active role in deciding what gets on the social media platforms, what does it? it's really, really frightening. yeah. and they love throwing out the labels of disinformation misinformation, but it's who is making the decision of what is does information that has a major factor at the end of the day. now i want to expand on one of the points that you made there, and i know that journalists not to be when he was testifying referred to twitter censorship policy. this quote 21st century mccarthyism. do you think that it is as serious as that, and is there likely a lot more to it than even what we've seen so far? well, you know, i was surprised that we didn't. we hadn't heard everything all at once. i figured that twitter files were released and we got the reports, volume one, volume to volume 3 and so on. and i thought that was pretty much it. so i don't know what we will find out going forward. i don't know what my t b and the other journalists who are privy to this and have received it. i don't know what they're sitting on or sitting on anything,

but it's very disturbing and you talk about the, the n g o. you mentioned. there's that there's something called and this is according to math i. e, b, and his tweets today. the aspen institute, which receives money from, among other places, the federal government, and the aspen institute in 2021 to hell. the big should being out in aspen, colorado, and they came up with a report on, on how to handle social media. katie couric, the fame journalist was involved. prince, prince harry. if i have, let me just make sure. yeah, prince harry was, was involved. and basically they said that the government should have access to, to everything, the, to, to names and information and data on the users and any dis, information, anybody who puts out again this information. what the hell is that it's, it's an excuse my language. it's whatever the person hearing it wants it to be. they should be put in a user jail if you will, where they're taken off the platform for a while. and they decided that even if it means loss of freedom,

the government should police this. now that's all report from the aspen institute. i mean, so it's really crazy stuff. disturbing is an understatement. unfortunately, we're going to have to leave it right there because we're out of time, steve malls, very, thank you so much for your insight to talk to rachel. and that's all for now. we'll see you right back here at the top of the hour. ah, hello, i'm manila chan. you are tuned. in 10 modus operandi, former us president brock obama one 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. listen. in fact, by most measures, america has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world.

those who argue otherwise to suggest that america is in decline, or is seen as a global leadership slip away. either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics. think about our military has no peer the odds 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 got more energy independence 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. the car lot sure has changed in a decade. washington may fancy itself indispensable. but does the rest of the world agree? 20th century wars waged by the west help shape us had germany, 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 of 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 headroom 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, 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. 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 u. s. 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 it's 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 in. 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, that 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. and 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 on, 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 a more liberal, if you will. so the bite and ministrations, nuclear posture review came out. and it's essentially a continuation of our clinton's and bush's 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 we do this in a sense, the more things change,

the more they stay the same or, or vice versa. us, let us argument tacitly, is that under effect in us rule of the world, more people's lives then improved, especially in the way and economic development of 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 them, 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. aw, all the,

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 had been made for ever, 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 and 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 roles 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's saw it. oh, gandhi talked a little bit about your western civilization. and gandhi said, well, that would be

a good idea. and the last many centuries we saw the world through 8 unit polar lens, we can reflect on history for that. at one point the spaniards seemed to rule the world. that's why, you know, we had that thing. and 1490 to columbus sailed the ocean blue, and 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 of bricks. they all say the 21st century will be a multi polar one. would you agree and, and what does a multi polar world look like? i think in one sense we're, we're reverting, we're seeing

a r o e porco 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. witches 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 unprecedented position of advantage. it had ramped up industrial production, all there was still vast, vast reached numbers of resources, left vast supplies of oil and gas in other on non renewable resources. in the united states took advantage of that. it took control more or less of the united nations. it had vented on the i, m f, the world bank,

the world trade organization 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 that. 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 the 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

ah ah, the cold war ended or so we thought when the world witnessed the fall of the soviet union and the to germany's re united 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 learned that perhaps nato kept the cold war alive, at least mentally. i'm john steinbach is back to continue the conversation with us . and so john, ah, 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 the u. s. has used them. what role, dim nukes, play in either maintaining power or in even growing estates, power on the global stage. so we talked about the role of nuclear weapons in the u . s, 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 militarize ing more mila, to rise in japan and philippines, and are ok now. and i'm in now is milch arising 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 of 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 would 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 us and using the military force. and we now have about

$800.00 bases around the world. our northern nation comes close to that. are the u . s. military budget is approximately 10 times of love that we're more than the next 10 largest military's in the world combined. and most of them are us. so that would be a perfect example of a unipolar world. the idea of a multi polar world is one. that is what we're seeing today, which includes, involves russia, which is a tremendous, has a, has a strong an 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. ah, the world depends on it for finished products and on, then you have brazil,

which is also 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 948 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, are really, i mean, the us totally dominates nato, so it's a proxy war. nato was born out of the cold war after the fall of the soviet union in 1991 and 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 collapsed, a deal 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 anita has expanded right the right to the edge of russia and that includes all on 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, of some nuclear missiles and finland, that's at 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 and 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 on. 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 are executed in the torture of, of will market, duffy 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 is

responsibility for 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 2014. approximately 14000 are russian ukrainians have been killed, overwhelmingly civilians in that was one of the big ration else for russia getting, getting involved and say this has got to stop. so, um i, i believe you're right. i will, i believe that nato really is a, an offensive weapon. and now now it's even of being used to, to target off to target china. and there's discussion about integrating japanese or defense forces into native needle standards. is the perception of american weakness and be it due to the leadership and joe, by nan 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 of including, including amongst the, the radical left, particularly some of the trotsky est all organizations and intellectuals that, that the united states is a failed power. and that the real new imperialist is china. and they point to those of the, of the new silk road. and then they point to our chinese, r o economic activities throughout africa and throughout 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 hong 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, so i, i think it's premature to say that the u. s. is, is finished in the china as of the new imperialist. if you, if you, if you look in fact i have our survey was done by cambridge union, you all 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. and the positive attitude toward russia is 68 percent. so this is, this is a young,

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 im, intermediate forces treaty, we no longer have the open skies tree. and those were the 3 treaties 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 an 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, the hiroshi, 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 am your host to manila chan. thank you for tuning and we'll see you again next week to figure out the ammo. ah ah

ah, ah moscow strike the targets and stuff? oh, ukrainian cities including in the countries capital p as a response to terrorist attacks, and russians bring on to region. according to the russian defense ministry. and assassination of time didn't more those trans nustar region targeting senior officials, husband, or dad's, according to local authorities who say ukrainian agents were behind the plan a political opposition in the republic of georgia.