 Hi, my name is Sandy Baird and we're here with what's happening to discuss the issues of today. We are going to focus today on Russia, the former Soviet Union, and now Russia, where the United States appears to be once again at war, perhaps in a proxy war against Russia. Perhaps many people feel that it's a war to save Ukraine. Nevertheless, there are those who see this as an operation against Russia. So we're going to examine why that might be the case and what the attitudes have been and what they are increasingly with Russia, and with me today is Kurt Mehta, who is a scholar and a lawyer in our local community and who's joining us today to discuss, maybe argue, about the United States and Russian relationships. Before we do that, however, we'd like to show you a little tape, a video, of a speech that was done by John F. Kennedy in 1963, June 10th 1963, in the middle of the Cold War, where he spoke at American University and asked the world, and asked particularly the United States, to consider the nature of the Cold War and the war against Russia or the sort of imminent almost war against Russia, which has been historically accurate since at least the 19th century, to examine our, and he was asked us, Americans, to examine our attitudes about the then-Soviet Union, and perhaps perhaps think about making peace with that other superpower. Well, those attitudes have now changed back again, and we are right now considering a war for regime change, perhaps, in Russia. So we will show you this little excerpt from that speech from June 10th 1963, and then have a discussion about that after that tape. Thank you. Some say that it is useless to speak of peace, or world law, or world disarmament, and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union, a adopted, a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it, but I also believe that we must re-examine our own attitudes as individuals, and as a nation, for our attitude is as essential as theirs, and every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward by examining his own attitude towards the possibilities of peace, towards the Soviet Union, towards the course of the Cold War, and towards freedom and peace here at home. First, examine our attitude towards peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it is unreal, but that is a dangerous defeatist belief. And second, let us re-examine our attitude towards the Soviet Union. No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity, but we can still hail the Russian people. For there are many achievements in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture, in acts of courage. Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique, among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other, and no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union in the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and families were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including two-thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland. A loss equivalent to the destruction of this country east of Chicago. Today should total war ever break out again, no matter how. Our two countries will be the primary target. It is an ironic, but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the Cold War, which brings burdens and dangers to so many countries, including this nation's closest allies, our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combat ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle with suspicion on one side, breeding suspicion on the other, and new weapons to be getting counterweapons. In short, both the United States and its allies and the Soviet Union and its allies have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in hauling the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours. And even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest. So let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to our common interests and the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's futures, and we are all mortal. Third, let us re-examine our attitude towards the Cold War. Remembering we're not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been at the history of the last 18 years been different. We must therefore persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the communist interest to agree on a genuine peace and above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontrations, which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of cause in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy or of a collective death wish for the world. Okay, so Kurt, what do you think? And Kurt again, this is Kurt Mehta who is our scholar and citizen journalist like the rest of us and quite brilliant I think so and we often differ but anyway, so I'm going to ask him what he thinks about that tape and about our current attitudes about Russia. Yeah, I mean Sandy, thanks for having me again and thanks for everyone joining us today. Joining us also is Eric Agnero. That's right. Right, so. Very important to note. So the speech, it seems perhaps, you know, this was the third year, three and a half, third and a half year of Kennedy's administration, you know, Kennedy and his administration and it seems like something was happening behind the scenes that gave President Kennedy perhaps a wake-up call. If you listen to the words that he used in the speech, he provides some more specifics in his speech, the Pax Americana speech at American University at their commencement ceremonies that year, but the sentiment is not very different from the famous speech that President Eisenhower gave. Yes, right. He left office. Talking about the military-industrial complex and then a speech he gave earlier President Eisenhower called the Cross of Irons speech, where he specifically talked about how much wealth in this country was going to be contributed towards the development of B-2 bombers in exchange for schoolhouses. How many Eisenhower? Eisenhower gave the speech, known as the Cross of Irons. He talked about the cost of aircraft carriers, the cost of ammunitions in exchange for the building of hospitals and needed areas right here in our country in the United States. So he talked about the cost of war, the cost of preparation for war and who knew who knew more, you know, than the Supreme Allied Commander of the of the Western armies that invaded to fight Nazi Germany in Europe. He knew the cost of war. President Kennedy was also a veteran, but Eisenhower was a general during the Second World War and he was there, you know, when our soldiers as well as soldiers from Britain and Canada invaded Normandy. He was on the ship, you know, seeing young men in that situation, you know, meet their maker on that beach in Normandy. So he took a took a brave stand, and it seems like the 1963 speech that Kennedy gave at American University, he similarly has that sentiment, but not by talking about the actual physical costs of the expenditures for the preparation of war against the Soviet Union and against communism, but he talks about having a different attitude. Eisenhower. Eisenhower was talking about the cost, the physical cost of blood and money in being in this constant state of war, following the Second World War, and Kennedy talks about reexamining our attitudes towards the Russian people and the Soviet Union in hopefully proceeding with peace on earth, because those were the two adversaries of note at that time. Right, and I agree with you about Eisenhower. Do you have anything that you want to say? I think that that speech was followed by a treaty, right, with the U.S. and the Russians. With John F. Kennedy. Yes, John F. Kennedy, not Eisenhower so much, but let me point out the historical difference between, and I agree with you about Eisenhower, but you got to remember that Eisenhower spoke at a time when the Cold War was beginning, and I think it shocked him, because the thing I found so moving about the Kennedy speech is that he remembered that we were allies with the Soviet Union throughout World War II. How many Americans remember that at this point? That we were allies, that we were together against the Nazis, and that the Soviet Union paid the highest price, as you know. Okay, let me go back to 50 to Eisenhower. Eisenhower became aware of that industrial military complex during the time that we were allies with the Soviet Union. So of course he's not, the Cold War really hadn't reached its head when Eisenhower gave that speech. He became, let me just, you know, gently correct, he gave that speech in 1960 the day before he left office. Exactly, he became right. So the Cold War was moving. You know, we hadn't invaded Cuba through the, you know, the Bay of Pigs. That was a few months later. Right, and that was under Kennedy. That was under Kennedy. Right, but the Cold War was well, well- I know, but- But isn't it a sign that finally a U.S. president is not like powerful? I mean- I know, that's the point. The powerful forces behind him. Yeah. Okay, the other point though that I wanted to make was that, and I commend Eisenhower, I think that he was really very prescient, he came to, the CIA was established in 1947, correct? That's correct. So I think that the Cold War was really, I've read a whole interesting article about President Truman. The same realization that the CIA became more and more powerful, and Eisenhower warned against it eventually. As did Truman. Well the- And as did the whole nature of that secret organization, and it's kind of behind the scenes doing things that were not approved by the president. I think all three became aware that it was a disaster in the end. I mean, Eisenhower, these were men that were Eisenhower, Truman, these were men that were born prior to the commencement of the 20th century. Exactly, yeah. They were born in the 1800s. Well Eisenhower, yeah. Yeah, I think Truman too. Yeah. Yeah, and they are experienced, and again Eisenhower going through the military education that he had, their experience was following a war in the United States and most of the world. After a war, usually countries dismantled- Right, exactly. We have, you know, that precedent even after the First World War- After the First World War, right. Large ships, destroyers, the aircraft carriers of that time were literally physically dismantled- Exactly, right. And they were used for scrap iron and for, you know, other industrial purposes outside of the context of war. That didn't happen after the Second World War. Exactly, exactly. The Department of War became the Department of Defense oddly enough, and the state of being was, there was going to be a constant state of war, at least from a budgetary standpoint, at the very least, if not the maintenance of soldiers and then maintenance of soldiers- And how about the draft? Yeah, what about it? I think that it was, certainly around Vietnam, it was reinstated that many, but after what you made an important point, after World War I, the United States decommissioned. I mean, it went to- Absolutely. And it went to a peacetime economy. But that was always the case. I know, I agree. After, you know, we were unfortunately involved in a lot of wars. I know. But after the war, there was a- Yeah. A peace honeymoon, so to speak. Right, exactly, exactly. But that just didn't happen after World War II. That's my point. That's my point. You know, fast forward to today, it looks like history repeats. The U.S. is confronting the, I mean, the Russians again. Yes, but we did that as Kurt points out. We always did it. The leaders, my argument is that from the establishment of the CIA onward, that the leaders, the presidents, have not been in control of this kind of secret permanent government. That's what Eisenhower was warning against. I think that's what Kennedy was saying, too. I don't think that the President of the United States, in other words, has complete control over the CIA, and they do what they think is necessary. CIA, Department of Defense. Yes, right. And the National Security Council. Yeah. All of which was established in 47. And I think the presidents began to be aware of that and kind of warned beginning, Truman too, Truman did too, began to, even though he was the one who initially bombed Japan with nuclear weapons, I think they all became aware that their power wasn't as absolute as they thought. And I think that... Bobby and the Founding Fathers never envisioned that the president was going to be an absolutist. Exactly. Exactly. And it was going to have control, but the initial presidents didn't have a secret government necessarily either. Well, I think the realization of these men, Kennedy and Eisenhower, notably, was that there was essentially almost a fourth branch of government. Yeah. That's not mentioned. That wasn't envisioned by the Founding Fathers or by the Constitution. Exactly. Is that happening today? I don't think it ever ended. I don't think it ever ended, either. Since then. In other words. But I think all three presidents became aware of it and that's why they cautioned. And that's why he's saying we have to have it. If you want permanent peace, you can't have these endless wars. You can't. Because they have a life of their own. And for instance, that's what Eisenhower was talking about, was the military-industrial complex. So do you really think that if you talk about peace now in the Ukraine, it's almost censored? But I think it's also important, Sandy, that we apprise our viewers and acknowledge at the same time. Though these were very important stances that notably two of these men took, what was actually happening? Truman did, too, actually in the end. Anyway, go ahead. But Truman was also involved in the Korean War. No kidding. After the Secretary of State initially gave the impression to the North Koreans and to Stalin that the United States would not have objected if Northern Korea took the southern peninsula over. And then we changed our mind. And Stalin actually had a very difficult reaction because he wasn't expecting the United States to actually intervene in Korea, in the Korean peninsula. I totally agree with you about that. My focus is on Eisenhower and Kennedy. So though these speeches and these stances were heroic stances at that time, they still would be, honestly. At the same time, Eisenhower was involved in regime change in Guatemala. Terrible. When there was a slight socialist tinge that the democratically elected president of Iran expressed when he talked about nationalization of certain industries, including oil. And then President Kennedy in Cuba, in Guyana, in Vietnam, sending lots of troops. And of course the really caustic conversations that he was having with Berlin when the East Germans put up the wall. I want to make sure that our viewers recognize that though these were heroic stances, these presidents were also engaged in saber-rattling of SSR. I agree. But anyway, also I wanted you to comment during the Cold War. What was happening in Africa? Oh, during the Cold War. This is Erekan Yero, who is from Ivory Coast. During the Cold War, they were like those who were aligned to the Western powers and those who were close to Russia and the Soviet Union. Like in the middle, there was also those who were advocating for a non-alignment stand. But the war was as divided as it was today, maybe with less players, I should say, because it was clearly the Russians against the Americans in the Western world. And there you have multiple, you know, poles of powers. China is a big one. You don't know if China and Russia stands for the same ideals, but at least they have this common enemy. And then you have also medium powers like India, you know, Turkey and other powers that are over there. The economic, you know, stage. But politically, it's the same divide between the... I mean, the same divide that we're seeing today is almost what was going on. It's the same thing. In other words, what my point about Africa and Latin America were those countries during the Cold War were kind of going toward Russia. Yeah, I mean, the... They were going toward Russia. Cuba, for instance. Look, I mean, these were, unfortunately, you know, during this time of history, were very poor countries. Yes. And the... Made so by the European white powers. Yeah, no. So that's why I'm saying during that time, specifically, you know, historically, you know, the world's always ran on a cycle of wealth and poverty. The Russians, the Soviet Union, provided an economic model that was more for people that were poor than the capitalist model. Exactly. Which required a significant amount of capital to get started. And the collectivized farming and different kinds of programs that the USSR had were more palatable for Latin America and for Africa and for Asia than, you know, then the model that Western Europe and the United States had. Because of the amount of poverty on the ground in those countries. So that was a very positive thing for many countries in Latin America and in Africa. But my point is historically, the United States during the Cold War was really fighting against Russia. Certainly. It was a chess match. Right. Exactly. It was a chess match. Right. Okay. Why? Because Russia is kind of a competitor to the United States. Also because the white European powers have always wanted to conquer Russia in a lot of ways. Because of the beginning with Napoleon, really, or maybe even before. So that's what I'm saying, that these presidents, I think, while we agree that they continued that war, also kind of had a change of heart and realized, I think, how dangerous it was for the liberty of the United States, for the attitudes about peace, and that they weren't in full control. And for the economy of the United States. Right. But they weren't in full control. My argument is, if we look presently, the same thing is going on. It's war in my mind. I would argue that it never stopped since 1945. Okay. It never stopped. Okay. It never stopped. And I agree. But that explains the war in Ukraine. Now, I want you to know what you guys think of that. What do you... There's always been a state of belligerence. And it looks like the Western powers have always looked for an enemy. When it's not communism, it's like terrorism at a large scale. I mean, I don't know if it's just to justify, you know, having the military complex at full, you know, your steam or if it's a real enemy. Are we creating enemies? I mean, I think, look, I mean, if you look at world power dynamics among superpowers, others like to have buffer zones around them, geographic buffer zones around them. Exactly. We have plenty. We have oceans. Right. We have oceans, but even regardless of the oceans, you know, if you go back to President Monroe, you know, and we're going to go back to, you know, the early 1800s, this Monroe doctrine, you know, which is not on paper, this was just something that, you know, President Monroe at the time, you know, had published or talked about was that, you know, North America and South America are essentially ours. Yeah. They are our regions and the Caribbean. Yeah. So Cuba was part of our buffer zone. Right. So the fact that the Soviet Union was talking about, you know, installing military installations. And now China. Yeah. And then the coast of Miami of Florida and then later, you know, installing nuclear weapon facilities, that was unacceptable. And similarly, Russia does not want nuclear weapons in their Cuba, which is Ukraine, which is right on the border. Even though who's getting them now? Poland was in Belorussia, too. Right? Belarus. Belorussia is good. Right. Right. Yeah. But Poland also. Right. Because, you know, that, you know, neither one of the two superpowers of the past want any kind of vulnerability in the form of militaries or, you know, weapons of mass destruction on their borders. Why would you? Right. Well, so we didn't want those in Cuba. The Russians don't want them in Ukraine. Exactly. And Ukraine was showing interest in flirting with the West. They haven't for a long time. Right. And we were engaged in the NATO in the United States, you know, part of the United States, part of NATO, were engaged in conducting war games in Ukraine, just, you know, prior to the, four months prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And that was something that was a poke in the eye for Russia. Right. Exactly. And just like we didn't want nuclear weapons at our doorstep in Havana, in Cuba, the Russians didn't want, don't want them on their border. And that, okay, what? And that's, you know, that's my personal humble opinion as to what that war is about. Does it mean that, you know, Cuba will be the next Ukraine in the United States? I think it's very dangerous what's going to happen in Cuba. Sure. The Chinese, for people that may not have seen this story in between all the Trump indictment stories. Yes, right. Right. The Chinese have struck a deal with the Cuban government. Yep. Apparently, right? Yeah. It appears, you know, Wall Street Journal reported it last week, that they will, the Chinese will be installing eavesdropping and spying equipment facilities in Cuba, largely to, of course, spy. But not on Cuba. Yeah, not on Cuba, to listen in on conversations and activities that are taking place in the United States. It seems so incredibly blatant that the Chinese are doing this, right? I mean, aren't they inviting disaster for themselves or not, no? Everything we buy is from China. So they, the Russians did not figure out that, you know, if you sell cheap junk to the West that they would have bought it back in the, you know, early 20th, middle 20th century. Yeah. And I think Ukraine set a precedent so they, if the U.S. can go like a few miles from Russia to, you know, put like weapon of mass destruction and, I mean, at least with the war. Then maybe, you know, they won't say anything. We go to, if Russia, China goes to Cuba. And the Cubans are desperate. Yep. They're, you know, strapped for cash. Layers strapped. So the fact that the Chinese are offering, they're saying billions. That's what the alleged report is. Billions? Billions, wouldn't it be? I think it was an offer that the Cubans couldn't refuse. Oh yeah, especially when, you know, they opened their arms to the U.S. And then, boom, you know, we saw hotels that were built, you know, hoping that, you know, in the, you know, food step of Obama, you know, there would be more, more economic tourism and maybe... Just more commercial transactions and interactions. But it didn't happen. It didn't happen. Yeah. It didn't happen despite the fact that, you know, you had one Republican administration that came in and then a Democratic administration in which the vice president is the, you know, under Obama is the current president and there's been no opening. None. So it appears that... No, it's gotten worse. So it appears that China is throwing a lifeline out. Cuba and Cuba grabbed it in the ocean. Yeah. Well, it's dangerous times. But again, I think it's important to remember that our relations with Cuba stems from the Cold War. Absolutely. That we blockaded Cuba against trade with the world, against getting credit because we saw, we, not me, the president, saw that Cuba was allying itself with Russia. Certainly. It's the same enemy all the time. It's always in the end, Russia, which the reason I wanted to talk about this is a view that is very unpopular. If you begin to talk about reality, that this war, and Biden has said so, that this war is really about regime change in Russia. Yeah. It's not about really about Ukraine, but Ukraine will pay the highest price. No, no. I mean, the cooperation with the former Soviet Union and Russia, it just simply has not happened. It's never, never happened. Never happened. I mean, a simple blatant example was we had the awful, awful bombing at the Boston Marathon. Yes. By the Chechnya's. By two individuals who were originally from Chechnya. And at that time, Russia actually had their eyes on these two young men living outside of Boston. And they offered intelligence to the FBI, the United States FBI, about these two kind of suspicious, shady characters living outside of Boston and who were still engaged in conversations and chatter with extremist Chechnyan groups. Which are extreme against Russia also. Right. Right. And the United States at the time, the FBI said, not interested. Well, the United States has always supported Chechnya. Right. Against Russia. Right. So these two young men then, later, out of frustration, whatever issues they had personally, decided to bomb the marathon in Boston. Right. They could have been apprehended or at least been, you know, at least tracked and monitored. Right. The price of constant animosity. Right. Right. But the animosity always seems to me to be against Russia in the end. A lot of it. I mean, of course, we don't have the same kind of animus. It does not exist really with China. It's mostly still Russia. Well, the plan it appears is to, you know, has always been to essentially take over that country. Russia. So that it could never be a threat like they did with Germany. Yeah. And like they did with Japan. Yeah. Right. Right. Right. Right. It's always been the same. That would be the path to peace, having military bases in Russia, probably, U.S. military bases. Okay. So I think that we will stop today to not to talk more about this, what we think, what I think anyway, is a proxy war against Russia, because it is a very controversial view, I would guess, and we might very well talk about it again sometime later when this war does nothing but continue, I think. Right? Yeah. Doesn't seem to have any lead up between... It's a proxy war against Russia, but the Chinese are taking advantage of, you know, people being having their attention diverted to, you know, push their... Well, in the end, it's going to mean an alliance, a pretty firm alliance, too, with Russia and China. It appears it's going back in that. Yeah, right. So the Sino-Soviet split appears to have... It's being mended. Yeah, it's being mended. Yeah. Okay, thank you very much and see you in a month or so. Yeah, month. Right. Thank you.