to get its way and, and usually it's been against the 3rd world countries and non nuclear countries. why is the u. s threatening nuclear war with russia now? well, so rush actually changed it's policy. so now it, it's policy is it can use nuclear weapons if the existence of the nation is, are threatened in this is in conformance with the world, our court decision about 13 or 14 years ago. which said, the generally speaking, ah, use an possession of nuclear weapons, is a legal, except if the threat of, than of the nation is, is at rest in, in it's important to understand perceptions because this is what got us in trouble in the past with the cuban missile crisis in the nuclear crisis of 1983 was a lack of understanding how the other side felt. and rush has been very clear. um,

particularly since 2008. that it identifies the expansion of nato and particularly the nato ization of ukraine. as red lines that are cannot be crossed. so from the russian point of view, whether you agree with it or not, ah, from their point of view, the existence of russia itself is at risk. and so therefore, therefore, their policy would be in that case, they would reserve the what, right to use on a nuclear weapons. and by the way, that the u. s. policy is very similar, but even, even, ah, more liberal if you will. so the bite administration's nuclear posture review came out, and it's essentially a continuation of our clinton's ambushes and obama's and trumps. and it still says, you know, we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons, you know, if in, in extraordinary circumstances. and they talk about specifically about iran being a target. so, so eat this in a sense, the more things change,

the more they stay the same or, or vice versa. us that you asked argument tacitly, is that under effect in us rule of the world, more people's lives and improved, especially in the way, at economic development as what we used to call 3rd world countries. they're now referred to as developing nations. but does that argument really hold any water? i mean has following a u. s. lead really better in the world. so that argument goes all the way back, at least to the roman empire. the idea that we are, you know, civilizing the barbarians. that was the way the romans put it off, you know, starting on something, you know, even before columbus, you have a good early dozens, if not a 100 or more people bulls. all of all of them justifying the subjugation of the rest of the world. in the name of civilizing though, the barbarians ah, ah,

they the, the victorian british you know, took it to extraordinary levels. and i think it would be most exemplified if you, if the listeners go on google and, and look up white man's burden by rudyard kipling. so these arguments have been made forever. but when you actually look at the reality, the reality is that all of these empires and the united states empire, they want though, the resources, they want the oil in the gas and the lithium and the iron and the copper. and they want markets and they want slave labor, cheap labor slave labor, and they want no, no environmental rules so that everything gets shipped off to the 3rd world or what the rest of the world so. so in that sense, it's just profound hypocrisy when they talk about, you know, but bringing, bringing civilization to the rest of the world. it saw it. oh, gandhi talked a little bit about your western civilization. and gandhi said, well, that would be

a good idea. now the last many centuries, we saw the worlds through a unipolar lens. we can reflect on history for that. at one point the spaniards seemed to rule the world. that's why, you know, we have that saying in 14900 to columbus sailed the ocean blue. then the british colonial era, where england was the hedge a monic world power, then came the us. but over the last 40 years, those aforementioned developing nations have grown very much. china has become the 2nd largest economy in the world. india is number 6 based on g, d, p, russia, number 11, brazil, number 12. all these states are members, are bricks. they all say the 21st century will be a multi polar one. would you agree and what does a multi polar world look like? i think in one sense, we're reverting, we're seeing

a partial change in a reversion to the norm because historically, throughout human civilization, there hasn't really been a unipolar world even with the roman empire. the course that did not reach to the great civilizations of the western hemisphere. it didn't really impact that much on the chinese civilization, which is thousands of years old and other civilizations as well. so. so i think that what we're seeing after after world war 2, the united states was an, in an unprecedented position of advantage. it had ramped up industrial production. there were still vast, vast numbers of resources left. that's the price of oil and gas and other non renewable resources. and the united states took advantage of that. it took control more or less of the united nations. it invented the i, m f, the world bank,

the world trade, oregon is and, and controlled them all so. so the united states entered into what a loose called the american century after world war 2. but that was temporary, there was always the soviet union which represented an idiot, logical challenge, not necessarily an economic one, but today it's a, it's a different matter. and you talked about the bricks. but if you, i mean, look just for example, lula one, the election in brazil. so the majority of the, of the combinations in latin american now are liberal left lead ah, and around the world you, i mean, you have the, oh, saudi arabian now making nice with iran because the united states is threatening opec. in fact, the united states is threatening everybody threatening china cutting off chips and sending pelosi to taiwan. you know, all this stuff is serious, serious stuff in it's not making the u. s. friends. and i think that i would say

safely say, the vast majority of the people in the intellectuals, in the 3rd world, or the rest of the world, the majority of the world, you know how, how the long historical memory. and they know that the united states has been ripping off the world for the last 70 years. and john steinbach is sticking around to unpack more on this issue and coming up next nato way supposed to be a joint effort to combat the cold war against the soviets. but has that objective shifted to simply maintaining the u. s. lead world order? we'll discuss it when we return. that type ammo will be right back. ah ah, need to come to russian state a little narrative. i've side as i'm phoning most 19 div asking him i'm not getting

them up for a group in the 55 when. okay, so mine is group i was speaking with. we will ben in the european union, the kremlin media machine, the state on russia today, and split our t spoke neck given our video agency, roughly all band on youtube. and with surgery was to morning to start over. can't you know, by judge she told mom with

the mr. chisel on the, on the wall? no. g, sequential. lindsay, for you to he is new, was to millennium, which is a newton could ask about step ownership yet i knew also say i took the ocean decision. ah, your promotional session is a questions a stuff to deal with. this is selena to find your shop at shoe a bare with

oh, the cold war ended or so we thought when the world witnessed the fall of the soviet union and the to germany's reunited. that was in 1991 just before bill clinton came into power here in the us. but as more and more white house communications from that period become public, we learn that perhaps nato kept the cold war alive, at least mentally. i john steinbach is back to continue the conversation with us. and so john 9 countries are known nuclear powers, the us, russia, china, the u. k. france, india, pakistan, north korea, and israel. so we talked about this at the top of the 9 nuclear capable states,

only thing you west has used them. what role do nukes play in either maintaining power or in even growing a states power on the global stage? so we talked about the role of nuclear weapons in us, which is to maintain the status quo, to view us as advantage or in the case of conflicts. and the conflicts are to the united states advantage by threatening to use nuclear weapons off, though, from the russian point of view all their perspective is that since the end of the cold war, that the despite assurances that that nato has moved inexorably right up to russia's borders and has been building bases on the southern border as well. and at the same time as been military rising, more mila to rise in japan and philippines, and are ok now. all and, and now is notarizing taiwan and surrounding china.

so from the point of view of the russians and the chinese, ah, it's, it's mainly a deterrent factor. ah, and then i think if you look at israel, their rationale is that they're surrounded by hostile states and they're willing to try to use their weapons as the sampson arch option. in other words, when the feed is imminent, they're going to pull the everything down with them and their basic good. going to take everybody out with india and pakistan. it's a long, long history, really intense conflict and distrust. and, you know, in, in a, in a sense that's the god, the conflict between india and pakistan is one that, um, is very unstable and could, could result in easily result in a nuclear war. so each one has different reasons. so i would say that when i saw

i'm a sane and i could alfie and libya got rid of their weapons of mass destruction programs . you know, we can, we can see what happened there. so if you look at north korea, it's very clear that north korean government feels that nuclear weapons are there, are there ticket to avoid total destruction. and when you look at what happened or to north korea during the korean war there, i think their fears are understandable. aren't, let's assume someone has never heard the terms unipolar world or multi polar world . how when you explain or describe these terms to them and the consequences of each . well, i think it's an inexorable process that's happening before our eyes. so, when we're talking about a unipolar world, a perfect example would be though, the world economy, after world war 2, when the united states exercise almost complete control. i mean,

certainly there was a trading going on back and forth. ah, you know, china with australia and russia and china and all you know, of all of these economies actually became integrated into the global economy. but, um, it was dominated by the u. s. and using the military force. and we now have about $800.00 bases around the world. our northern nation comes close to that of the u. s . military budget is approximately 10 times of them that were more than the next 10 largest militaries in the world combined. and most of them are and the u. s . so that would be a perfect example of a unipolar world. although the idea of a multi polar world is one. that is what we're seeing today, which include, involves russia, which is a tremendous, has a, a strong on

a industrial economy. but it's also has tremendous amounts of resources. and in fact, it's probably the closest to what we would call an ot tarkey today, which means it has everything that it needs to to maintain its economy. now with china, china is the factory of the world. all the world depends on it for finished products . and are then you have brazil, which is, are also a very large economy in south africa and, and, and now you have our, you know, saudi arabia starting to reach out to russia and china and iran. ah, and ok, this is a big problem because the united states policy going all the way back to 1948 is that the u. s. must control the economy and they must, this is u. s. policy. they must be able to defeat any other economic competitor. and that's what we're seeing today. so the conflict in ukraine,

which i would argue as a proxy war between russia in the united states, or between us nato and russia. but nate, nate, oh really? i mean, the u. s. totally dominates nato, so it's a proxy war. nato was born out in the cold war after the fall of the soviet union in 1991 in the cold war was supposedly over this block not only persisted, but it grew. some have argued that the reason is to actually maintain the uni polar world order. how would you respond to that? yes, so, so nato, i went, when the soviet union lapsed, idea was made that russia would not extend one inch between the u. s. and in russia, and of course, that changed particularly under bill clinton. and now nato has expanded right, right to the edge of russia. and that includes our, our nuclear capable of missiles that are station in romania,

romania and poland. they're now talking about admitting finland and they're talking about deploying, ah, i'm nuclear missiles and finland, that's in the 800 mile border on finland between finland and russia. so, so, oh, russia has been making noises about red lines ever since i rob vladimir putin gave an important speech in munich in 2007, and talked about, you know, this red line. and also talked about how the united states is trying to dominate the entire world. and that was the 1st time that he talked about this idea of a multi polar world. ah, so, so all, i think that the answer is very clear that nato is, i don't believe it ever was, but it's clearly not a defense of alliance. and in fact, the mandate for nato is expanding. so it was nato that directed the attacks on libya that destroyed libya and resulted in the

o executed the torture of will market. dorothy and libya was they had the highest education rate in africa, had the highest income in africa. it had the best human rights record in terms of women in africa. and now there are open slave markets in olivia. and that's all because of nato and then what nato did in yugoslavia setting this precedent, this responsibility per to protect. and of course, russia is using that, and they're pointing to the attacks on ethnic russians that have been going on since to 2014, approximately 14000. ah, russian craniums have been killed, overwhelmingly civilians in that was one of the big rationale for russia getting, getting involved and say, this has got to stop. so i believe you're right i, but i believe that nato really is an an offensive weapon. and now now it's even being used to,

to target off to target china. and there's discussion about integrating japanese defense forces into nader's. needle standards is the perception of american weakness. be it due to the leadership of joe biden, or whoever is in the oval office. is that premature? does america have any means to stop or, or slow the loss of power? well, that's a very interesting question. so are, are there, there has been an argument up including, including amongst the, the radical left, particularly some of the trotsky us are organizations and intellectuals that, that the united states is a failed power. and that the real in new imperialist is china. and they point to those are the, are of the new silk road. and then they point to our chinese, r o economic activities throughout africa and throughout our latin america.

but i, i think that, that, that, that's a little bit too simplistic, that the united states is still militarily very strong. it has tremendous residual economic influence. the dollar is still the major mechanism for trade snack. clear how long that's going to last because a number of analysts, including a bloomberg last week, are now calling on a global recession inevitable. a 100 percent. ah, but oh i. so i've, i think it's premature to say that the u. s. is that it's finished and that the china as are the new imperialist um, if you, if you look in fact i have our survey was done by cambridge union. yeah. i came out yesterday and they pulled up people around the world about attitude. so the west, quote unquote, which is a little over a 1000000000 people and we all know that the west is all at 75 percent have

negative attitudes toward china, 87 percent negative attitudes toward russia. but if you look at the rest of us, most of us 6300000000 people, the attitude positive attitude toward china is 70 percent in the positive attitude toward russia is 68 percent. so this is, this is a, you know, me a clear cut example of what, what i mean when i'm talking about a multi power world in this is inevitable. my concern is that the united states and it saw eyes are not going to permit this to happen without kicking or screaming. and we still have approximately $14000.00 nuclear weapons onto the teeth launch on warning, and we no longer have the anti ballistic missile treaty. we no longer have the image intermediate forces treaty. we no longer have the open skies tree. and those were the 3 trainings that were dot designed actually to raise the threshold nuclear

war to make it less likely. so all in all, it's a very dangerous time that we're living in, and i think that the answer is all informed populace and translating what we all know is overwhelming support for nuclear disarmament into concrete making that a concrete political reality. all right, we'll have to leave that right there. thank you so much. john steinbach of the erosion manada saki peace committee. thank you so much for being with us. it's a pleasure. and that is going to do it for this weeks episode of modus operandi. there showed that dig deep into foreign affairs. i'm your host manila. chad. thank you for tuning in. we'll see you again next week to figure out the ammo in

for a bulk no issue. but for the mobile individual annual g d. p per capita is about $4000.00 euros. a was a totally new prisoner, you find them on the line to come out the door. they would have thought of unemployment is off the charts, moldova territorial integrity and sovereignty. we respect the country which enjoys financial support from the u. s. and the you is constantly roth,

by political and corruption scandals. but all that didn't stop mo, google obtaining your candidate status in 2022. ah, a georgia refuses to mass demonstrations despite the natural barber through voting controversial legislation that ignited the protest. our grasp on the way this is the chaos in georgia is national capital. protesters here alarmingly organized. they know how to move as a unit to retreat as a unit. they're playing basically like a real warfare with the police here it's, it's crazy.