 Hi, good evening and thanks everybody for being here for this very important time and I believe a very important event that is currently shaking our world. Let me say that with us tonight is a colleague of mine Kurt Mehta who's an attorney. And he is a scholar. Let me say that in the reason that I've asked Kurt to speak tonight is not particularly because he is an expert in this area, but he does very careful research. And it's very difficult actually to find anybody who will who will talk openly about the current situation in Ukraine, and Kurt always does he's playing talking and he does his work. And so he is going to present what I think is a very different view is presented in the media, which is, as I said in the description that this all this war is a product of the evil man in Russia, who is Vladimir Putin lettuce. Let me remind also our listeners are viewers and again thank you for being with us tonight that that man, Vladimir Putin is the president of the Russian Federation, no matter how we criticize him, or maybe I think that that election he and he was elected is fraudulent. He was the he is the elected leader of the Russian Federation. His name is Vladimir Putin, and he is a Russian person who, at least in his mind is carrying out the foreign policy. His foreign policy in the best interest of his Russian Federation, we probably disagree with that. However, that is really what is going on in my view. So calling him a madman or calling him a lunatic or calling him a dictator or calling him a desperate doesn't get us very far. And that's why I wanted to have this meeting tonight to actually discuss the realities of what he is doing what we might disagree with, but nevertheless, what he is doing and the shape of the world that is emerging out of those events those very tragic events in Ukraine, and please also remember. Another reason I think this event is so important is there such vast censorship going on and propaganda going on in our media, as well as probably in the Russian media, although we don't have a chance to look at the Russian media very much because Russia today has virtually been shut down, although I still get it for some reason. Russia today as a publication from Russia. It's a kin maybe to BBC. So I've always been able to read Russia today and see that there's another viewpoint. Isn't that interesting. But in our media there is vast censorship. We have a big article from about from Glenn Greenwald talking about how Tucker Carlson, and also Tulsi Gabbard, a former presidential candidate, and a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army were called treasonous. It was a night because of what they said on television, which was a mere review, as Gabbard said, of the fact, admitted by our government that there are bio research labs in Ukraine, and for that, she has been labeled treasonous. So I'm attempting to get to the bottom of all this. Very difficult. And I really thank Kurt for agreeing to talk about this topic, and to maybe give a more cool headed approach to what's going on in Ukraine so go ahead Kurt. Can we show that map though, Jenna. Is that a right Kurt. Yes. Okay, so I'm going to ask, show this map which is quite blurry why is that. So, all right. So, anyway, Kurt, why don't, can you talk a little bit about what you think are the underlying reasons perhaps of this war in Ukraine. So I mean, you know, one of the big issues that we need to focus on if we're trying to understand why this is happening is thank you for trying. Right. I want to learn a little bit about what transpired at the end of the Soviet Union, which consisted of the country we know as Russia, as well as the Central Asian Republics, the Baltic Republics, and what we call now Ukraine. That was part of the Russian Empire as well as the Soviet Union. In 1991, the Soviet Union essentially fell apart. There were a number of reasons for that, partly due to inefficiencies in the in the system, economic system of the country, partly due to the uptick in military spending. That was done by the increase in military spending in our country, and then also in part due to the war in Afghanistan that the Soviet Union was prosecuting and had spent about nine years there. I think we can, yeah, probably for different reasons but I think we can identify with the difficulty and the expenses in trying to nation build and occupy Afghanistan the Soviets despite the fact that they shared a border with that country. They lost a lot of men and women and lost a lot of their resources, their economic resources in trying to occupy and run that country. By the way, that was sort of their Vietnam in a lot of ways, wasn't it. So that was sort of their Vietnam except that the luxury that the United States that we had was we had some very financially economically successful creditors, namely Japan and West Germany that was that were both able to provide us extensive loans during our Vietnam War, our involvement in Vietnam, the Soviets did not have that luxury. They did not have any wealthy countries in the Eastern Bloc that would come to its financial aid. So they took a financial beating and then again some of the other reasons I brought up, there were inefficiencies in their economic system, and, and they were spending a substantial amount of money in defense costs to match the United States. And that was that was their undoing. So our focus today of course is on the Ukraine. So what, what happened the, the different provinces or republics in the Soviet Union asserted their own independence. Well, this is a collapse of the Soviet Union, correct. Correct. And that was in 91. That was in 1991. Yeah, oversaw by. At that point, the President, Mikhail Gorbachev in the in the Soviet Union and then transitioned government into Russia was Boris Yeltsin. That was the first premiere of a new Russian Republic and the, the Commonwealth of Independent States, as Sandy mentioned before the which was basically run by the Russian Federation, in large part. So, let's, let's move forward to Ukraine. The Ukraine also was one of the Soviet republics that achieved independence in 1991. They signed a agreement to give up their nuclear weapons. At that time, it was called the the Budapest memorandum, the Budapest memorandum basically was a security guarantee that the new Russian Republic would provide. They essentially provide an assurance that it would not attack Ukraine, it would provide a, it would also recognize their territorial sovereignty in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons. They had the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons stationed throughout, you know, a very large, large country that spans 11 time zones, if you think of that you know we have three if we don't include Hawaii. In terms of the mainland, the Soviet Union had 11 time zones. So a massive country and they had their nuclear weapons spread out throughout the country, which included the Ukraine at the time Ukraine was the, the western most portion of the Soviet Union. It, it was in, in firmly within Eastern Europe, but it was the most western portion of the of the Soviet Union, close to it bordered Poland and it does border Poland, and not too far from East Germany and West Germany. So the, so Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons they believe that they had secured guarantees from the Soviet Union, or I'm sorry, Russia at that point, that they would not be subject to an attack, and that their territorial sovereignty would be respected at the time. What later transpired is the was that the Ukraine had a great deal of interest in moving towards the West there was an interest on their part in joining NATO. There was an interest on their part in joining the European Union. Of course, both organizations have very stringent requirements before they can join there has to be a strategic, a certain level of strategic necessity on the part of NATO and when they deem a country as a possible potential and at the initially they were not deemed a high level security risk by by NATO, we're seeing a map of Ukraine now, we can see to the south of it where we see Moldova we see Romania to the to the West we see Poland Slovakia and Hungary into the north. And of course, what we know now is Russia, right. So these are these countries at the time Poland has always been independent correct. Since the Second World War, yes, the Second World War, Belarus was part of Russia. Right, right Belarus was a part of the Soviet Union. At that time, you know, if you looked at Western maps it was referred to as by yellow Russia, prominent city in that country is Minsk right. So that yes to answer your question that was part of Slovakia and Hungary. During the Soviet period were also independent but really part of the Warsaw Pact, and part of the Soviet Union in a lot of ways, correct. Soviet Union. Yeah, so that I mean they were independent countries but they were part of the Warsaw Pact, at that time there was a Czechoslovakia which then later 1991 split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. And Hungary has always been an independent country. Correct. So the what transpired after the early 1990s was that Ukraine made movements towards gaining greater access to the West. Even though initially the West wasn't really that interested the West was more interested in in the Baltic States when I mean the West I'm specifically talking about NATO, and the European Union. They weren't interested in the Baltic States, as well as countries like Hungary and Poland. So they were given a fast track towards joining NATO and initially, there was interest on the believe it or not there was interest on the part of the newly formed Russia in joining NATO during the early part of the Clinton administration. Vladimir Putin himself was caught on camera speaking with President Clinton at the time about the prospect of Russia joining NATO. That was a part of a conversation that took place amongst the elites and foreign policy but then later that was, that was obviously that was discarded. The focus became a quiet acquiring I'm using the term acquiring in quotes but acquiring countries that were formerly part of the of the of the Warsaw Pact in the Soviet sphere and acquiring those countries and putting them into NATO, the difficulty all except Russia though Russia was never allowed to be in now even though they initially expressed interest. It's a great documentary if anyone has showtime, you know the, it's a premium network that you pay for. If there's a, if you have showtime there's, there's a four part interview between the American director Oliver Stone, Vladimir Putin, highly recommend it if you if you have a chance to see that it's still on showtime if you if you look on the on the channel on their website, and it really gives you an idea. You know, I know Sandy started at the conversation with talking about different pejoratives that been used against Putin since the this invasion of the Ukraine. Anything ranging from madman dictator and you know Sandy eloquently mentioned a couple of other names. Right. Right, but if you really want to get a chance to know, you know, on, you know, surface of course, a little bit about Vladimir Putin's values. I strongly recommend watching this four part documentary on showtime. It talks a little bit about his security concerns, and it also had a clip of that famous President Clinton about the prospect of joining joining NATO and President Clinton at the time literally just, you know, waved him off and said, you know, that's part of a discussion for a different time, and essentially silence him during that conversation. You know, it was a much very different Vladimir Putin than the one we know of today. So much more today is much much more confident much more willing to go it alone. However, the other country that you know that expressed interest in joining NATO was Ukraine. What what people don't really hear much about in our news today is the financial and economic situation, and the situation with respect to corruption. That has existed in the Ukraine, since it's, it's break away from the Soviet Union. The Ukraine is considered the poorest country in all of Europe. I know there's been a lot I saw a few articles in our news of the last couple of weeks, even you know proceeding the Russian invasion and subsequent to stating that the that Russia was jealous that Ukraine was going to thrive. Once it, you know, joined the European Union. And I mean, if you look at the facts here and again I'm sticking with the facts. The Ukraine is the poorest country in in all of Europe. They say the per capita GDP in in in Ukraine is lower than that of Botswana and a couple of other countries that are developing countries. They also consider one of the most corrupt countries in the world. And I'm not talking about the their moral. You know, about the morality of the people or of the leadership I'm talking about the strictly you know the the day to day, carrying on of the business of government, the level of corruption is extremely extremely high. You know, if you ask well how come the European Union didn't admit Ukraine, right from the get go, you know as soon as Ukraine broke away and how come NATO didn't take Ukraine in. In large part, you know one of the challenges was the fact that the country so poor. And you know NATO members actually have to pay a certain portion of their, you know a certain portion of their GDP goes towards military contributions and defense, and essentially Ukraine has a great deal of, you know, a great deal of challenges in terms of actually making those kinds of payments. Interesting interesting note is the biggest source of income you know I mean you look at different countries and how they, you know, quote unquote, make their money. You know, China, for example, is an incredible incredible export market, the United States export market service industries, the largest source of revenue for Ukraine, up until about a month ago was the fees that they charged Russian companies to operate gas lines through they they earned about an approximate $3 billion a year $3 billion US dollars a year, and essentially these are lease fees these are you know rent fees for pipes that go through the country pipes that the Russians built and the destination of those pipes are eventually Western Europe, and that's the biggest source of income for the country. So, though the country has you know if you if you're thinking developing countries you may not think of Ukraine you think you know India Bangladesh you know countries in Africa. However, you know the Russian Empire had had built a great deal of infrastructure in the country. So it doesn't appear to be a country a poor country like some of the other countries I just mentioned. However, that being said, in terms of revenue, economy manufacturing, very, very, very, at a very primitive state, the country was largely agricultural. It was, you know what when the Soviet Union was around it was at one point known as the bread basket of the of the Soviet Union. However, that being said, manufacturing, the development of industry was was at an extremely extremely primitive level. So therefore the country didn't have the necessary funds that typical countries that joined the European Union have have to do, and even to make contributions toward defense, like members of NATO have to make, according to the NATO treaty amongst member states so as a result, the Ukraine had has not become a member of NATO, and one of the benefits for the countries that are members of NATO is that there's a common defense clause where essentially an attack on a member state is deemed an attack on all states that are members. And it's important for us, you know, as we get caught up in the in the visual imagery that we watch on television these days, and Internet that that the United States, as well as other NATO countries, the reason we're not sending, or we have not yet sent, you know, F 16s or F 35s to to Ukraine and heavy armaments is because technically, we don't have an obligation to do so. Our obligation, if you, you know, want to consider that is towards other NATO member states and essentially Ukraine is not a member of NATO. And can I interrupt for just a second. But there isn't there's another reason. First of all, I'm not certain that Vladimir Putin would have ever been allowed into NATO, because NATO was formed as an alliance against Russia and the Soviet Union, and that was in 1947. So I don't quite. I mean, I understand that people would have blown him off. I think wrongfully, frankly, however, the alliance itself is anti Russian, isn't it. Certainly, I mean, in terms of why the alliance was formed Sandy, I mean, you're you're 100% right. It was to essentially offset the Soviet Union from a military standpoint. However, you know, many people that in the foreign policy ranks in the 1990s started to see NATO is potentially having, you know, more of a almost like an armed movement of the of the United Nations role as a peacekeeping instrument that you know there were there were there were talks in the early 2000s and specifically after the September 11 attacks, that the role of NATO rather than being a counterbalance to the Soviet Union should be perhaps you know an anti terrorist. Right, right. Including with cooperation with Russia, right. You know, because Russia has been, you know, if we want to specifically talk about Middle Eastern or Islamic terrorism, you know, Russia has been subject to it as has Western Europe and the United States and you know, so there was a there was a common bond there is specifically during the early portion of the 90s when Russia was prosecuting war against the Republic of Cheshire. Cheshire was a part of Russia also it was never and still is not an independent republic. That is correct. Right, so when Russia says we are defending ourselves in Cheshire against terrorism. Yeah, it's the same thing as the United States would say about for instance, a country of North Carolina or something like that being what the United States would define as a terrorist punch Cheshire is a part of Russia at this point. You are, but they're right there were elements and you know I don't want to go off on a tangent regarding Cheshire but they yeah they were on links with al Qaeda and many of the, you know, many and I'm using the term lightly but many of the irritants that you know we had to deal with as well as you know other countries in Western Europe and around the world had to deal with with that you know terrorist organization. But as there was an agreement I believe too early on Kurt wasn't there that when Germany when there was a question of Germany being reunited wasn't there kind of a deal between at that point the Clinton administration, no the Bush administration was a George HW Bush senior Bush and at that point barb chaff to that Germany would be reunited, but that NATO would never be expanded to the borders of Russia. Right, that's correct actually that NATO would not expand past what was once East East Germany. Right, right, it would not go past that but that quickly. You know that. Yeah, that that did not take place that NATO did in fact, quickly expand into the Baltics and into Central Europe and portions of Southern Europe even. Okay, so. So maybe we could fast forward them to more of the present. NATO did expand, correct. It took in places like Poland. It took in 22 I think countries. All of whom were on the border of Russia, correct, pretty much that. Yeah, yes, that's correct. And then wasn't there still an understanding that Ukraine would not join NATO wasn't that sort of still an understanding particularly from the German point of view and the French point of view. From the standpoint of the reunification reunification of Germany. That was something that was specifically discussed. Yeah, you know but again it was quickly, quickly discarded in terms of policy as you mentioned, there were several other countries that that were quickly admitted into NATO. It's also important to note at that point that Russia, you know regardless again we're trying to stay away from different pejoratives and insults but Russia was an absolute disaster in the 1990s. The levels of unemployment, the, the involvement of different mafia groups, organized crime groups that were running the country was, it was abominable, honestly, and they, at that point, you know if you think about you know the war in Iraq, sanctions against Iraq, the Russians were not in a position to do anything to offset any anything that NATO or the United States was doing militarily around the world so I'm sure they would have probably made a bigger stink at the about the admission of these additional countries into NATO. However, they simply did not have the financial capital and the wherewithal to lay out any major major objections, certainly not the type that they have, you know they're in a better position to do so now, when Ukraine in the last few in the last five to 10 years has been looked at as a potential prospect for joining NATO. Okay, so what happened then about in the present, what happened about Ukraine, what was, what happened exactly to, in your view to cause this present confrontation this military. More than an incursion certainly an invasion from Russia into Ukraine what was the immediate cause. Right, so again it's something that you know we're not unfortunately hearing about in the press and it's not, you know, and I'm not sure, you know if it's just because you know they usually say you know when war start, you know the facts go out the window from all sides. And I think now unfortunately where you know we're in that boat right now, because our country has a very strong position with regard to what's transpiring right now in Eastern Europe, but one of the things to note was in 2021. There was a NATO military exercise that was, you know, so just moving past that you know we talked about how why did, why did 200,000 Russian troops, a mass along the border of Ukraine and Russia. Let's, so that's let's quickly just go into that. In 2021 there was a joint military exercise amongst a number of the NATO states, including a guest member, not I'm sorry I shouldn't call them a member, a guest, namely the Ukraine in participating in military exercises. It was called Defender 21. The Defender 21 was one of the largest joint military exercises in the continent of Europe since the second world, since the end of the Second World War. And the objective of this joint military exercise was to, you know, not start a hot war, but to imagine a potential war against Russia. And that was, that was taking place in the spring of 2021. The Russians, Vladimir Putin voiced their objections to the objective of this military exercise, as well as the fact that it was taking place, and seven of I think over and exercise military exercises, seven of them were going to take place actually in the Ukraine itself to basically recreate, you know, imaginary of course but recreate a potential invasion on the part of Russia. Against, against Eastern Europe. The United States also sent a significant naval fleet into the Black Sea. So these were pretty, pretty notable, large scale military exercises that had commenced in in the spring of 2021. And that was essentially, you know, either for good reasons or bad reasons, Vladimir Putin's justification for amassing troops against along the along the border with Ukraine. Okay, there also weren't there kind of maybe loose lips in a way from the Biden administration that they wanted Ukraine into NATO, isn't that correct. That's, yeah, there's conjecture from Vice President Harris, and from also President Biden and that was pretty early on in their administration right. That's correct. There, there were rumors and rumors going around that, you know, there was a potential, you know, admission process that would be initiated for Ukraine, which, which the Russians have always claimed was going to be a red line for them, particularly President Putin has said that's their red line. Correct. That's correct. Okay, so. I don't know if there was an immediate trigger to the invasion, but that's, is that in your view, what happened is, first of all, I believe wasn't there kind of a change to inform policy toward Russian toward Russia. President Trump appeared to want to do business with Russia. Correct. Yeah, I think, I think the Russians, however, would probably challenge that notion. They would probably say that, regardless of some of the rhetoric that our prior administration expressed openly in foreign policy circles. The prior administration continued with administrations prior to them in terms of enacting and establishing sanctions regimes against Russia. So Russia would claim that they did not get any break from the prior administration with respect to different types of sanctions that were implemented against it. So maybe the maybe the rhetoric rhetoric was a little more flowery. However, the reality on the ground in terms of economic sanctions being leveled against Russia was continuous. Right. And that was true from President Trump's mouth also correct. I mean he would say often that his policy toward Russia was he wanted to do business with Russia he had I think another aim. He wanted to keep Russia close and not in the arms of China. I think that he also enunciated that policy at times, but underlying the rhetoric as you say, the continuation of a real war as Putin would say war against Russia, continued. But the economic one. So then when Biden's elected a Biden basically continued this war essentially against Russia, I would have to say right. Yeah, so I mean it's important to note I mean you know the NATO exercise that I referred to defender 21 that took place in spring of last year. You know the, this wasn't a couple of people, you know sitting at a card table that you know just decided to throw this together. The, the exercise that took place in March was, you know, you kind of look at like the, the, you know, the, the Bay of Pigs invasion, it started from the previous administration. You know, they get together and especially the scale of this military exercise was so great that it was months and months in the planning. Yeah, that was impromptu thrown together. So, you know, you can talk about presidential policies that are enunciated, and then you can talk about policy that emanates from the Pentagon. Right. Different, different thing and appears to be a little more continuous and not subject to the four year election cycles that, you know that other parts of our government are are subject to our two years. If we're talking about, you know, Congress or six or senators. So I think what you're saying curtain is this war is kind of a the United States does not have particularly clean hands put it that way that's that's a legal notion but the United States does not approach this nor does NATO with clean hands. Yeah, I mean look at immediately prior to the to the invasion on Russia's part. Notable journalists and names. I think that you know a number and most most you know people that are pretty familiar with with foreign policy events would would would be, you know, familiar with names like Tom Friedman at the New York Times, articles in the magazine the Atlantic, the nation, other other places mentioned the fact that you know we were kind of, you know, needling Russia and kind of, you know, poking it poking the Russian bear. Yeah, poking the Russian bear with this whole notion of the expansion of NATO. And that that was something that they were, you know, maybe for good reasons or bad reasons, you know, very sensitive about, you know, not too differently from, you know, in the event, let's say, if China or if Russia in this case were to develop, you know, deep alliances with Mexico or Canada two countries that, you know, at our border. And the Russians similarly had a specific sensitivity towards, you know, the Baltic states towards Ukraine and countries that were in their quote unquote sphere of influence. Yeah, in their backyard yeah I mean you know we for better or worse we have something that you know foreign policy elites in our country seemed to refer to even 200 200 years after the fact, something known as the Monroe doctrine. Yeah, the Russians, the Russians had the Brezhnev doctrine, the Brezhnev doctrine didn't look too differently than the Monroe doctrine except, you know, it was it pertain to that part of the world. Again, you know I want to, you know, just, you know, say, you know, from in terms of my own points of view about this, you know, I, I, I condemn any use of force by any nation against another nation is, and I don't believe in the term collateral damage. You know, no innocent should, you know, whether it's, whether it's in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, I don't believe any, any, you know, innocent life should be harmed or are, or, you know, loss are in the process of you know any of these power politics by powerful countries. So, you know, I mean what it, you know, in terms of things that are happening on the ground, you know, these are atrocities that you know a civilian population are facing, and it's unfair, you know, and, you know, I don't think Sandy or I you know, be little those things but you know but we also want to provide some perspective, independent of some of the you know the emotional images we see on television as to what is happening and why it's happening. There's another reason that I feel so strongly about this we are Americans and we should be watching out for the foreign policy of our country. And I believe that the foreign policy of our country is really is, you know, is causing these kinds of wars all over the world, essentially, and the world is not happy about it. And Russia, and I think as you do that Russia committed the essential sin of war by invading Ukraine and causing all these damages, but I still think that the United States has to have a more responsible foreign policy. And that's why I'm here tonight. We cannot continue to act in this fashion of basically being at war with Russia, even though it's kind of a covert war. I mean, look, you know you mentioned the you know the reunion reunification of Germany during the course of the George HW Bush administration. And the fact that you know, there were talks, specifically providing assurances to the Russians at that point that NATO wouldn't expand, you know, they're and they were there were also talks. And conversations at the highest levels of foreign policy in the United States outside of the German reunification plan, stating that you know, perhaps, you know, NATO should be dissolved at that point or at the very point, you know, its function should be should should be altered, and that it should not be expanded. So I mean you know this was this did play a part. And, and as you said, you know poking the Russian bear, and you know it was poked and poked and poked. And again, I, you know, again my personal view here is, you know, it's I was not expecting this invasion. Past the, the, you know, the Luhansk and, you know, the eastern areas of Ukraine, whether Russian majorities, I think, you know, Mr Putin is probably going to be, you know, disappointed. And learning, you know, from our own example that it's going to be difficult in, you know, in the modern age to occupy a hostile nation, as we learned in Iraq and Afghanistan. The, the, the, the peace is going to be more difficult than I think the battles for Russia. Okay. Before anybody have any, I think we should maybe stop. I want to mention one other fact though that is missing in the current debate and that is in 2014 NATO, I mean, Ukraine had a president that was pro Russian, correct. And in 2014, there were huge protests in the Maidan Square fueled admittedly even by the United States by Victoria Newlands, who was the ambassador at that time to Ukraine. As a result of those protests that were some, of course, honest protesters against that Russian president pro Russian president, some that were kind of a color revolution so called of protesters that were that were funded a lot and also encouraged by the United States, that pro Russian president left Ukraine and a government that was more friendly to the United States came into power. And that government also that's currently under the ages of President Zaleski began more and more to turn toward NATO toward Europe toward the United States. And that kind of policy did continue. So, but the other thing that I want to mention is that it is the Ukrainian people that are suffering from the superpower collision, and it will be in the end, it will, they, and that is simply tragic, no one deserves it. Yeah, I mean, look, I mean, whether whether we're talking about Cubans or we're talking about Ukrainians, you know, I mean, I do believe that a nation has a fundamental right to go in the direction that it wants to go. You know, so if the Ukrainians are interested in, you know, becoming more Western oriented, they should have that choice I believe that. However, the reality unfortunately, in a world of power politics is that you know the big countries will not allow that to happen you know the Cubans wanting to pursue a socialist system 90 miles from Florida, or the Ukrainians wanting to lean towards the West, you know, the superpowers, and I do still consider Russia a superpower. You know, they have their spheres of influence and unfortunately, like you said in this case you know the Ukrainian people are going to suffer. And any battle if this war continues. Yeah, they are going to be totally obliterated it seems to me because if NATO makes one false move or if the United States makes one escalatory move, including troops including a no fly zone. It's the Ukraine countryside Ukraine people who are going to be destroyed it seems to me. Yeah, I mean it's it's important to remember you know the distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan and Ukraine is that, you know, when we got involved in those two wars. We don't share a border with those countries. Yeah, right. Yeah, you know, you know Russia is a large large country, and it shares a fairly large border and they can just pour troops, tanks. Everything essentially just pour into that country. Pretty cool. It's flat. And it's flat, large. Yeah. Okay, I wanted to ask if there are any questions or any thoughts before I turn to another. I want to ask, what is, what is the new world order that seems to be emerging from this war, because I believe that that is also the case that there's this is a major change, no matter what happens. Are there any other questions or comments. Anything else. Okay, can I then just mention something that I that hit me like a flash, because of actually because of my colleague Eric on Yerro who's with us on a different computer tonight. There was a question. Go ahead. Question from Sanford. Oh, I didn't see it. Is there a question from Sandy. The other Sandy Sanford. Where is it in the chat or something. Does anybody see it. Is there anything in the chat Sandy and Stanford you're muted. Yeah, they may have raised their hand. Hey Sandy take your get off mute. I'm not. Oh, the other Sanford I call him. I want to make a point if I could about Putin and Biden. leading up to this invasion by Russia. He was telling Biden as the Russians have been telling the West for a long time that they shouldn't move West East. If they did, it would be an existential threat to the continuation of the Russian country. George Kenan, a policy advisor as a State Department in 1948 back then said it would be a strategic error to move East, and that Russia, eventually, if that was done, would react to it. Right, George Bush told Gorbachev when Gorbachev said don't move East promise not one inch. They slowly slowly kept moving in there we have armed all those countries right nuclear capable weapons missiles on Russia's borders. They certainly are in a bad defensive position at this point. Putin, when Biden was talking about NATO said that was a red line and not to do it. Putin said look we need a treaty security for Russia security for the Eastern Republic security for the West, and even presented one. And it's a pretty reasonable treaty and it provides that NATO would not move East and Biden's response was NATO will decide what countries it will admit not some other country. We know every treaty inhibits people countries from doing certain acts, and they get something in return for that. So it's a non starter to say what Biden said. Right. And that set up the battle here. Right, even said I will take direct action if we can't get a defensive treaty, we feel threatened. And you heard how Biden responded. And I think Biden responded that way, hoping or hoping or provoking the attack. He could be in the position he's in today and trying to destroy Russia. Why. Yes, it didn't make sense not to give a treaty or even if you. What's wrong with talking about a treaty for common defense. He wouldn't do it. And he knew what the result would be he wanted it. He wanted it. And he thinks he's going to destroy Russia. It's important. Sanford I mean it's important to remember I mean, you know, Biden, you know, is was is and was an old cold warrior. Right. Yeah, he's a he's a product of that age you know he's not Obama is not other people that have, you know, a different necessarily a different point of view. And that generation where you know where you know he was and he was, you know, he was in the midst of the Cold War, when he got cut his teeth politically. Interestingly, when he was a senator. He said, we should never make the mistake and move east against Russia. Biden said that. Yeah. Okay, any other questions or thoughts there is another subject I'd like to sort of ask. I see Sally. Sally. Yeah, you might have touched on this when I had to duck out so tell me if you've already discussed it but I, I think that the fact that that Putin's bombing apartment buildings and hospitals is is. Making really all the rest of the world see him as a complete monster. Maybe he is maybe isn't. But what what. How is he able to justify civilians in brutally and and think that he can get away with that well he obviously is getting away with it but I don't know if he would offer. I don't think there's two levels of propaganda. He, he, the Russians have denied it. Are they right. Are they are the US right us is saying that that's happening. The Russians are saying it's not happening. There's proper there's incredible problem. If you believe that that they he's doing that you're right, but I don't believe that the top photographs are fabricated. I know that I know. However, that's what I'm talking about that I don't know the answers to that but I do know a second answer to your question which is the world sees him as a monster and that's what I wanted to end this with because that is not true. It's it's it's it's becoming true. John Mero is the person that I was gonna just address. He was just in Africa and what the final part of this program is given to the new world that's that's emerging, which I think is emerging. And that is that most of the people of the world do not see Putin as a monster. In fact, when he came back from Africa. Eric and he's right here in the room he can address this himself. He saw Putin pro Putin posters, all over the place. And that was true that was so true in the Latin America. That's great, but that's not how he's been behaving in the last couple of weeks. Anyway, go ahead. And I just jump in. Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, I believe the images Sally with you, as far as hospitals and apartment buildings. One of the things it illustrates is the fact that, you know, we think we're in this, and Sanford can probably jump in on this one also, we think we're in this era of smart warfare, where, you know, when you have planes flying over, and they hit strategic targets that that doesn't isn't necessarily the case. There's, you know, when when you're bombing targets that are in cities, whether those cities are Kiev, or Baghdad, or Mosul, you're going to have casualties that are civilian. And again, I don't believe in the term collateral damage. I consider, you know, any of that, you know, a war crime, honestly. However, I, you know, I'm going to apply the same standard in Iraq to an Afghanistan. Yeah, there were hospitals, maternity hospitals, children's hospitals that were hitting those countries by US bombs, you know, and they didn't get the same coverage, maybe they got coverage in Russia, showing what we were doing there. But no, I don't I don't give, I don't give President Putin a pass on that. But nobody does. But I wanted to say something else. And that's the point I'm making. There seems to be a new set of alliances emerging out of that. Many people in the third world see the NATO powers as monsters. But Sandy, is it really, is it really, is it really new, or is it just going back to the pre 1991. Yes, that's what it looks like to me. What I see is something that is not being touched on by any of the American media. When they talk about the world turning against Putin. I think we have to say that, for instance, the bricks countries aren't turning against Putin, the bricks countries that is Brazil, Russia, India, South Africa, China. They are forming, I think, a new alliance that has many people who feel the same way. They're sick of also Western European and the US imperialism themselves. They are not necessarily seeing Putin in the same way as Sally does, or as that we do. And that to me is really what is emerging from this whole war, the world, those are the bricks leaders, China, Xi Jinping, Putin, Bolsonaro, I don't know, Modi, I guess, right in current in India, yeah, and South Africa, these people are forming a new alliance that is very. I mean, I don't think it's a good, it's good news, but you know, this is good news. It doesn't look any different from the alliances that were around, you know, in the 1960s and 70s. We're much more firm now and one of the reasons is, is that this administration and all of our administrations have pushed Russia into the arms of China. That's right. I want to interject quickly about killing civilians and then on the new world order. Civilians are illegal targets, but practically speaking, they are intended to be killed, and big numbers to break the wool of a country. If we talk about killing civilians, think of Madeleine Albright US inspired sanctions killed half a billion. Iraqi children under the age of five. And Leslie Stahl asked Madeleine Albright our secretary of state on TV, if she could comment on that. And he said, and this is addressing civilians and these are babies, we think the price is worth it. Yeah, we killed probably since the end of World War two up to 15 million people, most of them civilians we the United States government. Okay, that's my speed on that the legitimate targets in the minds of war and parties to break the spirits of the country so they lose. As far as what's happening now I think one of the important things is pepiasco bar who writes for the Asian times is a sophisticated economist and he is saying that the sanctions have a large important role to bringing down even the United States as a precarious economy right now. So, there are some big changes. You don't even have to talk about the other parties that are forming up against the United States. With system, you know about the Swiss system. Yes, it's just a method of changing money from one party to another it's done in dollars now. People are breaking away from that. All trade has to be in dollars our dollar is in great demand, and that has kept our dollar valuable countries are pulling away from that. Right India, China, Russia, they're going to have an alternate system. That's going to hurt the United States. Big time. Big time. Big time the United States is in big trouble. And unfortunately, I hope the world treats us better than we treated it. Well, one of the things to that I heard today. She's, I heard that Saudi Arabia is going to begin to change their sales to to Chinese currency I don't even know what it's called you on or something like that there and they wouldn't and the president in the United States tried to call them about this, and he didn't pick up the call to President Biden. I mean this is happening on our watch. It's anyway what I wanted to really think about have people think about was not only the current war, but what is coming up what is this new world look like maybe is too soon to tell. I don't. I think that the world is going to split into two major confrontational alliances with most of the people in the bricks nations that's where the population is right. Anyway, Eric, did you want to comment on something. Okay, I'm going to Eric on your wants to say something. I don't know how to do that Eric. Yeah, but it's, but it's, we have the echo, which is, all right, what I wanted to say is probably Kurt said that it's the alliance that was prior to the dismantling of the, you know, the eastern block. But this time, you don't have two major blocks you have midsize powers like Turkey, like Brazil, like India that are coming up. So it's no longer the confrontation between the Soviet Union and the West. It's like a multi pole. You know, just geostrategic move that will make it very difficult for the West to sustain. Second wall, you, the US and Europe are done when it comes to opportunity for growth. It's now the new emerging countries. It's Africa. It's probably Asia. So the West will become a block of countries like Switzerland. Everybody has maybe some, some thing to eat. Nice roads, nice cars, but there's won't be no dynamic. So today, the Africans have understood that that the big superpowers like the US and Europe have no more teeth and even if they have atomic and nuclear teeth, they won't be able to use it. Russia can use it. Russia can use it. A lot of countries are coming up to be also a nuclear power. So they feel that there's, there's a niche here, there's an opportunity here to not being seen no more as countries where the superpowers can come and dictate the laws, they will now start to, to ask who's the best offer. And then that's what is happening in Mali. The Malian for the first time got rid of the French ambassadors. And the problem of the European powers with the West is that what is their credibility today to talk about what Russia is doing when they're doing the same thing elsewhere. France is still dominating 15 African countries, you know, like with the blessings of the US. And these colonial powers are in the desert over there. They made a mess out of Libya. And today, how can they have credibility to, to, to, to, to tell people that Russia is doing wrong. So it's a, it's a new, it's a new world that is coming there and, and, and, and we have, I mean the US and Europe have to come down from the pedestal. An empire or a big, I mean, I don't know, but anything has a name. The rest of the world wants be just lackeys to, you know, get, you know, orders from, from the US at some point China will become bigger. At some point India will grow. And then, I mean, I don't know, I don't see like billions of people like Indians wanting to be lackeys anymore. This is how I am. Okay, I don't understand that you're moving. Okay, there I go. Okay, so I think we're running out of time. Is there any further questions I think that that my mind got really almost transformed about this whole subject when Eric came back from Africa and when he mentioned that why would Africans trust the old imperial powers like France, England, and the United States? Why would Latin America condemn Russia and favor its old imperial power, the United States? It doesn't make any sense. So therefore, the brown, the black world doesn't seem with us anymore. And I think that is really a significant change that we're going to have to face in some way. And I believe what you said, Sandy, about this currency question, the US dollar is losing its value, right? Yes, I think so. I mean, why would a country like Cuba, for instance, condemn Russia? Why? They wouldn't. Why? They would not condemn Russia. Russia has always bailed them out in a lot of ways and protected them from the United States. In other words, we really have to rethink. And as Eric said the other day, the Western Europeans had better get a little humility in all this, right? It may be too late for the United States in Europe to rethink anything. You might be right, which is a sad statement because still, with all of that, the United States, in my mind, has had a constitution, has had a whole understanding of the rule of law, that I still very much value. And I, you're, I mean, as you said, I'm hoping it's not too late. I'm really respond to that statement. Sure. Everyone likes to talk about those things, democracy in the United States and everything. We may have political rights on the Constitution, but we have no economic rights at all, the masses. And what happens here is the elites make the decisions and the weak have to accept it. And the best examples are the 2008 crash. And how about 1929? Well, the 2008 crash and sending all the jobs overseas. The American people, if they had to say, would not have sent the jobs overseas. The rich were making enough money here, but they wanted more, they're greedy, so they send the jobs overseas. The 2008 crash, all about profits. Everybody, there were so many crooks and none of them went to jail. None of them. Other countries, some went to jail. And what about the, you compare that with the average person, the majority of us, to think about a democracy. They lost their jobs. They lost their cars. They lost their houses. They lost their health care. They lost the savings they had to send kids to college. They started living in cars. They started taking drugs and dying from overdoses. It was a mess. So these economic rights, we don't have a say and we don't, we lose. I had to say that wouldn't happen. So there is no democracy in this country. It's an oil market. You talk about law, you rob a gasoline station, you're going to jail. You destroy the world's economy in 2008 and not a goddamn thing happens to you. So don't talk to Sandy Kelson about the rule of fucking law because there is the rule of power in this country. But Sandy, you're a lawyer, right? I know I'm a lawyer, so I know what I'm talking about. I know what the law is. I know. And I'll tell you, if anybody wants to really look at this in a unique way, those issues, read the book or enemies in blue. What? Blue. Our enemies in blue. You'll get the gist of it. You're there for like when all these people are homeless all of a sudden to make sure they stay in their place. Read that book. Okay, Sandy, can I mention that you're that you're a veteran of Vietnam? No, I'm not a veteran of Vietnam. I was in during that year. Oh, okay. I was in Alaska in 1965. I was put on orders to go to Vietnam where a whole unit was leaving in the middle of January 66 I got called down to talk to the captain. He said, Sandy, you're three year tour duty. You have less than 90 days. If you had 90 days or more, I could make you go to Vietnam for a year. I can't. So I have your reenlistment paper that's in no way. I didn't go and I started getting letters from my friends there and they said everybody here hates us and I was a naive kid. I wouldn't talk the way you hear me talking back then. I would be talking about the rule on democracy back then. And they said to me everybody here hates us and that made no sense to me, because we were the good guys. They were the bad guys. And we're helping people. And it made me maybe for the first time in my life. It was a little critical thinking I went to the library. And I read everything I could about Vietnam, the French and everything. And I don't want to take up much time but my conclusion was that we weren't there to stop the forced imposition of communism on a country that didn't want to. We were there to impose a form of government on them. They didn't. My buddies died and got tortured and lost limbs for lives. You don't have a democracy when your government can send you overseas to kill or be killed for lives. And that's unknown and proven that nobody is held accountable. They lead our rulers are not held accountable. There is no equal loss in this country on the books and black and white. Yes, yes, yes. Thank you. Anyway, thank you all. This is a topic that will not be over soon. So thank you all for being with us. Thank you. Thanks. Nice to see you again. Thank you, Kurt. Thank you.