 Hello, hello, hello, and welcome. I'm Meryon Kilili. We are DM25, a radical political movement for Europe. And this is our live coordinating call featuring subversive ideas you won't hear anywhere else. And today we're looking once again at the tragic ongoing war in Ukraine, but this time through the lens of neutrality. Russians' invasion of its neighbor has set off an arms race. Countries like Germany are announcing billions of euros in new military spending at historically neutral nations like Sweden and Finland are now intent on joining NATO. And polls indicate that many of these moves have broad public support. The world certainly feels vastly more dangerous than it did a few months ago. But since the beginning of this war, we at DM25 have taken a very different view to many people, including many progressives. We condemn Putin's horrific invasion of Ukraine and we stand firmly with its people. But instead of pushing for escalation or what amounts to it with a nuclear power, as many are doing from the sidelines, we call for a deal to be struck, a Russian withdrawal and a negotiated settlement guaranteed by the EU, the US and Russia in the context of the United Nations. Anything else we said is warmongering. And about two weeks ago, our own Yanis Varoufakis, together with Jeremy Corbyn and the Turkish author Ece Temel Kuran, announced the Athens Declaration, which takes these ideas to the global level and calls for a new non-aligned movement for peace. So today in this call, we're going to be unpacking this view and this declaration, which should be rather uncontroversial, but which in these very polarized times has ignited some passionate debate. Can an independent Europe really lead the way towards peace and does neutrality mean indifference in the face of war and all the suffering that follows? These are the questions that we'll be discussing today. Now you out there, we're not shy of having a debate. So do you agree with this? Do you radically disagree with this? Do you think we're crazy? Put your thoughts, comments, rants, questions, concerns in the YouTube chat and we'll put them to our panel. Let's kick off right now with Yanis. Yanis over to you. Thank you, madam. Thank you so much. I'll go straight to your question. Does being non-aligned in this world or indeed during the Cold War, does it mean that you're neutral? Absolutely not. In the face of a crime, we would be absolutely without an excuse or moral grounding if we remained equidistant, if we kept an equal distance from the perpetrator and the victim. This is why DM-25, as you said, Maren, from minute one of the invasion of Ukraine by Putin, we made it absolutely clear that we condemned that invasion, that we condemned Putin, that the only person or power responsible for that outrageous act of violating a people and the country was Putin. We rejected even the view that NATO caused it somehow by antagonizing Putin, Putin was not forced to invade. Ukraine was forced to suffer the invasion. So this is very clear. I cannot make it more abundantly clear than that. Let's be clear on this. At the same time, we have a United States on the other hand, which is supporting Ukraine. It is arming the Ukrainian army. A United States with its own long history of violations of sovereignty, of crimes against humanity, where does one start? From the coup d'etat in the 1950s in Iran that overturned Mossadegh and put Iran onto the path of one authoritarian regime after the other. The coup d'etat here in Greece, the support of the fascists in Portugal, that's all American doing. Let's not go to Latin America or Vietnam for that matter. Invasion of Iraq, much more recently, Afghanistan. This United States, taking the mantle of the moral superpower. Okay, let's keep an eye. Okay, let's keep an open mind about this and look at this situation. As we speak, the United States is not participating in the war. NATO is not participating directly in the war. Indeed, NATO is playing today the role the United States played before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Arming its allies in Europe, but not having skin in the game. Now under these circumstances, urging the Ukrainian fighters to deliver a final victory against Russia is on its own a major violation of logic and of the interests of Ukrainians. Now there's no doubt that most Ukrainians, most Ukrainians would love it if their army defeated the invading Russian armies. If they managed to push them all the way back, maybe all the way to Moscow. However, to place a bet as Washington does on Ukraine on its own, maybe armed by the United States with its own man and woman power, pushing Russia back and not just pushing it back, but affecting a regime change in Moscow that will bring, not only will it succeed in overthrowing Putin, but it will bring on a new strongman who not only will overthrow Putin, but who is going to prove much friendlier to the West and Ukraine. That kind of wager is the one that only a very foolish gambler will ever place at the roulette table. From where we stand, what we're looking at is industrial level, industrial scale war, industrial scale destruction in Ukraine. We're talking about massive movements of equipment, of tanks, of armaments, of troops. That annihilation of a large part of Ukraine, thousands of people dying being maimed, a whole process of destruction which let's be rational and cool-headed about that is heading in one direction if left to its own devices. At some point Vladimir Putin, once he has dug in in the coastal areas from Crimea through Mariupol all the way to the Russian border. And once he has achieved military goals that he can achieve, given that he's not doing really very well militarily in relation to his original aims, he's going to simply dig in and declare a ceasefire. And at that point, what do we do? What does the West do? Do they keep sending weapons to Kiev so that at some point maybe refurbished Ukrainian army manages to push the Russians back until when is this conflict going to continue? So being non-aligned means that on the one hand we always defend the victims of an invasion, the Ukrainians, but at the same time we recognize that interests of the victims of the invasion do not align, do not coincide with the interest of Washington DC, interests that are far better aligned with the military industrial complex of the United States of America which is selling weapons like hotcakes like never before with the fossil fuel industry which is having a second wind as a result of the decision of almost every Western government to suspend the green transition, not that you ever got starters, but to suspend it nevertheless and start drilling for oil and gas. Look at the share price of Exxon Mobil, look at Total, look at Shell, they're swimming in dough as a result. So the interests of those villains of the peace of the fossil fuel industry and the military industrial complex are aligned with the strategy of pushing Ukrainians to a quagmire, a cross between Afghanistan and Cyprus, a constant permanent frozen conflict that will be detrimental to the people of the world, to Africans, to Indians, because of the new hunger which is happening as a result of the fact that fertilizers and grains that were being produced and exported by Russia and Ukraine no longer are available to the developing world. We have a Europe which is becoming more reactionary, more fragmented and poorer every day, giving rise only to ultra-right wing movements, defending Ukraine and defending Europe and defending the majority of people in the majority of countries. All that defending of human interests can only be done by a new non-aligned movement by never becoming neutral or neutralized, always justizing the perpetrators, always being on the side of the victim, but never aligning with the forces whose interests lie in maintaining and perpetuating the conflict. This is why Jeremy Corbyn, Echeter Melkoran, as Medan said and myself, put forward the Athens Declaration a couple of weeks ago. Let me complete my intervention by saying that the M25 is uniquely placed in Europe to do two things at once. In the midst of this war, the war against humans, the war against logic, the war against our economies, the war against the many in the interest of the very, very few, the militarists, the fossil fuel industry, those who flourish in the midst of misery. The M25 can position itself along two axes, on two pillars if you want. One is the movement towards non-alignment, the new non-aligned movement, and an attempt to turn Europe into a continent which is truly independent of the forces that are damaging humanity so irreparably. And on the other hand, a green new deal for Europe that will restart as quickly as possible. The half-hearted attempt, which now is dead in the water by European governments in the European Union administration to effect the green transition. So non-alignment to save people from war and to save humanity from those who benefit from destruction and a green new deal, something that we've been working towards since 2016. Thank you, Menom. Thanks, Yanis. Let me get in there with a couple of quick comments that are already appearing in the chat. Toran says, Austria was neutral in the Cold War and played an important part as a go-between for both sides. In reference to your comments on the fossil fuel industry, we're reminded that Shell has just announced 7 billion pounds, 8.5 billion euros in profit for Q1. So they're doing pretty well. And Louis Matar says, dissolve NATO, that's what it takes. You'd admire from Germany. Thank you. I would like to add that maybe it's a bit, it's sad really, because I believe that one part of this conflict is really a too rosy picture that some people in Eastern Europe may have of the West in general or the EU in particular. You recall all these claims that Ukraine is defending the whole Western world, which was not seen that way by the majority of people in the US or the EU. Claims to a lot of funds just today or was it yesterday, Zelensky said that he's expecting about 500 billion euros for the rebuilding of Ukraine. And I don't know where he's getting that from because I guess it's the propaganda of the EU working way too well because someone should tell him that the EU does not do funds. It's first boss move is to claim funds that it already used and say they now have another purpose as just happened with the recovery EU. And the second boss move is to provide funds only as debt at interest rates or other terms that are not better than what you can find on the market. So these 500 billion, the EU could not even find this money for preventing climate change in Europe or to improve a green industry here in Europe in order to protect cities that are at risk of rising sea level. So I really do not see that happening. Obviously we should push for everyone to pay for the rebuilding of Ukraine, but I really do not see the EU providing that kind of money for the industry of a country that is not even in the EU. So I think that this may be part of why he, Zelensky can get away with not agreeing to sit for negotiations with your recall the Russian government announced that they would be very happy to continue negotiations for a ceasefire. And this time it was the Ukrainian side saying they are not currently interested in negotiations. And I think that this may be because of this wrong picture which of course is projected by the West but someone should wake these people up and say no, it's not going to happen. The West will allow the Russians to destroy your country and kill a lot of Ukrainians, but the West will be absolutely absent when it comes to providing any significant relief. Thank you, Yudit. Your hand is fair in Germany as well. Thank you. And yeah, thank you Yudit for adding those things, those points. I think from the German perspective here in Berlin when Olaf Scholz came out with his speech in front of the Bundestag right after the start of the war and he announced the Zeitnwende, which is a German word for the change of times. It was very crazy for me to see that now we suddenly are going to spend 100 billion euros extra for the German army, for the German, for rearmament of the German army, which has already an annual budget of 50 billion euros, which is close to what France is spending the UK and Russia itself are spending about 60 billion euros a year. So to actually make sure that you can defend yourself, this money doesn't really seem to be needed. I think rather to me, it seemed like this plans have been in the drawer for a while and now was the perfect moment to actually take them out. Same goes for actually projects that are being built now, LNG terminals for liquefied gas in the north of Germany, even thinking about oil drilling in the north of Germany by the Greens in the local government and in the government of Germany, which like Janus already mentioned, our plans that also in the oil and gas industry, I think are, yeah, the opportunity now will be used instead of investing heavily in times of the looming climate crisis into infrastructure that has been crumbling in Germany for years, wages have been stagnating. This is things that we need to invest in and that is what we have been proposing all along with our Green New Deal. And this is I think what we are going to fight for with Meta 25 in Germany and of course also with the M25 in Europe, now with the new non-aligned movements that we are pushing for. I think it is a good combination and the only right choice, even though it is of course hard in times of war because yeah, we've all lost already when the war was starting. Thanks Johannes, Amir Kiay, our policy coordinator, listen to him, Amir. Thanks Mehran and good thing you pointed out Johannes, the issue of the military spending by Germany, the increase because obviously what that spurns is an additional growth in military spending elsewhere. Macron on his reelection campaign, he mentioned additional increase in defense spending. So as the countries are beginning to increase the spending, neighbors maybe at some level also feel additionally threatened. Of course, if things go the way they go with the globe and it spirals out of control, that of course again means less money for what society really requires. There's around 300,000 open positions for kindergartens in Germany. There's hundreds of thousands of German children cannot go to kindergarten. It's the same scenario in the Netherlands, childcare is the issue. The ratio, there's a 25% shortage of teachers in the Netherlands, but somehow again, our cabinet of Prime Minister Rutter has managed to find additional funding for the military. And this includes taking money away from the climate change budget, which was just announced a few days ago. So we're gonna reduce our money to fight climate change and we're gonna shift it to further militarization. And the issue with all of this is that this is paid for by us. It comes from our money, our pockets and this is adding, it's all government debt and it's adding to our public debt and of course the future generations that are gonna be even in more debt. And generally speaking, spending on the military and the whole military institution is of course very opaque. The Pentagon for example, has never managed to successfully pass an audit. Now let's assume that could be the case even by the own internal financial standards. There's enough mismanagement of funds, same with the European Peace Fund managed by the European Union. It's subject to no democratic, if you like, oversight by no institution, that even the European Parliament cannot access and have an overview of that fund and half of it has already been released for the war in Ukraine. And we have to be really careful about this because history shows us what happens when we go to further militarization and let's take the case of Afghanistan. 20 years of war in Afghanistan, over 20 trillion US dollars has been spent on that war by US and NATO allies. And what did it lead to? An overnight departure by US forces leaving all the weaponry to the Taliban and who's taken over, the enemy has taken over the weapons, the American weapons. And it's a similar situation that's happening in Ukraine. We're looking at easy smuggling of weapons to far away conflicts or reverse engineering of those weapons to be used against the West in the future. So the more we send, the more blowback we're gonna have. Thank you, Amir. And a question perhaps, perhaps who you did because you also referenced this, the current debate on Ukraine, everything that's been said so far in this conversation seems very sensible to me. I mean, obviously I'm biased, but why then are so many people out there calling essentially for what amounts for escalation? The Guardian editorial a couple of weeks ago really, really crystallized that view that we should be pushing for Ukraine to have some kind of, as Yanis was talking about, a final victory. What is it? Is it the success of Zelensky's tours by Videolink? Is it propaganda? Is it the idea of just sucking it to the bully, which is very powerful in today's social justice discourse? What is it exactly? What do you think is behind that? Well, yes, Zelensky is of course very powerful. I noticed that he can adapt his body language to the customs of the country that he's speaking to. If you watch his video addressing Japanese people, he almost looks Japanese, you know, like Ken Watanabe. And when you look at his video addressing the Italians, he looks Italian, it's quite amazing. So of course he's a likable person. And of course, sticking it to the bully is a very strong sentiment. But I think it's also because of the media. The media are letting us see this conflict as previous conflicts haven't been seen, including other attacks, including the conflict in Yemen and Iraq and so on. And of course, the media are not quite honest when it comes to explaining what it would really mean. No fly zone, and no fly zone sounds perfect, to be honest, until you realize that it means shooting down Russian planes and raising the chance of having an atom bomb dropped on a European city. So, or it's basically they're dealing in half information. Thank you, Judith. Lucas, February, Brazilian, based in Germany, go for it. Thank you, Meta. I wanted to mention something that has stuck with me since I saw it, and makes me wonder why we're not seeing this being reported. And a bigger deal made out of this, as I think it is what I think should be happening, which is a report that came out a few days ago, last week if I'm not mistaken, that some minutes leaked from a meeting that happened in Brussels in March, that review that the president of the European Commission met with CEOs from six of the largest fossil fuel companies in order to coordinate a communique on energy policy as a response and energy policy changes as a response to the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. Which is just, it's unbelievable to me, that the president of the European Commission, who isn't elected to begin with? The theoretically should be an elected post, but she's not elected. Then met with six CEOs, obviously also unelected. And I would say, going out on a limb here, but I will guess that they have vested interests in the energy policy happenings of the European Union. To coordinate this, and it wasn't the first meeting, they meet, it's pretty much common for them to have scheduled meetings, that that one is particularly egregious because it was to coordinate the communique that went up on the same day. But nevertheless, I think it just emphasizes the fact that there's this wonderful coincidences that happen that it seems like everything that is bad and horrible that happens in the world for common people is a bonanza and a blessing for the few, for the 1% basically and an opportunity for them to get it from Richard. On the way you just mentioned that you asked the unit about, I think if I may venture in to answer that as well, I think, look, a lot of it is just due to the fact that the media, they want clicks. That's how they make money, right? And so it's very easy for them to, when they see that, things like that are the things that get clicks for them to just to print out more and more of it. I think it's very good for certain journalists to feel like they're important as well when in those moments of like global crisis when the conflicts break out because they can write their thing pieces knowing that they will never get called upon to actually try to walk the walk of the talk that they're advocating for. It's one of the reasons why the liberal media in the US by and large loved Donald Trump in the sense that they would publish things about Donald Trump even though he's the president of the United States compared to other sitting presidents. It was just day in and day out after he left office as well, it's continued because that's what got the clicks and that's what got the ratings on cable news. And so even though obviously personally the ideology of those journalists, I have no doubt that it's not aligned with Donald Trump. At the end of the day, it's what gets the attention it's what gets the clicks. And I think it's the same here. The more you treat this war like it's something that's happening in another plane of reality like there isn't actually people dying it's just a bunch of heroes against a bunch of invaders and you just treat it like it's a Marvel movie almost that's what gets the clicks and that's what gets people going. So they do more of it. Unfortunately that leads to some of the consequences that we see in public opinion these days. But I will end on encouraging notes because you mentioned the editorials that we've been seeing since the war broke out or there was an editorial by the New York Times a couple of days ago that shifted the tone a little bit. And basically in a net shell it said that America's involvement in this war can't be for an under tournament like Biden needs to set out the terms of what the Americans involvement in this war is going to be and he needs to make those terms very clear to Zelensky and to Ukraine which is a drastic change of tone compared to just a few weeks or a few months ago. And I think it's a positive thing that this recognition that you can't just promise Ukraine the world while knowing that you're not going to go on a direct get into a direct conversation with Russia because that won't serve anybody's interests. Everybody's just going to be destroyed in a war that happens. So I think that's positive. And to finish off with I was just thinking early in this discussion about a quote that sort of stuck with me from a discussion that we had a few days after the war broke out here on our YouTube channel in which we had this special episode to discuss it in which one of the guests was Vladimir Yashenko who is a scholar on Ukraine and he said something to the effect of sending arms to people who are fighting for their freedom and for their existence is probably not the worst thing but only if that's accompanied by diplomacy which is what is actually going to bring an end to this war. So right now we're seeing a lot of the former we've seen a lot of promises to send weapons and heavy artillery, things like that but not a lot of diplomacy. So that's what's really concerning and that's what we need to change. Thank you, Lukas. A couple of comments from the chat here from Klovis, US foreign policy in this case is endless war as long as it's not happening in their country. Someone else says that Ross says that arming the far right militants in Ukraine is not going to be healthy for us at all. And another comment from Trevor which is that non-alignment is all very well but that does not stop tyrants from invading you and even neutrals would eventually have to decide if they want to defend democracy or not. Everything else is horse shit. Okay, so if anyone wants to comment on those positions. Okay, can I take this? Please do, take the horse shit one, Yanis. Take the last point. You can see the conflation there again between non-aligned and neutral. Our friend assumes that to be non-aligned is to be neutral. It assumes that you never fight. We're not talking about appeasement. We're not talking about taking a position that you should never take arms or that you should never intervene militarily in favor of somebody who is being attacked. It means that we are not of the view that military blocks like NATO are spreading security. We believe that military blocks like NATO are spreading insecurity. That they're increasing the chances of conflict. They're increasing the chances of being invaded. That they're increasing the threats to democracy. That we remind our friend that I was born in the country which was a member of NATO but still had a fascist dictatorship. I will also remind our friend that I, you know, and Meral, we are citizens of two countries who are both members of NATO and who have been at war a number of times and may be at war tomorrow morning even though both of us are in NATO. So, get off it. Non-aligned does not mean neutral. That's one point. And since I've got the floor to the question as to, you know, why is it the question you asked Meral? You know, why is it that the Western press almost in one voice is calling for the conflict in Ukraine to continue until Ukraine wins? Why are they taking such a militaristic position and a highly rational one? And you mentioned the Guardian. Well, the track record is clear. Every single time, the West has pursued a homicidal, stupid, failed imperialistic war. The Guardian, the times, the whole press has fallen in line. I remember very vividly with the Iraq war when there were demonstrations in London, in Rome, in Athens, in Paris, everywhere before George W. Bush invaded Iraq because we knew it was going to happen. So we demonstrated across the world, we had millions on the street. And the good newspapers that I mentioned, the Guardians being one of them, reported the peace movement very positively, had good things to say about sensitive people going on the street, arguing not in our name, don't invade Iraq because of what happened in New York City with 9-11. It's got nothing to do with Iraq, as we know. There are no weapons of mass destruction and that's not just a poor excuse for invading Iraq. So they were reporting all those things greatly until shock and awe happened, until the invasion happened. That moment, look at the headlines. World to world support for imperialism because we have to follow the money. If this is not individual journalists going apeshit about war. This is not a failure of the judgment of individual writers, journalists. This is an editorial line. And it's an editorial line, why? Because these newspapers belong to the oligarchy. And the oligarchy always falls in line with imperialist expeditions. It really is very simple. And so tragic. And there is also this feeling that once war begins that now is not the time to dissent. We must forward in line because we're under attack. It's such a spineless approach from journalists whose job it should be to hold power to account. And in the end, you see the only thing that will cause dissent is diverging economic interests. Already we see, since we are a European movement, we already see that the summit, the EU summit is going to produce absolutely nothing. Because Orban says no to not buying oil from Russia. And he said something that, you know, it's terrible when bastards speak the truth. And he said that we, the oil we buy from Russia, meaning the Hungarians over six months is less than the energy that Germany buys in one day. So that was hypocrisy. So you can see that the Western Alliance is already fragmented. It's going to fragment a lot more. Did you notice that the most progressive response to this question, should we now sue for peace or maintain the war? This is a question that we're discussing tonight. The most progressive answer to that other than DEM25 came from my old nemesis, Mario Draghi, former head of the European Central Bank, currently Prime Minister of Italy. He came up with a proposal, which was straight out of what we are proposing, just entirely the same, a very decent proposal along the lines of what we're saying, ceasefire withdrawal to pre-24th, February, borders in neutral Ukraine like Austria was in the Cold War. Those things that I've been saying since the 24th of February. And of course he's only doing that because Italy's economy is stinking as a result of this war. So dissent only comes in, not as a matter of principle, but as a result of the divergence of oligarchic interests within the European Union. This is the tragedy of the European Union. Thanks, Janis. A couple of comments from the chat. Toran again says, the arms and banking cartels are the only ones who truly win in any given conflict situation. And Mabruk asks, what is DM25 going to do to differentiate itself from pro-Russian parties slash movements? As often in the current climate being neutral is often described as pro-Russian propaganda. Well, given that we've already answered that, that non-aligned does not mean neutral, but there may still be some clarifications we can make about what is the difference here between what we're proposing and just cheerleading for Putin. Eric Edmund, who I think is just going to join us via audio, Eric. That's right. I'm joining you from outside an airplane gate. So apologies for the somewhat aggressive picture that I've chosen. I'm actually quite nice. Hi, everybody. Janis covered quite a few things of what I wanted to say to what Mabruk said. Really, there isn't much to add to what we have already been doing. I mean, from the very first comment that we've made on the escalating crisis in Ukraine, which developed in a full-scale invasion, we have always been very clear that we are against Putin. There is no excuse to the invasion of a country. There's no excuse for violence. There is no excuse for war. So that already, I think, gives us all the foundation we need. The deeper problem here, and I think that's what Mabruk is hinting at, is that the moment you start diverging from the mainstream narrative of absolute condemnation of Putin and also solidarity to Ukraine, help Ukraine win the war, do whatever it takes, et cetera, and not seeing the bigger picture, i.e. the role that we in the West have played in this crisis, that automatically stigmatizes you as being pro-Russian, automatically, without any kind of serious critique or analysis. And that is really the deeper problem. It's not that we need to differentiate ourselves from genuinely pro-Russian parties and movements who are supporting what Putin is doing in Ukraine. It's the fact that the moment you try to have a more nuanced balanced position in a time of moral panic, which is what we are seeing in Europe right now, you're being immediately seen as one of them, part of the enemy. And it's exactly at times of war when this kind of narrative needs to be opposed, because it is that kind of narrative that creates the foundation for a broader war. It creates a kind of foundation that other governments would need in their own societies in order to excuse deeper involvement in the war in Ukraine and boots on the ground. And that is, we need to oppose that kind of polarization of the narrative at all costs. So that's one point. Now that polarization, I think to answer a previous question, is also happening because after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we've been living in a unipolar world where America has painted itself as sovereign and successful as the victor. And there is no other side. And I'm not in a way being nostalgic now about the Soviet Union, but what that means is that we're now in a situation where countries that used to be neutral during the darkest days of the Cold War, like Finland and Sweden, there were pillars of that kind of non-aligned position. They are now wishing to join NATO. And that's not because Russia is seen as a bigger threat than the Soviet Union was, it's because Europe has become far more conservative in the decades that have followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. And the kind of decisions that are being made by these countries do not reflect the political reality that is external, but internal to those countries, it has to do about how dominant conservative ideology has become within our political habitat, if you like. Yes, so that's what I would like to add to what has already been said. There was a more point about non-alignment. Oh yes, which Janis has already covered, but I'd also like to add that apart from the fact that non-alignment isn't neutrality, what also needs to be said that creating this kind of opposition to another country, i.e. maintaining NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union, meant that you created the boogeyman that would allow a person like Putin to come to power and to be as powerful as he is, because you give him all the ammunition he needs rhetorically to present himself as this strongman that needs to defend Russia from the rest of the world and the rest of it. And we also see that in my own country in Greece and Erdogan, when we buy new frigates, when we buy new fighter jets in order to defend ourselves from Turkey, we're giving Erdogan exactly the kind of ammunition that he needs in order to perpetuate his narrative of being the strongman that is defending Turkey from all of its enemies. So the best thing that one can do in order to secure peace is to remove this kind of dual narrative of us against them and the rest of it. And that's why the new non-aligned movement that the DM is spearheading today with a PI is so timely and so important at this time of growing polarization. Thank you, Eric. I have this image of you in an airport lounge talking conspiratorially into your phone. You put your finger on something very important there and that is the importance of communicating nuance and that in this climate, which already is very polarized, very tribal, 140, 280 characters snippets, either you're with them or against them, when you add war to that polarized climate, then it becomes even more challenging where people are just looking for simple solutions. So perhaps I can bring Lucas in our communications coordinator, how could we better communicate nuance? And we see here, even in this conversation where you can see our faces and Yanis, who's a very good speaker, explained exactly what the non-aligned movement was about. And yet there was still confusion among some people in the chat about saying that it implied neutrality. How can we clarify these things and be able to convince in this environment, Lucas? Well, look, I'm not gonna pretend that I'm usually experiencing this in the sense that I wasn't around doing this at the time of the war in Iraq or at the time of the war in Afghanistan or Vietnam or the first go for and so on and so forth. So it's been quite an experience to attempt to do that in the face of a war breaking out in the neighborhood essentially because this is the democracy in Europe movement. And so my take on it essentially is in the early days, it's basically impossible to communicate it effectively in the sense that you're likely to win a lot of minds and a lot of hearts regardless of how you try to phrase it. Of course, there's some ways are worse than others but the frenzy, just the confusion and the emotions, they're too heightened. It's just not going to work and people are going to break into camps. And to an extent, you just need to accept that fact. And then I think the most important thing is not to give up not to then feel like you must align with one of the camps in order to be heard. You have to trust and this goes beyond communications of course and how you, what words you choose to use. This is much deeper. You need to trust your analysis. You need to trust what's right. What's going to be evident that is or was right in the long run and you need to stick to it. So I feel like in terms of like how do you try to weather this storm in the meantime? I think one good example is that's very pertinent to the discussion that we're having here is this talk about non-alignment and neutrality. Neutrality is a very difficult term to use in times like these when there's a war of choice, a war of aggression from one country against another. It's very difficult to say and to explain that you advocate for a quote unquote neutral position in the face of this. But I like what Yanis mentioned for example and what I've seen other people mentioned especially left-wing activists and politicians from the global South in trying to explain that neutrality doesn't mean neutrality in the face of aggressor and victim or colonizer and colonized or war against peace. No, we align with the victims. We align with the colonized, with the oppressed. We align with peace against war. We just don't align between armed blocks that are not going to help the political situation in the long-term and are only going to cost more lives. So I think that's a very nice framing. It's quite beautiful even. And I think it's an example of nuance that's very well communicated in times like these. Well, like I said, I think to an extent you just need to be honest and you need to accept that it's not going to be a very popular opinion because it's not very popular to have nuance in times of very heightened emotions in any area of life. But I think if it helps, just think about history and if you're old enough to have been at least at a lessons or in your late childhood back then what the mood was during the invasion of Iraq and how it has shifted now, I would guess that the vast majority of people who were in favor of it back then now see that it was a massive mistake that cost a lot of lives. Same thing with other wars throughout history, very recent wars, historically speaking, of course, the Vietnam War, the First Gulf War, the both invasions of Afghanistan, both by the Soviet Union and by the United States and so on and so forth. Libya to give a more recent example. So I think in the long term, the position for peace against war and for diplomatic resolution instead of just arming people and hoping for the best proves itself to be the right choice. So you just need to trust that it will reveal itself as the right choice with time. Thank you, Lucas, it's challenging indeed. And you out there, if you'd like to read our Athens Declaration, it's the links are in the chat right now and you can also go to our website, dm25.org to have a look at that. There's also links that we've been discussing in real time, they're being posted onto the chat, for example, the New York Times editorial that's been referenced. Dushan Payavich, our campaign coordinator, the floor is yours. That's my friend. Yeah, as I assume all of you and majority of our viewers know, I'm all up for demilitarization, for redirecting those funds towards the green transition. But I would also like to say today that I'm glad that non-alignment doesn't mean neutrality because I'm not that much of an optimist when it comes to wars and stopping wars and so on. And I think we need to have certain mechanisms that defense the victims away from aggressives. I'm coming from really conflictual region and really conflictual country in Montenegro. We have wars every 30 years in average and we haven't had one in 30 years for now. So we hope that will stay that way. But what I wanted to say is that unlike many of the viewers, I assume, I come from a country that is under direct bad influence of Russia through the Orthodox Church that's placed here. And even European Commission recognized this in their latest report where they say that Russia should keep their hands away from Montenegro. They were involved in, they were trying to stage a cope in 2016 as well in order to prevent Montenegro from joining NATO. But, and I mean big but, I'm not supporter of NATO because I mean, I don't want someone to molest global south, to kill civilians, to kill children, to go to wars only because of oil and gas companies because of money making and so on, which is what NATO has been doing forever. But I think we will have a lot of job to do in spreading this message in countries like Montenegro, in countries like Bosnia, where it's really, for example, here in Montenegro almost every party celebrates the fact that we are in NATO because we feel more secure now, you know, which is something that we need to change. When Montenegro was invaded hundreds and five years ago, the West didn't help. And now they think if something bad happens, the West would help because we are a member of NATO now, which may not be even the case, but to put that aside, everyone was wondering in the siege of Sarajevo, what is West doing and why doesn't the West help? Now we have very, very hard task to explain to those people, the people in Bosnia, the people in Montenegro, why they should join the non-alignment movement. For Serbia it might be easier as I said on our private meeting because Serbia felt great aggression of NATO in the 1999 and citizens there are not supportive of NATO, definitely for obvious reasons. But I have one practical question for the very end, except for this really hard task that we have in order to persuade people from Bosnia, from Montenegro, from Ukraine in the end of the day, that NATO is not a problem, that NATO is a problem, sorry, and they should align with the non-alignment movement because I mean Russia would probably invade Ukraine even if they didn't want to join the NATO because they deny their sovereignty, they deny their language, they deny their nation and so on. So how to explain that to those people is one question that we don't have to answer right now, maybe it's the question for our communications. And the second question is how would that look in practice on the one side demilitarization and redirecting those funds towards the green transition and education and healthcare and still being one relevant military force that can defend Ukraine, that can defend Montenegro or whatever country that would perhaps get invaded where there is such possibility. How to do both things? I know this is not a question for one man but I would like to ask that to Yanis perhaps because there is a need of democracy in establishing the rules how to do both but how do you see Yanis this process of being relevant military force and still doing refunds away from militarization towards the education, healthcare and green transition? Could we hold that thought and I'll bring in David and Yanis, I'll bring you in at the end if that's all right and you can respond to Dushan who's articulated many of the challenges that we've got here. I think that sounds like a workshop title what you've described Dushan, maybe we should organize that. David, Portuguese are resident from the center of the Death Star Brussels. Thanks, Mehran. I mean, I also have a question which is kind of a rhetorical question which is why should we be forced to choose between NATO and Russia isn't the point of democracy to be able to decide on new coordinates for the system that we have? I mean, we apply this logic everywhere else why shouldn't we apply it to this question as well to this point about Russia and NATO? Earlier Yanisino mentioned Greece being a member of NATO during the fascist junta obviously me being from Portugal I also have to remind everyone that the fascistic leadership in Portugal was not only a member of NATO but also a founding one at that a fact that in itself expresses the nature and objectives of the alliance. Also the support of the larger imperialist spars in NATO over the years was decisive towards the longevity of the dictatorship in the country including the support for the colonial wars against the peoples of Angola, Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique and we certainly don't forget NATO's pressures as well and threats aimed at constraining the 25th of April revolution. So next time you hear that NATO is a force for good a force for peace for human rights, democracy and all that just remember this NATO does not give a damn about you about me, about peace, about democracy or human rights or any of those beautiful things that we should rightly have when we don't have it so we must fight for it and that's what we're doing so a non-aligned movement in the terms that we've been talking about is the only we fought in my opinion and just to finalize because around nine years ago I think it was around this time that I was actually went to shape to the shapehead porters of NATO here in Brussels and I did ask this question to, you know we're having a seminar and I asked I put my hand up and I asked the question you know why was Portugal a dictatorship by the time a founding member of the alliance to which I got no response. So, you know, anyways it's just an anecdote just thought I'll let you all know about that. Thanks. Thank you for that. We're at the top of the hour, Yannis some closing words from you if I can. I thought that Baral had a question. Oh, did you have a question Baral? I didn't see your hand up, forgive me if you have I would love to bring you in now. Go. I think there is war all over. Today five soldiers die on the Iraqi border fighting against so-called PKK. So, and I heard in the televisions here that there is some, I don't know negative relation between Mr. Mitsotakis and our president. Do you know anything about it, Yannis? Yeah. Well, thanks Baral. Thank you, everyone. Okay, first, Dusan. Do you really believe that Montenegro is safer because it's a member of NATO? No, that's the thing. I just said that people believe and that's why we need to as a way to do that. You know, people believe all sorts of things. So, there are two completely separate things. One is how do we liberate people from false belief? And the other one is what should our policy be? But our policy for non-alignment I think is very clearly right. And on the side of defending those who need to be defended and without attacking innocent people and communities. We need to liberate you from falsity. It's really very clear. The way in which military alliances convince populations that it is in their interest to stay within those military alliances whether this is in Montenegro or in Turkey or in Greece is the same tactic that the mafia uses. Remember what the mafia does? New York City, in Amsterdam, everywhere. It offers protection. So, on the one hand, but the main thing is that it offers protection from itself or from mafias like itself. This is what military alliances do. NATO created huge tensions after the fall of the Soviet Union purposely, purposely in order to justify its own existence. And then after it created those conflicts and those tensions, it comes to you and says, oh, you need to belong to us because otherwise who's going to protect you from the tensions and the conflicts that we caused. Because let's face it. While Putin chose to invade Ukraine, there was a dastardly act. NATO is not responsible for that act. Nevertheless, NATO is responsible for the existence of Putin because had the United States and NATO not crushed the soul of Russia and of the Russian people, they wouldn't have a strongman from the KGB towering over them and running the show in Moscow. So it's been the same thing. We said this before. It was a bit like Saddam Hussein. Who was the greatest supporter of Saddam Hussein? NATO. Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney. Actually, there are photographs of him shaking hands and hugging with Saddam Hussein when he went over to cover up for his use of chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurds. So, you know, that's what they do. That's what Mafiosi do. This is what military establishment do. So going to come to your question, Berald. Remember that Greece and Turkey, or Turkey and Greece were founding members of NATO. We were amongst the first, the first batch of countries to form NATO. And the way we were lured into this was really very simple. The hegemon, the emerging hegemon of the Second World War, the United States effectively played one off against the other. They told the Greeks, if you don't get in and the Turks get in, then the Turks will have our support and you want. And they told the Turks the same thing. So both of us got in and we started buying American weapons. And now if you just take a look, you can do it on the internet at the Greek Navy and the Turkish Navy. They are identical. Identical, they have the same ships from the shape shipyards in the United States. They are second-rate ships, third-rate ships that the Americans don't want. So when the Americans want to discard two ships, they sell one to Turkey and one to Greece. And at the same time, they are not protecting either Greece from Turkey or Turkey from Greece. You see, we are belonging to an alliance that's not protecting us, that is causing us to fight one another so that we both buy the weapons that they sell without protecting us from each other or allowing us to come together and forge a proper alliance. So this is how mafias work. This is the message that we need to put across. Countries like Sweden, Finland, Austria managed to escape all this during the Cold War. It was not the second best solutions. It was not that the Finns and the Austrians, poor bastards during the Cold War, they had to stay out of NATO. That they had to stay out of NATO. No, it was good that they stayed out of NATO. They are better countries, more democratic, safer by not being in NATO. What we now have, and I believe somebody said that before, I think it was Eric, maybe not. We have the fragmentation of what was left of the old European non-aligned movement, further drift to the right. And the result is, of course, that very powerful interests are pushing those countries back into NATO. Finland is not going to be safer now that it's in NATO because this is a myth. I have one difference of opinion from some that I heard tonight and which I think some of you may be holding. Look, I don't really believe there's any chance of nuclear war. I don't think that even if the United States were to attack Russia, that Putin would use the nuclear weapons, that he would unleash nuclear weapons. I don't believe that America would unleash nuclear weapons. I don't believe that Britain would ever release nuclear weapons. There is a fantastic, fantastic episode in Yes, Prime Minister, anybody would have seen it, when the new guy becomes Prime Minister and he's given the codes for the nuclear weapons of Britain. And he feels really very strong and powerful because he's got nuclear weapons to play with, right? He can press a button on the side of the world. And one of the people that he's talking to asserts to him, so Prime Minister, why is this useful? Would you ever use them? Of course, if we're facing an existential threat from the Soviet Union, I would press a button if they did. And the guy starts giving him scenario, right? So hang on a second, Prime Minister, if the Russian army enters Poland, will you press the button immediately to destroy the world? Yeah, no, no, no. And then you can imagine, it keeps coming, it keeps coming. What if they take Kale of just opposite Britain? Would you press the button? No. What if they send a thousand soldiers and they take Dover on the other side? Would you press the button? No. So in the end, he doesn't press the button at all. Because they're completely useless these buttons. Absolutely useless. You would never use those buttons. Why would you? Unless you are criminally insane. The only way you would press the button is if you are criminally insane in which you shouldn't have the button. So I don't believe that it was ever a case of nuclear war. And it's not that NATO is not getting into Ukraine because they are worried about nuclear war. They are worried that they will be caught up in the same quagmire that Napoleon and Hitler. You don't invade Russia. It's a bad idea to invade Russia. You know, the Russian winter will always win in the end, even if you take Moscow. So there, I've said enough. Thank you, Yanis, and I hope you're right. Thank you out there for joining us. We've had an interesting chat. We've talked about our rather lonely but I think eminently sensible view at DM25 of a negotiated peace settlement for Ukraine. We've talked about what might be behind this pseudo religious belief in the West to escalate and help Ukraine towards a final victory that nobody can really describe over Russia, a nuclear power. We've talked about our new policy of non-alignment, not neutrality, but non-alignment, the so-called Athens Declaration for Peace globally. And we've talked about lots of side topics, like how could we convey that kind of nuance in these polarized times, these very tribal and emotional times of war and, well, heavy emotion, let's say. Thank you so much for this chat. It's been really interesting. If you would like to get involved with DM25 instead of just watching us, if you'd like to join us, if you'd like to campaign with us because we're a campaigning organization, we want change, we're not just talking about it, go to dm25.org slash join, become a member, support us and very quickly you can be inducted into our ranks and hope to bring about the kinds of change that we've been describing today. Thank you again and we will see you at the same time, same place two weeks from now.