so my opinion is i think it's a really great experience to uganda, deployed the army out though they are helping to fight against the india who are also they both feel gun with me as a person. i think it's very okay for them to have them for them for me. yeah. i never, you know, i finally for the 1st time in 3 years, high level talks between china and japan's top diplomats will happen and will happen this weekend. it comes in mid tensions over tokyo was plans to restrict the export of semiconductor manufacturing equipment to china, curbing beijing's ability to make advance chips for its high tech sector. earlier we spoke with c, g, t, and reporter young fish out,

who say the countries are important to each other, but issues remain. well, the 2 countries are neighbors, so, so technically they're important to each other and that the bilateral relationship should start itself should serve the common interests. but japan has been really taking top positions on certain issues towards china, such as the south and east china sea. and also say that there are many other issues such as the del you island and the taiwan question as well as the situation ukraine could be discuss. it's kind of restrictions of the exports of 23 types of semiconductor manufacturing equipment. and this is really comes out one day before the foreign ministers, japanese for a minister's visit to china. so it's, it's really not normal. and certainly it's kind of a cold war mentality and the action of unilateralism. and all the reason for that is just to find and reason an excuse to bolster its defense,

the best capacity. and as you said, it's also the, the agenda from the west. they seeking alliance, which is the purpose of it. it's to contain china. and that's our wrap of the weekend's news for now. if you're in the mood to delve a little deeper into any of those stories to head on over to r t dot com, it's done, you're covered to what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race is on offense. very dramatic development. only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful. very katy killed time. time to sit down and talk ah,

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 medium id forgotten all about it, but the greatest eco terra atrocity of this century was september's blowing up the gnawed stream pipelines. applying energy to europe, countless lives are lost from the resulting instability in new prices and the cia with terrorists, according to one of the greatest jonas 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 cable show 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 for 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 his story, that the north stream was blown up by biden blank, and newland solid arches 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 some stack. and he writes without evidence. he says he has anonymous sources. he says, can't 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 nurturing pipeline, my 1st question would be, who benefits and who loses? and so i never thought the russians were involved because that was $11000000000.00 investment. and i think they're going to block their own investment,

the major gainer and all this was of course, you crank 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 like, what about how to grab 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 basing on more evidence and 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, he believed the russian cover up of that he points to c, i in, in terms of the north stream there's, there's no evidence whatsoever. and this idea that the cia and the german intelligence service have been tasked to provide a joint statement of alternative theory. that seems very unlikely to me from the way i know the cia 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 north stream and what happened. but i don't think it's consistent with logic or fact in those are my attitude about anything. does anyone really leave the cia you were 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 of course, what you are saying now is exactly what i her,

she is 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 was late the sub stack, i was saying this i heard has written an article without any evidence, citing anonymous sources. i happen to know some of sy hersh is sources. they're not people who are really credible. so therefore it, it, you have to pay questions that how credible is sy hersh. and then when you throw in the name like julian assange, you sort of give away your, your own motives and bringing this up at all. why would you have against your li, assange? julia sondra once upon a time was a very important journalist at some point, julian sans 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 you believe julian sanchez, a rush, an agent to a russian asset of some kind. i think he was doing the russian bidding when i

certainly do i, 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 says that is it, and i would expect them to deny it. we, the leaks, i know people for weekly, so have a lot of trouble with joy massage. they're not exactly his supporters. well, i did that suddenly, you news to us because we have the interview. a lot of people from wiki, like your 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 put in 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 that the united states follows a policy of diplomatic non recognition that is just not workable,

which allow china to come into the persian gulf 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 sinned, stability over the winter, which is 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 taken. so i think it's awake. wow. beginning of the end, this little straw, but i think it's a weight. it should be a wake up call to blank in this department of state that the policy of 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, our 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 is as long as it catches mice. well, that's why she's in thing feels about ideology, hasn't care about the ideologies that the states the united states, puts a lot of emphasis on that. so china stole a real march on the us. it's a real global realignment. and i mean important where 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. no one saw it cost me. i don't know. 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 arabian 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, think of what as he g t, n r t, you press t, v, maybe, ellerby or they can find it from there. i don't know what you're talking about. the idea of china exercising this team as a surprise to the media community. whether the cia gave advanced warning to

washington or 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. do 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, 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 that can contain china because it contain the soviet union. the so unit 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 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 biden ministration. there's no doubt about that. you can 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 icing 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 that 980 pixel 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 perhaps got us into the war. the, we're now in, in ukraine. what can perhaps jotted all the way? just explain that that's easy to explain. bondo was going to be the republican candidate to challenge bill clinton, who was trying to be reelected 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, a stony, alaska, and lithuania and potent made it clear that any attempt to bring ukraine and ga into would be unacceptable, and bush wanted to move in this direction, but fortunately, angle, anglo merkel in some secret phone calls, talked 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 term 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 that more from the pharmacy i enlisted now senior fellow at the center of international policy after this break. ah ah, ah, ah,

ah, ah, ah ah, ah, ah ah, welcome back to going on the garden. i'm still here with pharmacy i analyst and now 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 nato nations, whether it be the united states or in european pass, 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 fought the war. the use of care for the fact that it was an arrest warrant out from the international criminal court for men 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 where it be safer with i see, see war because of course the i c c as a is future united states b i c. c. is the subject of act in your congress, isn't it? if they, if they send a warrant out for us officials united states allowed to invade orland, why again,

i don't know where you're getting your facts. the united states is not a member of the i asked. clinton clinton sign 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 fact to go back to see more. her sy hersh, that's where he did his best work is his work on the 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 talking about 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 the i c. c. in fact, we're privately to the department of justice supporting the case against boon. we are. this is a 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, no play 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 department? 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, my russian winning the war. russian war which is less than that these acts of field performance. if you talk about the retreat from key retreat for 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 date? what happens to a nuclear state? you teach international relations that don't okens what happens to

a nucleus 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 happened. he did stay with me as insinuated that a nuclear state will not accept defeat and a conventional war, and that will lead to the use of nuclear wear size. and has last 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 end 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 green or so blink is wrong to say keep the war going on. i don't know, blank and wants to war to go on. he said no to the fees for no, he didn't say no to the c s. he said there must not be, as he 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 whether fallback position is even. 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 that she's been paying vladimir putin 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 wait a minute is paying for the war. time is buying the oil and the europeans are buying the oil to every bullet. is it? you can trace its ancestry to chinese money in terms of the energy and jewel use of weaponry is being supplied from china, recorded the u. s. institutions. there is a, not the serious offensive weapons that the united states is taught is russian need

from china in terms of weaponry, russian, eastern china, they, they need artillery shells that 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 rushes, near term future, being a junior partner to china, that's now making inroads and 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 has made it clear that they're going to support lensky because i doubt anyone's mind about that. so wait, so you actually compare. i went to paris 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 donovan and say that 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 sci fi right now. so you're again to 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 estimates 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 considered 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, are, these were instructions from the white house that went to the cia. the cia isn't this rogue yellow and out of control. you said that the cia is being militarized. there are policy failures, or 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, the 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 g as in tang, realizes that, and that's one of the limitations on taking these $300000000.00 that the united states is frozen, the russian assets and actually applying them to rehabilitation of ukraine as 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 deny all of that. as you know, well, their denials are 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 will view 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. but you have no idea of how it should be ended. well, the only way to start to step 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, and i do 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 with no, i don't know whether it's true or not. 70 percent of the population of crimea is probably ethnic russia. and it's interesting to me that when cru chef gave premier to ukraine in 1954, they kept all the military facilities. i mean, the naval base never left crimea the headquarters of the black sea fleet never left crimea. and this is true up until well, 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 i just finally so we get the parallel.