 Hello everyone, I'm Jim Garrison. I want to welcome you to this session of Humanity Rising as we begin a five-day summit on Ukraine in partnership with Code Pink and a growing group of organizations that have dedicated themselves to calling attention to the war with a very common demand that we have a ceasefire and the initiation of diplomacy so that we can secure the peace. We've been talking about the war for the past year. Just this last week marked the first anniversary of the conflict since the Russian incursion on the 24th of February in 2022 to secure a land bridge to Crimea. The war is easily the most dangerous situation in our lifetime in part because it is pitting the superpowers. Not only the United States and Russia, but now the United States and China as China and Russia create a growing alliance and partnership supported by most of the global South. So what we're seeing as the war evolves is a radical shift in the tectonic plates of the geostrategic balance of power as the United States and NATO comes into conflict increasingly with Russia and China, which means that the prospect of a nuclear exchange between the three superpowers, each one of which has the capacity to destroy the world multiple times over. And with each passing day, the possibilities of this kind of nuclear exchange and the ruination of the global economy and the fraternity of nations ensues. What makes it even more dangerous is the fact that the world is being challenged with climate turbulence at an escalating level. So right at the moment when the nations of the world need to come together to solve critical problems, having to do fundamentally with the eruption of the ecology, what are we seeing but war at a global level? And this means that we're, as we convene this summit in, as I said, the most dangerous moment in our lifetime. So the requisite for a ceasefire, a requisite for diplomacy between nations, all of which have stood for centuries and have fought but also been collaborators and friends multiple times over so that we know that if there's the political will, a ceasefire and peace can prevail. We know as we convene this summit that we're in the grip of a certain war hysteria in the United States and in the NATO countries. We know that there's many perceptions about what's going on. We know that many of you have questions and we invite you to register these questions. But we also know that as a global community, Humanity Rising, which has viewers in over 130 countries and we're broadcasting today over hundreds of live streaming channels, we know that people are feeling the heat of the war and beginning to ask fundamental questions about what we're doing. And as I've said multiple times here at Humanity Rising, we're very Socratic. We believe in truth pursued rather than truth possessed. So we're going to be unfolding this five day summit with other summits in April and June for as long as the war endures to delve into some fundamental issues today and overview. And tomorrow we're going to be talking with Daniel Ellsberg and others about the dangers of nuclear war. We'll be talking about the costs of war, just what the war costs. Even if you don't go to a nuclear level, we'll be asking deeper questions about how we got here. Why did the war in Ukraine erupt in the way that it did? And then we'll be talking about the pathway to peace. How can we obtain a ceasefire under current escalating conditions and mass propaganda supporting the war machine? So that's what we have in store for everyone. Before we dive into that, and I introduce my co-moderator for this week, Jody Evans and our speaker, let us just take a moment and pause as we always do on Humanity Rising and breathe together in the midst of all the turbulence and in the midst of all the uncertainty and the fragility of our world. Probably the most important thing that we can do to support ourselves internally and come into solidarity with one another is do the one thing that all human beings do everywhere. And that is to just simply breathe. So in a moment, you'll hear the sound of a bell. When you hear the bell, just breathe in very slowly for about five and a half seconds, you'll hear another bell and just breathe out. We're gonna take 10 breaths together. And this is coherent breathing to center ourselves and then we'll launch into our program. Thank you, everyone. Welcome to this summit on Ukraine and let us breathe. Thank you, everyone. It's always good to breathe as one when we take on issues like war in Ukraine, just to center ourselves and who we most essentially are. It's my pleasure now to introduce our co-sponsor and co-moderator, Jody Evans and Code Pink when we were beginning to think of the summit on Ukraine, I looked around for who was out there generating awareness and mobilization for peace and all roads led to a Code Pink and Jody Evans. So I wanna bring her onto the program. Jody has been a ceaseless activist for a better world. I would say probably for most of her life, she's had also very senior positions in the first administration of Governor Jerry Brown of California as director of administration. She was the manager of his 1992 presidential campaign. She was very involved in the opposition to the war in Iraq out of which came Code Pink. I would say one of the most dynamic and effective peace organizations certainly in the United States, possibly globally. And she's been a very active partner in shaping this summit. So Jody, I just wanna thank you for who you are and everything that you've done for the cause of peace and turn the mic over to you for a few minutes of welcome and then we'll dive into our program. Thank you, Jim. You're so generous. Thank you. Well, I wanna thank everyone that's here because we have a concern for peace and for people on the planet. And as Jim said, we're at a very different time in history where nuclear war is actually being toyed with. And the worrying thing is that people in the White House and in Washington believe they can win a nuclear war, which is what is kind of behind this insanity of this driving us to the edge. So there's a few things as we begin this week of unpacking the war in Ukraine together. One is that all wars start with lies. We learn about them decades or centuries later. And many of us who live here in the empire know that it's thick with propaganda and that the propaganda in the mainstream news if you're outside of it is profound that what people are just being sold. So what surrounds us is being held as common sense, but it's all grounded in lies and manipulation. So as you listen this week, it takes a time to find the questions inside of you. Where are your questions? Because I'm really committed that you can stand on firmly on a ground of ending war that you out of this become a peace activist because it is going to take the loud voices of peace activists to get in the way of what's happening to call on the United States to end sanctions and instead of sending bombs, ask everyone to sit at a diplomacy table. And it's hard because there's a lot of weeds, but weeds don't help peace. What helps peace is that we know that that's the only direction to go in and that takes some confidence as we go up against a very bizarre common sense. Afterwards stands, it has a conversation and I encourage everyone to be part of that because that's where we create our own common sense together. And last week we saw at a speed that was profound, China pulled together an offering of a path to peace and it's a good reminder reading it that the role all of us can play is that, is the role of peacemakers. So the Ukraine war is also a moment in history that it's real, it's already happened and that's a global pivot to a non-aligned movement of the global South in relationship to a white West. And so these mornings are offerings, but most of the learning comes in conversation and questions, so I just encourage you to find what your questions are and in this week together, find the way to get them answered. So thank you all for being here. Thank you, Jody. Jody will circle back when we have our discussion at the end of the program. And now it's my distinct privilege actually to introduce someone I've known for well over 30 years, Vladimir Posner. I met him when I was working in Soviet American relations back in the 1980s. And even then Vladimir was internationally known and distinguished as a journalist, a documentary filmmaker, someone who was a leading commentator. Given his unique biography, Vladimir Posner is Russian. He's also French and he's also American. And at a time such as ours of deepening conflict between these three nations, having someone who actually lived in these countries speaks Russian, French and English absolutely fluently and has a heart that encompasses East and West with a deep sympathy, I would say, for the primary actors. Vladimir Posner is the one person I wanted above all else to start our summit, to just share with us his perceptions of how did we get to Ukraine? What has happened over the 30 years since the time of Gorbachev and the discussions and the proposals and the commitment on the part of the United States not to move an inch to the East as Secretary of State, James Baker put it, and here we are, the United States has moved dramatically into Eastern Europe. And now we have the irresistible force of US expansion meeting the immovable object of Russian nationalism in securing Crimea. And Vladimir Posner has as deep an awareness and memory of the history leading up to the present moment as anyone I know. So Vladimir, I wanna welcome you to Humanity Rising and would really love to just have you lay out in an expansive way as you would like your recollection and your sense of how we got from Gorbachev to a war in Ukraine. Because you carry that memory personally because you've been involved in a very, very intimate way with the history of our era. Thank you, Jim. Thank you very much for that introduction. And yes, I do remember and I remember how it all began with Gorbachev and how wonderful things looked and how suddenly America turned around and saw the Soviet Union and the Russians not as enemies and not as a danger. And Gorbachev became Gorby, everyone's favorite. And in the then Soviet Union, the feeling was pretty much the same that finally after so many years of enmity and of threats and of the danger of nuclear war, we were gonna become partners. And as partners, we would change the world. We would make it a better place to live at. We would solve all the big problems because together the United States of America and the USSR could solve anything. That was the feeling that existed then. And the question of course that you put, how did we get from there to here? It's something that I think we're going to be looking at studying and trying to find the answer to for a very long time. And it would be pretentious of me to say I know the answer. But I would like to say two things about myself in this case. First of all, we're talking about countries that I'm part of. I grew up in New York City. I was a New York Yankee fan which doesn't put me well with a lot of people but there I was down in Greenwich Village and I was the all-American kid from New York City. And then because of McCarthyism and because of my father's outlooks, we were pretty much forced out of the country and ultimately moved to the Soviet Union and I'm part of that country as well. And I've always wanted the two countries to be together not just as an intellectual exercise but as something that was very dear to me and is very dear to me. As I look at this problem today, I want to say again that I am not emotionally influenced. I know that's a hard thing to believe but as a journalist I've learned to control my emotions and to look at things as dispassionately, as objectively as I possibly can. So when I talk about how we got from there to here all the time I will be trying not to put the blame on any concrete country or person but simply to look at it as to how it happened and perhaps why it happened. And of course, one of the questions people keep asking not only in the United States or in Western Europe but in Russia as well, why did Putin do it? What was his motivation? I've heard the simple answer, he's crazy but that's not a serious answer. President Putin is anything but crazy maybe a lot of things and he's certainly not my hero but he's not crazy. So what were his reasons? Why did he take that step? And that's something I'm going to try to answer as we as I express or try to explain what went on. I think it all began about some 30 years ago when the Soviet Union disappeared. Back on December 8th, 1990, the presidents of Russia Boris Yeltsin, the president of Belarus man by the name of Shushkevich and the president of Ukraine, man by the name of Kravchuk, gathered together in Belarus and signed the paper basically saying that they were pardoned, that there was no more Soviet Union as far as they were concerned. And that was pretty much it. As a result of that, 15 new countries appeared on the world map, 15 new countries. These were previously all members of one country called the Soviet Union or the USSR. And now there was no more Soviet Union. There was no more USSR. There were 15 independent countries. Now you may recall this has been played too many times that Putin called the disappearance, if you will, of the Soviet Union, the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. And because of that, he has been accused of being someone who dreams of restoring the Soviet Union. And that's been part of the propaganda game. In fact, Mr. Putin has said not once, not twice but as far as I remember three times that anyone who does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart and anyone who wants to see it come back has no brains. He has no interest in seeing a new Soviet Union. That's just impossible. And that's something I remark I just wanted to make. So here we are with 15 new countries and the rest of the world. And of course the United States has to adopt some kind of policy, vis-a-vis these countries that never existed before. Some not large and not very important. Others very large and quite important like for instance, Russia. Because Russia before was part of the Soviet Union. Now it's Russia alone. What kind of policy do we adopt vis-a-vis this new country? Now mind you, Gorbachev is gone. And he's gone because Yeltsin has destroyed the Soviet Union. Incidentally, it might be interesting to know that Gorbachev wanted to preserve the Soviet Union, a different kind of Soviet Union to be sure but the Soviet Union. In fact, he'd organized a new kind of constitution whereby the republics of the Soviet Union would sign a new agreement. But he wanted the Soviet Union to be there and he wanted socialism as a system to be part of that Soviet Union or the backbone if you will of the Soviet Union. Yeltsin wanted to get rid of Gorbachev. And he did it in the most simple way actually. Gorbachev was president of the USSR. If there's no USSR, then there's no Gorbachev. So when we think about why Yeltsin together with the president of Ukraine and of Belarus signed that paper, one of the reasons, not the only reason to be sure, but one of the reasons that Yeltsin did this for was to get rid of Gorbachev and become the number one man, which was in fact what happened. So now the United States is no longer dealing with Gorbachev. The United States is dealing with Boris Yeltsin and Russia. How are we supposed to deal? Well, if you look at documents and I always say, don't read articles. Don't read, how should I put this, what he or she thinks about this or that. Or do it after you read the article. That is to say the document, the document on which the thoughts are based. Look at the origin. You can do that on the internet. That's one of its great advantages. You can actually look at the originals and see the very crux, if you will, of the matter. So there were two views in the United States as to how to deal with Russia. One view was we should adopt, we, the United States, should adopt a new Marshall Plan. Now, for those of you who are young and perhaps not too well-versed in political history, let me just very briefly remind you that a man called George Marshall devised this idea after World War II as to how to deal with former enemies, which is to say Germany and Italy, and former allies during the war, I mean, like Great Britain and France, how to deal with them in a way that would guarantee the end of fascism and Nazism, make it impossible for the communists to take over, and both in France and in Italy, there were very powerful communist parties and link the economies of those countries to the U.S. economy. That plan that Marshall came up with has come to be called the Marshall Plan, and it was very, very successful. In fact, all of the aims that were part of the plan actually were achieved. There's a bit of fascism coming back now, very right-wing people coming to power, as for instance, in Italy, but still by and large, it was a very successful plan. And so people, policymakers said, we should adopt a new kind of Marshall Plan vis-a-vis Russia. Now, this calls for a lot of money, but we will not just give them the money, we will channel it very carefully like a laser beam and make sure that A, communism does not come back in Russia, and B, that Russia will follow a democratic road, if you will, and may I put in parentheses that Russia had never, ever in its entire existence had democracy. So for Russia, democracy was a completely new thing, a real experiment. After all, democracy is something that lives inside a person. It's not just a piece of paper. So before people understand and accept democracy as a way of life, they have to learn democracy and that takes time. Nevertheless, this new Marshall Plan would make that possible and would also link Russian economy to US economy, very important point. And that was one view. However, there was a second view. And second view was put in concrete form much faster than the first one I've been speaking about. At the end of December, 1990, I think it was the 26th of December, 1990, the Soviet state flag, the red flag, with the hammer and sickle on it, came down over the Kremlin and the tri-color flag, the flag of Russia came out. Now I say again, the 26th of December, less than two months later, I believe it was on the 18th of February, 1991, a paper was put on the desk of President George H. Bush. That paper had been written, produced mainly by a man by the name of Paul Wolfevitz, who was then Deputy Secretary of Defense of the United States for Policy. And that paper was a roadmap as to how, in this changed world, in the absence of the Soviet Union, which had been a superpower, how the United States should proceed. You can read this. You can look it up on the internet. The Wolfevitz doctrine came to be called. And you can read it in detail as to what Mr. Wolfevitz proposed. And basically what it came down to was and I'm saying this just, I'm not trying to avoid other things that were in that paper, but the main thrust of it was, we today, we the United States are the only super power left and it should stay that way. We should see to it that no rivals appear who can threaten us the way the Soviet Union did. We should make it clear, even to our allies, that they needn't produce weapons. We will do that. The paper was obviously secret, but a month later, it was leaked to the New York Times, published, and there was a huge outcry. President, excuse me, Senator Edward Kennedy called it an imperialist view that should not and cannot be accepted by any other country. And in fact, the outcry was such that the then Secretary of 10th Cheney edited it, if you will, with Colin Powell, who was then the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The same Colin Powell, as you will recall, at the General Assembly of the UN, waved a bottle with something in it, saying that this was proof that the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which was the reason for the war that was launched against Iraq. As we later found out, the Iraqis had no mass weapons of mass destruction. And what was in that bottle remains a secret, shall we say. I think it was probably just sand. That's a different question. So, this was the Wolfeitz Doctrine, and it made very clear that one thing should not happen. Russia should not be allowed to come back. Russia should not be allowed to come back. Russia should not be allowed to get back and to become a superpower. That was one of the points that was made in that paper. Later, it was modified by George Bush Jr. And it came to be called the Wolfeitz Bush Jr. Doctrine. And again, you can look it up so that you will check that what I'm saying is not something I've dreamed up or in any way exaggerate. Meanwhile, President Yeltsin was dreaming of a partnership with the United States. He wasn't looking so much at George Bush's elder, the elder, if you will. He was looking at the new president, President Bill Clinton. And they had phone conversations. And all of these are recorded. Incidentally, there's something called the National Archives. I think they're published by Washington University in the United States, obviously. And there's a lot about that and about those telephone conversations and what they wrote to each other. So all that's very clear about what Yeltsin wanted. What's not clear is what did Clinton really want? Initially seemed to be very positive about the relationship with Russia and the partnership. He used the word partnership. And of course, Yeltsin jumped up and down with joy because he wanted a partnership. But at some point, and I can't put my finger on it, but at some point, President Clinton decided that it was okay to broaden NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which had been created in 1949, way a long time ago, created as a force against the possible Soviet military invasion. That was the purpose of NATO. And that purpose never changed. NATO was always the organization, a defensive military political organization that had been created to block or retaliate against any kind of Soviet military invasion. Now, it was seen that way as an anti-Russian by every Russian leader, including Gorbachev. And when Gorbachev agreed to the unification of Germany, taking down the Berlin Wall and having East Germany become part of the Federal Republic, that is to say it was the end of East Germany and pulling Soviet military forces out of East Germany, which was better known by the name of the German Democratic Republic. And those were huge military forces. When Gorbachev agreed to that, there were certain conditions. He said, okay, we'll do it if you do this or that. One had to do with financial issues. Russia was in dire straits, needed money badly. And as it turns out, the West was prepared to pay about 10 times more than what Gorbachev actually asked for. In addition to the financial considerations, there was a consideration of NATO. And there was a discussion between Gorbachev and the then Secretary of State of the United States, James Baker. And during that discussion, Baker said that should the issue of Germany be resolved, they would see to it that NATO would not move one inch eastward. One of the questions that could have come up, of course, was why do you need NATO when there's no more Soviet Union? It goes a bit later down the road, right? There's no Soviet Union. There's no Warsaw Pact, which was a military alliance of the Soviet Union and the so-called socialist countries against a Western attack. It's gone. So there's no Warsaw Pact. There's no Soviet Union. Why do you need NATO? Against whom has NATO been constructed? Today, well, there was talk about North Korea, a possible enemy or Iran, but you can't take that seriously. North Korea is going to attack Western Europe, for instance. It's not serious. So as far as the Russians were concerned, they were very suspicious. Why NATO? Who needs NATO? And why would you have NATO come closer to us? And Baker understood this perfectly. And he said, look, as I told you, NATO will not move. We'll find a way to do this. That was an oral promise. Never put on paper. And from the viewpoint of many, and I share that viewpoint, Gorbachev made a terrible mistake by not insisting that there be that kind of agreement put on paper between the then Soviet Union and the NATO leadership. Had that happened, the world today would be a very different place. It didn't happen, okay? Didn't happen. So, approximately in 1994, 1995, towards the end of President Clinton's first term, he began to toy with the idea of enlarging NATO. There were huge arguments in the United States about this. I know the former Secretary of Defense of the Clinton administration, William Perry, who told me that there was a debate, top, top people in the White House about the enlargement of NATO. And when as a result of this, the majority said they were for it, he, that is to say the Secretary of Defense of your country, the United States, resigned because he felt that this would only endanger the United States. It would have no possible use. I would like you to, I'd like to quote a couple of things for you. There was a man by the name of George Kennan. You may or may not know who he was, but allow me to tell you that he was probably the most knowledgeable American vis-a-vis the Soviet Union and Russia. He was ambassador to the Soviet Union. And he was the man who designed the main policy of the Western, especially of the United States, vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. So he was in no way a supporter of the Soviet Union. And when he was asked what he thought about NATO expansion, here's what he said. Now I'm quoting a statement that was published by, he wrote this in the New York Times on February 5th, 1997. He wrote the following. Bluntly stated, expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western, and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion, to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy, to restore the atmosphere of the Cold War to East-West relations and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking. You know, the impression this man was a visionary. This is exactly what happened. And even though Kenin said this before the actual expansion of NATO, the White House paid no attention, and three countries were accepted. Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Now give this some thought. For Russia, this is a no-no. The Russians feared NATO rationally or irrationally, that makes no difference. But everyone knew, in the U.S. leadership, excuse me, knew very well that this was something that the Russians couldn't accept, that it would make things worse, that Yeltsin would be profoundly upset. Why'd they do it? What was the rationale? I mean, was it worth it? What did it improve? Well, you could say it kind of made Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic feel safe. Okay, was it worth it? Was it worth turning the Russian view? After all, a promise had been made. So were we lied to? Were we misled? How are we supposed to react to that? Is Russia's view of any importance? Or are you telling us, look, you lost the Cold War. So just shut up, we don't care what you think. We don't give a damn, you're no longer a superpower. We'll do what we want. And those countries, those three countries became NATO members. Now, when that happened, a journalist by the name of Thomas Friedman, I'm sure you've read his articles in the New York Times, he interviewed Mr. Kennan. This was May 2nd, 1998, when the countries had been accepted. And he asked George Kennan, what do you think about the expansion of NATO? And George Kennan said, I think it is the beginning of a new Cold War. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the founding fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. NATO expansion was simply a lighthearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs. What bothers me is how superficial and ill-informed the whole Senate debate was. Again, this man was incredible in his understanding. I mean, incredible for an American, I must say, in an understanding of how Russia would react. Now, since then, many other countries have been accepted as NATO members, including several that share a border, a small border to be sure, but a border with Russia. They are the Baltic States. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. There's another country that has a common border with Russia way up north, Norway. And of course, Russia has always been very, very much concerned about this. You might kind of shrug and say, well, why does Russia care? Let me turn it around a little bit. Imagine if you will, a map of Russia. I hope you can imagine that. And a map of the United States, which I'm sure you can imagine. And look to the south. Now, on the Russian border, you'll see a big chunk of it being a common border between Russia and Ukraine. And in the United States, you'll see a big chunk of your southern border being where the country called Mexico. Now, I wanna ask you in all honesty, imagine that there are presidential elections in Mexico as a result of which a president who is anti-American is elected. And that's not an impossibility. I mean, you know, the Mexicans don't have a great love for the United States. And this president with his new government fearing the big brother up north, invites the Russians to send over a couple of divisions to protect the Mexican border. Do you think the United States would accept that? I'm not even mentioning the Monroe doctrine. I'm keeping that out. But just the very fact of a foreign power being invited to protect the Mexican border from the United States, you'd be in there with your, you know, the United States would be in there with everything they have. Is it surprising that the idea of NATO, which is seen by Russia as being anti-Russian and led by the United States, which is now seen as being completely anti-Russian? Is it surprising that Russia would say we will not allow it? Let me take you back a little bit because I think that to understand the present, one must have knowledge of the past. Back in 1962, we had the Cuban Missile Crisis. Now some of you of course weren't even born in 1962, but I hope that you are aware of it. And one of the reasons for the crisis was as follows. A year before that, in 1961, the United States had deployed 15 ballistic missiles, intercontinental ballistic missiles on Turkish soil. And in those days, Turkey had a common border basically with Soviet Union. Now 15 ballistic missiles were, you know, a serious threat. And the head of the Soviet Union in those days, Nikita Khrushchev, came up with the idea of counterbalancing that by deploying Soviet missiles, medium range, not intercontinental, but nonetheless, Soviet missiles on Cuban soil. And he asked Castro, who was a very independent gentleman, whether he would accept those missiles. And Castro was overjoyed because he had no love for the United States. And he said, absolutely. So the Russians began building, well, actually the Soviets, because that was still the Soviet Union, began building missile sites on Cuban territory and shipping missiles to Cuba. When the United States discovered this, thanks to spy planes photographing it, and JFK was informed, he said, now I'm not quoting, but this is the essence of what he said, that these Soviet missiles represented a existential threat to the United States. Existential threat. And therefore, if Khrushchev did not turn those ships around and take out those missile sites and go back to the Soviet Union, the United States would sink those ships. And should that be the beginning of World War III? Well, so be it. To me, the key issue is that Kennedy believed it. When he said it was an existential threat, he was absolutely dead sure of it. He was wrong. He was wrong in the sense that Khrushchev, in his worst of dreams, did not imagine attacking the United States. He was bringing those missiles in to balance the ones that the US had deployed in Turkey. He had no intention. And when you read what he wrote to Kennedy and what Kennedy wrote back and all of those letters are available, you can see that Khrushchev did not want a war. On the contrary, but Kennedy had that certainty that those missiles represented an existential threat. Well, thank God, the leaders of both countries had the wisdom to step back and to kind of make a mutual deal. The US takes its missiles out of Cuba, the Russians, the Soviets turn their ships around and go back to the Soviet Union. Now, Kennedy insisted that no one should know about the deal. He was afraid that should have become public in the United States, he'd be castigated for making a deal with the Reds. And that again is documented. You can find that in the letter that he wrote to Khrushchev. And Khrushchev answered him and saying, don't worry, we won't say a word. So the Russians publicly turned their ships around and three or four months later, the US very silently hold their missiles out of Turkey. So in a way, Khrushchev lost face. As far as the public was concerned, he blinked and turned the ships around. The important thing was not who blinked. The important thing was they found a way of getting out of a situation that could have led to a nuclear war. Well, let's go to the present day. Whether or not President Putin is right in believing that a Ukrainian NATO would present an existential threat to Russia is of no importance, whether he's right or he's wrong. The important thing is he believes it. Justice Kennedy believed what he did. And Putin has warned on several occasions, he has warned the West, and in particular, of course, the United States, see to it that Ukraine does not become a NATO member. Make some kind of guarantee question. Did Khrushchev hear Kennedy and react accordingly? Yes. Well, could we say that perhaps Biden didn't hear Putin and therefore has not acted accordingly? I don't think so. I think you heard him very well. But I think the difference here is that Biden was looking for conflict. They've been poking the bear, as they say, for quite a long time, hoping that the bear would react and fall into a trap. And that trap is called Ukraine. If you wanna look at the importance of Ukraine, of an independent Ukraine, from the American viewpoint, I suggest you read a book that was written by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the head of national security under President Carter. It's called The Grand Chess Board. And in that book, he explains the importance of Ukraine, vis-a-vis Russia. Why, for Russia, it's very important that Ukraine be part of, shall we say, the Russian, I'll call it what you will, not part of Russia, but part of the Russian influence. And if you take it out, if you remove it, Russia becomes much weaker. And the idea of the Waltherwitz Bush Jr. doctrine, remember I spoke about that, was precisely to make Russia weaker. In the hope that Russia itself will fall apart, just as did the Soviet Union, will fall apart because the republics, or shall we say administrative areas of the Northern Caucasus will leave Russia. Tatarstan, which is in the heart of Russia, will leave Russia. That is the aim, it's pretty much stated. So the reason for what Putin did was basically very simple. To see to it that Ukraine is not given the possibility to join NATO, not now, which wouldn't be possible anyway, but not in the future either. That is really as far as I can see the crux of the matter. Do I agree with what he did and the way he did it? That's a great different issue. And it's of no importance. What I agree with or don't agree with is, well, it's my own personal viewpoint. That's all it is. What is important are the facts, the way this has evolved, the way the great window of opportunity that existed 30 years ago has been slammed shut. That's what's important. And what to do today is something I wish I had the answer to. And if I knew I probably would be doing something else, I wouldn't just be a regular journalist. But I do think, and here, this is my own viewpoint, I do think that to a very great measure, it's in the hands of the United States, because President Zelensky and Ukraine depend today 100% on U.S. support. So if the United States were to say to Mr. Zelensky, okay, it's time to sit down at the negotiation table and figure out a way to solve this problem, that's exactly what he would do. But there's no one else who can tell him to do that. So that's why I think that today, the United States, I don't know how, I don't know through what, through pressure, through whatever, but I do think that that would be the only way out. And we should also keep in mind that just recently China pretty much made itself clear on how it looked at this conflict. And before the appearance of that paper, which I think a couple of days ago, actually, there were all kinds of theories as to what the Chinese viewpoint was. Today, it's become very clear that China will support Russia in this conflict, not because it's in love with Russia, but because it is totally against U.S. foreign policy. And because it sees what the U.S. foreign policy has done visiting Russia as what it will do visiting China once Russia falls apart, if Russia falls apart. And the Chinese understanding this, say, this isn't gonna happen. So I think to a certain extent, we've come pretty close to a dead end. If you have Russia and China acting together on one side, and the United States with the NATO countries on the other, you're looking at a nuclear war. A nuclear war in the sense of nobody wins it, except maybe the Chinese, only because they have more people. A billion, 300 million, which is to say, if all 300 million of them die, there'll be no more, there'll be, and the same amount die in the United States, there'll be no more United States, but there will be a billion people in China. But the world will be an unlivable place, and that's something pretty much most scientists understand, according to all kind of tests that have been made, computer analysis, and so on. So I think we're all pretty much duty bound, regardless of our sympathies or antithypocets, to see to it that a peace is achieved in this Ukrainian conflict. We should understand its reasons, and I think I've laid them out. There's some irrational element in them, in the conflict, but that today is of no importance. The important thing is the conflict itself and where it's leading us. And it's not a question of who's to blame, although I do believe that the adoption by the US of the Waltherwitz-Busch junior policies have led to this impasse, the hope was on their part, that the Soviet Union had fallen apart and then Russia would also. It hasn't happened and it won't happen. So basically that's how I see the situation. And I guess that's pretty much all I have to say at this point. And so there we are. And if you wanna ask me questions or you wanna continue the discussion, that's fine with me. Thank you, Vladimir, so much. You've given an overview that I think is as close to the reality as I've ever heard and coming from someone like yourself who was so intimately involved in the unfolding of all these events. It carries greater power. Let me just ask you a couple of questions and Jodi, you're welcome to join when you would like as well. And that is the relationship between, I'm thinking into Russian psyche and understanding the mind of Putin. I mean, from my point of view, what's happening with the US moving NATO to the East and then trying to seize Ukraine is really activating the archetypal memories of the Russian psyche around the invasion of the Germans in 1941, the invasion of Napoleon in 1812. And the fact that on a number of occasions, the West has gone after Russia with an intent to destroy it so that the Wolfowitz paper in 1991 saying, this is the next opportunity, wasn't emerging de novo just because someone in the State, the Defense Department thought about it, there seems to be historically in Western Europe some fascination with Russia, but also a periodic spasm, whether it's the French or the Germans or now the Americans to go in and try to destroy Russia. And I raise this because I think that's at the heart of what the Chinese know. And in fact, the white paper that their ministry of foreign affairs issued last week essentially states that that they understand that the United States is seeking to balkanize Russia and there's talk of the regime change and the Chinese know if it happens there, they're gonna be next so that what's shaping up as you're saying, which is the real danger is a conflict between three colossal powers and a nuclear exchange becomes almost inevitable if the war continues to escalate. But is that deeper historical understanding for why the Russians and Putin are making essentially a last stand in securing the land bridge to Crimea and seeking to neutralize Ukraine? Does that make sense to you as given your understanding? It does, there's only been a fascination on the part of Russia with the United States. If you read Russian literature, you will find time and again references. And I'm talking now about real literature, Tolstoy, so on, Dostoevsky. There've been references to the United States as a fascinating kind of place which is for some reason, the Russians very attractive. There's something about it that is appealed to the Russian soul over the centuries. And there's been a desire to somehow shake hands and find a way to communicate in a way that's not been possible with Western Europe for whatever reasons. So that's on the one hand. But on the other hand, as soon as there was a revolution in Russia back in 1917, I'm talking about the Baltic Revolution, there was a change. First of all, in the Russian attitude, because, aha, America is the home of capitalism, the home of the enemy of socialism and of communism that we want to build. And the United States went ahead and proved that in many different ways that indeed it was the enemy of all that. What happened in America? What would the Palmer raids, the anti-Red scare, the Red Scare, Sacco and Vansedi, I mean, you name it. And of course, McCarthyism, all of that kind of proved that the Russian view was correct. But nonetheless, there was this nagging feeling that somehow maybe someday we would be able to. And so the first sign that that might be possible happened after Stalin's death when Khrushchev came to power and visited the United States and saw many things that he really, really liked, including corn. Corn became a big thing in the Soviet Union thanks to Khrushchev's visit to the United States. This detente, what it was called, between the US and the Soviet Union, there was this hope. And this is in the early 60s. And in fact, the people who were in their late teens in the 1960s in Russia came to be called there's no real equivalent for that in English, but they're called the 60-ish, if you will, that are people who were formed in that period with a hope that the Soviet Union become a more democratic country and that there would be this relationship with the United States. Those hopes were soon dashed when Khrushchev came to power, but nonetheless they continued to live in those people. And one of them, by the way, was a man by the name of Vladimir Putin who today is 70 years old, right? And even though he was a member of the KGB, I mean, again, this is a scary word, but he was actually, he was a spy. Now, of course, the enemy is called a spy. Our guy is called what? An intelligence officer or whatever, right? And let's not forget that when Putin came to power in the year 2000, one of the first things he did was to propose that Russia be accepted into NATO and that Russia be accepted as a member of the European Union. Said, we wanna join you, we wanna be part. And what was he told? He was told, you know what? And he said so. I know a man who spoke to him personally and he said, look, they told me to go to hell, but in a much more impolite way. And then what happened was, obviously, I don't know if you or any of our participants have read the interview that the former Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel gave to a newspaper called Gezeit, which is one of the most important German newspapers. And in that article and in that interview, she actually admitted that the West had no intention of signing the Minsk agreements, that they saw those as a way to stall for time and let the Ukrainians develop their military potential, that they lied to Putin when they said that they would guarantee the signature of the Minsk agreement, that all the time they knew that they wouldn't. I mean, this is an astounding revelation. And so Putin naturally, as a Russian, he said, see, they always lied to us. And Alexander III was right when he said, we have no friends, but our navy and our army. And this is back in the 19th century. This is a view that many Russians share. Nobody likes us. Everyone for some reason wants to destroy us. There is that view. So I think you're quite right when you say that that plays a role in the relationship. And then that leads of Vladimir to another question is, what's your sense of the support in Russia for what Putin is doing? In the Western press, there was all kinds of coverage of the mobilization and there was some protests that were dragged off the streets and so forth and so on. But on the other hand, I've read recently that the polling around popular support for Putin is gone dramatically up and now is around 80% approval. You're there in Moscow and you're in the middle of the media. How, what's your assessment of the Russian solidarity or not for what's happening in Ukraine and Putin's policies to take a stand? If we talk about the so-called intellectual community, I think that it could be said, you've got to be very careful now when you make statements like I'm going to make because they're not based on any real knowledge. They're based on intuition, on people you talk to, but you don't have hard facts at your fingertips, which is what I think a journalist should base his views on or her views on and I can't do that because I don't have that information. But I would say that in the intellectual community, you will find the majority of anti-Pugin people in the intellectual community is by far not the largest entity in Russia. It's very small, very small. So I would say that yes, the vast majority of Russians today support Putin and even when the bodies of their sons, husbands, fathers come back in coffins, they will say, well, that's the price you have to pay to protect your country. And that sounds strange because Russia was never really attacked physically by Ukraine or anyone else, but propaganda has been very effective in making people feel that that's the way it is. No one on television or on radio has tried to explain things the way I have because, well, it's easier to make people think a certain way by using a much simpler kind of argument. You know, back in before and during World War II, the head of the chief of Nazi propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, made some very powerful statements about what propaganda can do. And that's true for any country. And, you know, I was recently in the United States and I have some very close friends, I mean, very, very close, who definitely represent the intellectual, liberal community of the United States and who've been completely bamboozled by what they see and hear, what they read and what they see on television, completely. I mean, they have no idea what's really going on. And I think that's kind of a mutual situation. But to get back to what you asked, I would say that, yes, the vast majority of Russians today support Putin. Yes. So that's interesting. And by the way, thank you so much for this really brilliant laying out path of what this stands on because it's so much, it's sanity compared to the insanity that is the propaganda. But, you know, one of the things the polls in the United States show is that 60% of the people in the United States are not for this war. And if you're a person of color, it goes down to 20%. And so you were saying, you know, I think one of the things that we're looking at is that it's a, the simple-mindedness of the propaganda, it's almost like a cartoon in the way that Putin, you know, Zelensky's a hero and Putin's an evil and as you say, stupid. And the Ukrainians also have been, it's a nationalism, I think that we're seeing between the Ukrainians and the Russians. And what is it, do you think it was with your friends? What is it for them that they're so intelligent but so gullible to the propaganda that is so simplified? Well, first of all, I wouldn't say that they're gullible to that point. I would say that I can understand why a person is against war. I can understand that very easily. And I can understand the argument that after all, we weren't attacked by the Ukrainians. So why should we be on their territory? I can understand that argument as well. If you don't understand the motive that I just spoke of. But you have to keep in mind that today in Russia, it is very different in Russia. It is very difficult to publicly disagree with what's going on. It is dangerous. It has become, in my opinion, a somewhat repressive society. People have gone to jail for speaking their mind. And the people I see more and more often are obviously very much against that and connected to the war. So that again, affects their view understandably. And I think that most Americans have no idea what's actually going on in Russia today. It's a very complex situation. So basically, that's the only way I can answer your question. I also have to say that I have about five minutes more and I'll have to sign off. So what I wanted to say in conclusion is to all of you, don't believe me, but look at the facts that I've presented and see if they're true. In general, don't believe anybody. Look into the facts, not into what so-and-so thinks or that one thinks because you like what he or she thinks. And so you say, oh, how great. Look into the documents. It's difficult, but that's the only way to do it nowadays because as a journalist, I wanna tell you that I'm ashamed of my profession. I'm ashamed of what it's doing. Of the lies that are being presented as truth. Propaganda in the worst sense of the word that we have been involved in. I think that, I know I'm not supposed to say this, but I will anyway. I'm actually an atheist, but I will say that if there is a hell, that's where journalists are gonna go. They deserve to burn in hell for what they've been doing. They have played a role in exacerbating the relationship and the possibility of a nuclear war. Just keep that in mind when you hear or read or whatever it is that is in the media, that are in the media, okay? Jim, I wanna thank you again. I've got to bow out. Thank you so much, Vladimir. This has been priceless. And I hope that we can have you back to go into more detail. I have another dozen questions I would have loved to have asked you, but we'll do it another time. But thank you. Thank you. My friend. Now, Jody, do you wanna make any comment on what Vladimir laid out? There's a lot of issues obviously there and anything that you wanna say as we bring this to a close. Just my gratitude. We get so much propaganda, as he said, that to have be grounded in the facts. And I put in the chat a link to Code Pink, our Ukraine page, Medea Benjamin's written a book that has many of those facts in there. I think one of the things also is to understand that this has been going on for a while and that the provocation is so rooted in what he says. And that the rooting has laid the groundwork for this in time, with the 2014 coup, with the violence against Russians in the Donbass region that became, I think one of the things why would Russians be supporting this is the Americans aren't told that in the Donbass region after the coup, the fascists were sent out of Kyiv to the Donbass region and were quite violent, like horrifically violent to the Russians in Ukraine. So why would Russians before this and why would they be willing to lose their children? It's complicated, it's their own propaganda but it's also things were happening, real things were happening and they saw photos of it. And I just think those of us in the rest should remember that we don't live in a fascist world because of Russians and Chinese, that it was the Russians and Chinese that lost 20 million people each. Our countries didn't lose 20 million people each. And so we think differently. And I think what he said about our cultures are important and the culture of Russia is a beautiful culture and it's proud culture, I guess as most cultures are, but it's also the understanding that this is also a piece of a puzzle on the way to war on China that I think the United States realized it couldn't go to war in China until it got Russia out of the way. And I know that it's not, you don't hear it in the propaganda but to hear that this is a long-term plan attack on Russia that's made to look like something else. And as horrific as it is what's happening, we have to understand that what we need to do is call for peace. And that's where you get the backlash of like, don't Ukrainians have the right? But the story about Putin wanting Ukraine isn't also a true story. And so the whole like sovereignty piece is rooted in lies also. So you couldn't come to good pink and get more tools now that you've had your imaginations kind of unraveled because as he said, it's important that we ask the questions and we stand on what we truly believe and understand. So thank you, Jim, for creating this possibility. Thank you so much, Jody. And I really wanna underscore Jody's invitation to go to the Code Pink website. You're gonna see there all kinds of articles and films and opportunities to get more deeply involved in the peace process. We noted at the beginning, the protests in Berlin over the weekend, there were protests over this last several weeks in New York and in Washington and in San Francisco, Los Angeles, et cetera. The peace movement is growing as more and more people wake up. And that's really the thrust of this summit is to deepen our understanding and by deepening our understanding to motivate people to take action given the increasing danger of a nuclear exchange that could bring down really the fires of apocalypse upon us all because this is not the United States attacking little old Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya or the, you know, Kosovo, et cetera. This is the United States taking on Russia and China with an intent to generate conflict and destroy Russia and bring regime change to China. That is the strategic game plan that is we're in the middle of. And the Russians and the Chinese understand that and they are taking countermeasures and that's one reason why it's so dangerous. Again, the irresistible force of American militarism and expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe is meeting the immovable object of two other superpowers who've decided that they're gonna take a stand on Ukraine. And so the, what is at stake everyone could not be higher. And what is now going to ensue hopefully with our participation demanding a ceasefire and peace talks could not be more important. So this is one of those issues everyone where everybody's gotta take a stand because Ukraine is not a issue, an issue among many. It is the issue, the determination of which is going to have consequences that I think right now we can't even really imagine, both for good and for ill. And that's one reason why we've partnered with Code Pink to convene this summit. And tomorrow we're gonna look very specifically at the dangers of nuclear war because that's what's at the end of this trajectory if we don't stop it. And again, nuclear war is in a category that's sui generous for war because it's a termination of all life functions. And it is inconceivable that our generation after the thousands of years of civilization has come to this moment and is risking this level of ineptitude and unawareness of the true horror of war. And so that is the opportunity before us. You'll see a link in the chat box. We hope that you can all join the after session chat so we can go into more detail for any of you that have questions and we'll see you all tomorrow. Same time, same station, Jodi and I will be convening the session on the dangers of nuclear war. So thank you, Jodi. Thank you, Code Pink and we'll see you all tomorrow.