and again, next with today's guest, a former soviet analysts in this ca, some interesting remarks. ahead and not sit down with option to stay with . i'm absent at antsy and welcome back to going underground, broadcasting all around the world from do buying the u e. nature. so called mainstream media may forgotten all about it with the greatest eco terra atrocity of this century. with september's blowing up the gnawed stream pipeline,

applying energy to europe, countless lives are lost from the resulting instability in new prices and the cia with the terrorists, according to one of the greatest journalists in the world. sy hersh with julian assange allegedly being tortured today in london. we will perhaps have to wait a while before new wiki leaks cables sure of the cia is at one with the strategy of 20 blinkin state department. seen as the leading, leading on the war on russia through ukraine. dr. melvin goodman was at c, i, if a decades it is now professor of international relations at john hopkins university and senior fellow at the center of international policy joins me from washington. d . c. melvin, thank you so much professor for coming on the show. you don't believe sy hersh a story that the nord stream was blown up by biden blank, and i newland and solid archers pieces for the last few years that have been based on very little evidence whatsoever. which is why he has trouble getting published in washington and london, and he had to write his recent piece on sac. he writes without evidence. he says he

has anonymous sources. he says can deal those sources. and the recent piece was typical. it was based on things that didn't happen. a joint press conference that didn't happen a joint statement that wasn't made. the lack of media attention to show says, visit. this isn't evidence of anything. when i look at the north street pipeline, my 1st question would be, who benefits and who loses? and so i never thought the russians were involved because i was 11000000000 dollar investment. and i think they're going to block their own investment, the major gainer and all this was of course you prank because it forces russia to use the pipeline that runs through the ukraine. ok before we, before we believe that the desire to new york times reports that sy hersh alleges were fed to them by the white test. what do you mean sy? hersh has been a discredited journalist in recent years. did you not read? is abu ghraib revelations during the iraq war 20 years ago. if you don't read

itself about the chemical i'm talking about, i'm not talking about the older sy hersh. ok. what about the chemical weapons in theory? i know it's what about me lie? what about how to ground? what about k o w 70 name through he will is recent pieces of concerns area. you know, he was the greatest investigative journalist at our time, the last few years. i think he's been chased, chasing prizes and chasing awards. and therefore, he picks up on beaumont, evidently, based on what evidence you're making on basing on things that he's written about. that i know something about, like the destruction of the malaysian airliner by russian forces that were in occupy ukrainian territory. a believe the russian cover up of that. he points to see i in question, in terms of the nordstrom, there's no evidence whatsoever. and this idea that the c, i a, the german intelligence service have been asked to provide a joint statement of alternative theory. that seems very unlikely to me from the way i know the c. i a works in the way german intelligence works. i mean,

i would just be very careful with sy hersh. i know it suits your attitudes about nord stream and what happened. but i don't think it's consistent with logic or fact . those are my attitude about anything. does anyone really leave the cia you are there for 2 decades? are you in the cia now? of course not. when you read my book whistleblower, i testified against a cia director and you need to do a little more homework. no, i understand that, but it goes what you are saying now is exactly what i her, she's arguing that your believing that the new york times during the desired story about the largest atrocity of recent decades, the north stream explosions is from that playbook. that since i hi, she's laid a sub stack. i was saying that sy hersh has written an article without any evidence, citing anonymous sources. i haven't, you know, some of sy hersh is sources there. they're not people who are really credible. so

therefore, it, you have to bake questions that how credible is sy hersh and then when you throw in the name of julian assange, you sort of give away your, your own motives and bringing this up at all. why would you have against your assange? julia sanchez, once upon a time, was a very important journalist at some point, joy and astounds, threw himself in with russian propaganda. and he took off from there. i think he's being treated terribly, i'm not, i'm not trying to fight you. believe julian sanchez rush, an agent to a russian asset of some kind. i think he was doing the russian bidding when a certainly do know. somewhere about 10 years ago, he switched investigating all sorts of stories that dealt with russia and only concentrating on those stories that would be satisfactory from a russian point of view. so he became a propagandist with absolutely denies that as, as you know. and so that was it, and i would expect them to deny it. we the leaks, i know people from weekly,

so have a lot of trouble with joy massage. they're not exactly as supporters. well, i did. that's certainly news to us because we have the interview, a lot of people from wiki leaks here again. so i heard your against julian assad, are you for tony lincoln's position on rejecting a ceasefire in ukraine as per the china piece plan for? well, there's a war in europe, i think i think the united states was wrong to be totally dismissive of the chinese plan. i'd rather call the chinese plan rather than the chinese piece plan, because the chinese are still supporting what the russians have done and occupying ukrainian territory, particularly crimea, the war is not going to interrupt them of it. so you want russia to vacate, try me, and let me, let me finish a point that i'm trying to make. i think china has a very different attitude about the global community than russia strategic stability and global security and stability are very important to china to not so.

so i think g, she thing is a very difficult position right now, and he's exercised some restraint and not supplying weapons to russia. this has been a very hard decision for him to make and he expects, i think, the united states to make some restraint in or as a reciprocal instrument of power, which he's not seeing yet. my problem with blanking is he's close the door to talks with russians and with chinese. and the united states follows a policy of diplomatic non recognition that is just not workable, which allow china to come into the person go off and exercise or rapprochement between iran and saudi arabia, which has huge global consequences far more important consequences than actually the north stream pipeline, i think you, you exaggerate that when you talk about this great humanitarian disaster. well, i think the reason for that it was, it was the greatest man made lake and methane in world history and tens of

thousands of europeans died because of i sent stability over the winter, which was a mild winter. so putin isn't interested in global stability. you mentioned the saudi arabia iran deal. do you see that is emblematic of the united states as a place on the global stages basically at the beginning of the end take it so i think it's a wake. wow. beginning of the end, this little strong, but i think it's a wait, it should be a wake up call to blank. and in this department of state that the policy for non recognition and you have to sit on military power just is not working. and that china was able to steal a march on us because the saudis realized after years of negotiating privately with united states, hoping that the united states would weigh in on the saudi relationship with iran. but realized that u. s. has no access to iran, whereas china does so china has on long term energy deals with iran, long term energy deals with saudi arabia. and it goes back to the old chinese

saying that they don't care whether analysis, black or, or they don't care whether a cat is black or white as loose as long as it catches mice. well, that's lesion thing feels about ideology hasn't care about the ideologies of the states. the united states puts a lot of emphasis on that. so china stole a real mark on us. it's a real global realignment. and i mean important ways to anybody can bring them in any, any person in a, for vela in rio, arguably, or in lagos or in the entire global south, could see that coming. what. how many analysts do they have in the state? no, i don't see it. none of the cia now inside company. i don't know or you don't believe anyone saw. so people didn't know about the money with a possible piece deal with iran between their own and saudi arabia. people didn't know about. no one knew that china was about to exercise this rat race. the saudi rainy and talks have been taking place in iraq for the last 2 or 3 years. a lot of

people are familiar with that. but no one expected the chinese to come in and pick up all these pieces. so adroitly, how many ages in the c i a have, and the national security stayed in the united states that they didn't know that when they could read a, you know, they could watch as easy t n r t, you press t v. maybe i'll r a b or they can find it from there. i don't know what you're talking about. the idea china exercising. this came as a surprise to the media community. whether the cia gave advanced warning to washington. not, i don't know, my guess is that they didn't. i think this was a genuine surprise. and i think you're kidding yourself and thinking that everyone knew this was coming. you expect to sanctions as a u. s. weapon to be understood more clearly by the national security state of the united states as china helped russia completely bypass them and in an easier is

talking about not using visa and mastercard and the entire global south. now talking about di dollarization. well, i think the important thing that china is doing this part of the world really deals with the belgian road initiative and where the united states is missed. the boat is in walking away from trans pacific partnership and trying to block the asian infrastructure investment bank. the china setting, so the idea that the united states thinks they can contain china because it contain the soviet union. the so even was a very weak state. the soviet union was like a 3rd world country that happened to have nuclear weapons. so maybe they contain them, maybe that the soviets contain themselves, but you're not going to contain china. and this belief in containment is something that i've been very critical of over the past 2 years of the body and ministration . there's no doubt about that. you can't contain a power, a strong and economically powerful as china. and we should give up the ghost because countries of ozzy on the 10 nations that form the i c on association. and

countries generally don't want to be part of a sino american cold war. this is something that the united states that are realized because they're diplomacy will not be effective until they realize that containment can just cannot be done with, with relationship to child. when do you think the idea that nato expansion was a good thing for the united states? came to know why does because i know you've written you written about anything that i asked for sure. you've written in 1996. the 1996 made a nato expansion for 25 year, but i was trying to get that in 1996. you point to a domestic political situation between bill clinton and bob dole. as a, as an idea that pops got us into the war. the way now in the ukraine would perhaps jotted all the way just explained that that's easy to explain. bondo was going to

be the republican candidate to challenge bill clinton, who was trying to be re elected in 1996 bill. bob dole made it clear he was going to make the absence of nato expansion a campaign issue. and that he was going to be able to use this effectively against clinton, particularly in industrial states like michigan and wisconsin and ohio, where there are large east european communities. clinton, who was a master politician and a master triangular of politics, said, well, take the issue off the table. so he wasn't thinking about international security. he wasn't thinking about foreign policy. he just wanted to prompt all of a campaign issue. so he expand nato. he brought in poland and hungary and the czech republic in slovakia and then george w bush made it worse by bringing in 3 former republics of the soviet union, estonia, lapierre, and lithuania and potent made it clear that any attempt to bring ukraine and ga into nato would be unacceptable, and bush wanted to move in this direction, but fortunately, angle, anglo merkel and some secret phone calls, talk to him back,

talked him out of it, but the ukrainians kept talking about becoming members of nato. and this was unacceptable to russia. the national security interest in ukraine, this is quite unique, very different from any other east european or central european state. so what pollutant is doing is waging a war of terrorism in ukraine, but you can say what he's doing is unprovoked because nato expansion was a provocation. the deployment of regional missiles and poland and romania was a provocation. the base we now have in poland is a provocation, sending on a lead airborne division to romania is a provocation. bringing charm german troops into lithuania is a serious profit cation. the way potent is exercised it though is certainly self defeating, and he's going to make russia even more insignificant internationally than it is now. well, you say terrorism, obviously the russians would deny that melvin gibbon. i'll stop you there. more

from the pharmacy. i enlisted now senior fellow at the center of international policy after this break. ah hi, i'm rick sanchez and i'm here to plead with you whatever you do, you do not watch my you show seriously why watch something that so different my little opinions that you won't get anywhere else. welcome to please. if you have the state department, the c, i, a weapons makers, multi $1000000000.00 corporations, choose your facts for you. go ahead. i change and whatever you do. don't watch my show, stay mainstream because i'm probably gonna make you uncomfortable. my show is called direct impact, but again, you probably don't want to watch it because it might just change to wayne think ah,

welcome back to going on the garden. i'm still here with pharmacy. i am less than a professor of international relations. john hopkins university professor melvin goodman. in ukraine. you say there were lots of provocations. why do you think media in nature, nations, whether it be the united states and european powers routinely says, this was an unprovoked aggression why i can't, i don't, i don't use that word so i can't speak to that. the why do you think they say it's unprovoked? is it because the media is a controlled narrative, though? no, it's the way potent has thought. the war, the use of care for the fact that it was an arrest warrant out from the international criminal court for man is commissioner for children's rights. i mean, it doesn't matter to him because he's never going to travel outside russia or secure a space in the 1st place. he's much too paranoid to do that. do you think he'd get refuge in the united states would be safer when i see see war? because of course the i c c as a is future united states re i c. c. is the subject of act in your congress,

isn't that if they, if they send a warrant out for us officials united states allowed to invade all, and i don't know where you're getting your facts. the united states is not a member of the i asked. clinton, clinton signed the treaty of rome, which created the i, c. c. but the pentagon put up a lot of resistance because they didn't want any of their military members put before an international court that to go back to say, see more, her sy, hersh, that's where he did his best work is his work on me. lie and be it. now, that was a war crime is work on how to grab in iraq. that was a work. right. you know, i'm just joking by the, i see. and how obviously the united states is not a member and launched a attack on the i c. c saying any i c c, judge would be arrested themselves if they ever dared. one attack a not attacking yes. you see, in fact, we're privately to the department of justice supporting the case against boon we are. this is the hag act in the u. s. congress,

which allows the united states government to invade holland. if the i c. c tries to arrest any u. s. official for war crimes. that's, that's an incredible nonstarter that's not worth a lot of discussion. united states is not going to invade. nope, it daily, but it shows a certain type of attitude. arguably. you keep talking about russian terrorism and so forth. what do you think analysts at the cia and of the state to bob and how do they, how do they see this war progressing? because, i mean, i mean, presumably they realize russia will win the war because of its overwhelming, already lost, lost the war. i don't know h, my brushing, winning the war. russia cannot accept a defeat in the war, which is less than that these acts of terror. but if you talk about battle field performance, if you talk about the retreat from key retreat from archy,

there she from her son, they've lost on the battlefield. that's why they resorted to terrorism. what happens to what happens to a nucleus day? what happens to a nuclear state, you teach international relations that tokens what happens to a nuclear state when it says defeat? if one went along with that, which of course is rejected by most of humanity, the idea that russia is losing all happen to be to stay with me a new way that nuclear state will not accept defeat and the conventional war. and that will lead to the use of nuclear wear size and has lost is mine, and wants to bring down the whole temple that he might use nuclear weapons. i don't think that his state of mind is that perilous, but the reason why i want the war to and the reason why i want to cease fire, the reason why i want an artist, even though you might not get a p c, you want to see if i read or sub lincoln's wrong to say keep the war going on,

i don't know. blanket wants to war to go on. he said no to the seas for her. no, he didn't say no to the sea. yes, he said there must not be se, so i said no to the chinese plan, which is not genuine in terms of its commitment to peace is a pro russian kind of plan. i would have accepted it on the basis of a starting point to find out what their fallback position is. he is, i think she is in a difficult state. he obviously does not want to supply arms or to russia, and he's obviously under some pressure to do so. but it was very interesting that what came out of the pain vladimir potent joint statement was the view that this alliance. so this relationship between russia and china is not named and not aimed at any 3rd or way them. it is paying for the war time is buying the oil and the europeans are buying the oil. do every bullet is that you can trace its ancestry to chinese money in terms of the energy and jewel use of weaponry is being supplied

from china according to u. s. institutions. there's not the serious offensive weapons of the united states toward his russian need to prove a china in terms of weaponry. russian, eastern china. they need artillery shells and they need modern armor. they need drones that are more than intelligence collectors. there's a lot they need from china, china, in terms of scientific and technological success in the last few years can run circles around russia. russia is now a jewel. i think once you start, once your starting point is that russia is losing the war. going to sit down very well in russia's near term future, being a junior partner to china. that's now making inroads in central asia. do you expect zalinski to be protected by the united states? usually u. s. proxies like noriega has ended badly. i think the united states is

made clear that they're going to support. so ascii, i think, as i doubt anyone's mind about that. so wait, thank you actually. and then compare i wouldn't compares the landscape to an international criminal noriega who's involved in the drug market. so you actually think that the russians will eventually withdraw from crimea, and from don't matter, i didn't, i did. how is this going to resolve itself? i don't see it resolving itself very easily. i would, but i would like a cease fire because a lot of innocent people are being killed. i don't see this to me is like all quiet on the why you want to see why right now? i would favor a cease fire right now. so you're against what tony blinking said. i wish tony blanket would act more like a diplomat unless like a decision maker who is relying on military power. what i find ironic is the leading military figure in the united states is the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. so you have the leading military that you're talking about negotiations,

and you have the leading diplomat, the secretary of state, who's not talking about negotiations and people are making a lot of money from the weaponry. would you want them to stop sending? i don't know. i've lost count of how many billions, tens of billions, $100000000000.00, who knows, under $50000000000.00 the united states has given us some estimate saying it's more than the afghan war in official figures in just one year, sent to ukraine from the united states. not really, but united states is committed to making sure zalinski isn't defeated by russian act of aggression, let alone a russian campaign of terrorism. well, as you know, and as you alluded to before, china's role is, has taken, it's taken, you surprise, taken the institutions in nato, by surprise. do you think the united states is reaction to saudi arabia would be to consider assassinating?

mom had been solomon and saudi arabia, of course not. does the cia, i mean you at the cia when che guevara was assassinated in bolivia? well, for one thing, assassinations that are conducted by the cia, the ones in the past, in 5 or 6 have all been ordered by the white house. the cia doesn't have its own assassination policy. anyone who thinks that is very naive or just doesn't understand how the intelligence community works. you have presidents who give orders to the cia eisenhower in the case of mama kennedy, in the case of jam. these were instructions from the white house that went to the cia, the cia isn't this roby elephant out of control. you said that the cia is being militarized . there are policy failures are disjointed. there are no, i got it. structured, american national security policy is militarized. the cia is become a paramilitary organization. that's true. they're, they're very active internationally. but, but the united states is built

a global position based on having facilities around the world. china doesn't have this. russia doesn't have this. we've relied too much on military power. there's no doubt about that. and in most cases it's, it's failed. vietnam was a failure, iraq was a failure. afghanistan, we can see that many people say that that's why the u. s. empire is dying, but how will the united states react to the end of a petro dollar to, to why the d dollarization of energy resources specifically for live, at least, i don't, i don't see that happening in the near term. i think the dollar is still the international currency, and she's in pain realizes that and that's one of the limitations on taking these $300000000000.00 that the united states is frozen, the russian assets and actually applying them to rehabilitation of ukraine. and some people are starting to call for,

we don't know what the international consequences of that would be. and what would the point of that me then russia just blew them up using their hypersonic missiles . i don't see how if i show thanks. it helps itself by blowing up infrastructure facilities and civilian facilities and hospitals and maternity hospital, they denied they didn't. i all of that as you know, well, their denials and meaningless and you and, you know, thinking person would accept the russian denial on this. you see, and once you say that, how can there be any kind of george or in church of view. i mean, blinking says no sci fi and your seeing a future of a ukraine, that's part of nato as a, but i've written about this, the churchill said, talk talk is better than john john. that's why i want this war ended as soon as possible. it's serving no part, but you have no idea of how it should be ended. well, the only way to start is to have a ceasefire and begin negotiations and then see where it leads to. i think there's

a possibility that the united states could give some guarantees to russia that need their national security requirements. i think what's missing now is any discussion of do what the russians would demand in terms of national security requirements that would lead them to give up their occupation of eastern ukraine. so you believe that you believe that the russians will leave crimea? i don't think the russians will be primary and should they leave crimea and the population of crimea to suffer the same faces. the population of don bass is no, i don't know whether it's true or not. 70 percent of the population of crimea is probably ethnic russian. and it's interesting to me that when true chef gave premier to ukraine in 1954, they kept all the military facilities. i mean, the naval base never left crimea the headquarters, the black sea fleet never left crimea. and this is true up until all it's still true to this day. so to me is a separate issue. so just, i mean, just finally,

just finally so that we get, just finally, so we get the parallel. if mexico took texas and started bombing texas, and we've had saying already it was, it was thought in the eighty's. yeah. have that happen again, an outlaw, the english language in that spanish must be spoken in texas, and all american literature must be burned and destroyed the rest of the united states. but i mean, it's not, there's no parallel, there's no parallel that you can see anywhere. i'll southern island if southern island started. i don't see any parallel to the shelling northern ireland. england wouldn't do anything. terror that couldn't is fighting. he's making a huge mistake and he's going to make russia very irrelevant place. and you probably know that in your heart of hearts and why did the ruble? why is the ruble, the strongest currency in the world approval?

it's not even an international currency. what are you gonna do with your rouble? thank you very much. hi, melva, good rubel. well, and good, thank you. i enjoyed this very much. that's it for the show. remember going on the ground will be broadcasting twice a week every sunday and monday. so say june. meanwhile, you can keep in touch with all that social media. if it's not sensitive in your country and had to watch on going underground tv on normal dot com to watch new and old episodes of going underground feature. ah ah, what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms. race is often very dramatic, development only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very difficult. time. time to sit down and talk a

ah, a court in ukraine house couldn't find the head of the country's largest wallace street to 60 days. hard to read about those. a clump darned on religious figures with traditional tele to russia. it's a life they want to do everything in their power to preserve their privileged position in the world. they think to r, t rushes deputy ambassador to be un takes aim at western powers, accusing them of having an insatiable thirst to maintain their global india's flagship or line insisted will.