Podcasts about Arms Control Association

Do you still support Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) after the NNSA debacle? Written and Narrated By Rev. Renaldo McKenzie, Editor-in-Chief, The Neoliberal, and Author of "Neoliberalism" and "Neoliberal Globalization".Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have touted their restructuring efforts as rooted in "competence and care." Yet, their recent handling of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) layoffs reveals a stark contradiction—one of incompetence and recklessness.According to reports from the Los Angeles Times and MSN, the Trump administration, under DOGE's guidance, mistakenly fired a large portion of NNSA employees last Thursday, only to scramble the following day to rehire them after realizing their error. While most workers were reinstated, 28 employees were permanently dismissed. This misstep, labeled a mere "mistake" by the White House, raises serious concerns about the competence of those overseeing these cuts (MSN).Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, criticized DOGE's apparent lack of understanding:“The DOGE people are coming in with absolutely no knowledge of what these departments are responsible for,” Kimball said. “They don't seem to realize that it's actually the Department of Nuclear Weapons more than it is the Department of Energy” (Los Angeles Times via MSN).CNN further reported that the layoffs affected NNSA staff responsible for overseeing nuclear weapon production and ensuring compliance with safety standards. One insider revealed that the firings happened because “no one has taken any time to understand what we do and the importance of our work to the nation's national security” (CNN).The backlash was swift. Journalist Molly Jong-Fast sarcastically remarked:“Accidentally firing the people in charge of the nukes! Whoops!”A self-described Army veteran went even further, calling it “embarrassing to be an American” and asserting that “Trump and Musk are making America weaker, not stronger” (MSN).Musk has repeatedly claimed that DOGE operates with “sensitivity and care,” but the agency's record tells a different story—one of hasty, uninformed decisions that jeopardize national security. Despite mounting evidence of incompetence, DOGE continues its aggressive cost-cutting approach, often dismissing criticism with a simple “we are human” excuse. However, national security is not an area where trial and error should be acceptable.This latest blunder underscores the urgent need for congressional oversight. If Trump and Musk cannot ensure competence in their governance, then external checks must be put in place before more reckless decisions threaten American security.Sources: MSN News: "‘Embarrassing to be an American': Trump Administration Under Fire After Accidentally Firing Workers Overseeing Nation's Nuclear Power Then Scrambling to Rehire Them" CNN (for additional context on NNSA layoffs)Published in The Neoliberal Journals by The Neoliberal Corporation at https://theneoliberal.com The Neoliberal Round is a production of The Neoliberal Corporation by Renaldo McKenzie.Email us at info@theneoliberal.com or renaldocmckenzie@gmail.comCall us 1-445-260-9198 and check out our Store page: https://store.theneoliberal.com.Subscribe to the podcast on any stream: https://anchor.fm/theneoliberalDonate: https://anchor.fm/theneoliberal/support$renaldomckenzie

  The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which prohibits the manufacture, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons, entered into force in 1997. It is now the most widely adopted international arms control treaty, with 193 states parties. The CWC is a clear example of a treaty that works. Since its adoption, all declared chemical weapon stockpiles have been destroyed, including those of the United States last year. Its broad acceptance has also reinforced international norms against chemical weapons use. When such weapons were deployed in Syria in 2013, the atrocity prompted Russia and the United States to pressure the Assad regime to join the CWC and allow investigators from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to oversee the destruction of Syria's remaining stockpile. This effort earned the OPCW the Nobel Peace Prize that same year. The CWC is fulfilling its purpose. Joining me to discuss how the treaty was created, its success in shaping state behavior, and what lies ahead now that all declared stockpiles have been eliminated is Paul Walker. He is the chair of the Chemical Weapons Convention Coalition, vice chair of the Arms Control Association, and a former weapons inspector. We begin with the history of efforts to ban chemical weapons before exploring how the CWC has transformed the global approach to these weapons of mass destruction. This episode is produced in partnership with Lex International, a philanthropic fund dedicated to strengthening international law to address global challenges. It is part of a series showcasing how treaties make the world a safer place. To access the transcript of this episode and others in the series, visit GlobalDispatches.org    

As the conflict between Israel and Iran escalates, so does concern over the current state of Iran's nuclear capabilities. Is Israel likely to target nuclear facilities? How close is Iran actually to having a bomb? What role does the United States play in all this? Kelsey Davenport, Director of Non-Proliferation Policy at the Arms Control Association, and Eric Brewer, Deputy Vice President at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, join Jon to talk all things Iran, nuclear policy, and more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As the conflict between Israel and Iran escalates, so does concern over the current state of Iran's nuclear capabilities. Is Israel likely to target nuclear facilities? How close is Iran actually to having a bomb? What role does the United States play in all this? Kelsey Davenport, Director of Non-Proliferation Policy at the Arms Control Association, and Eric Brewer, Deputy Vice President at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, join Jon to talk all things Iran, nuclear policy, and more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this weekend's episode, three segments from this past week's Washington Journal – First – President Biden was in Italy earlier this week for the annual G-7 summit. We speak with Emily Benson from the Center for Strategic & International Studies about the challenges facing the alliance. Then – after years of reducing its nuclear arsenal - there are signs the US could soon EXPAND its stockpile - due to growing threats overseas. We talk about what that means with DARRYL KIMBALL of the Arms Control Association. Plus – documentary director James Jacoby discusses his latest PBS Frontline film "Crisis on Campus" about how the Israel-Hamas war ignited divisions on college campuses this spring Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Will Iran change its nuclear strategy after the death of its president Ebrahim Raisi? Negar Mortazavi speaks to Kelsey Davenport of the Arms Control Association and Sina Azodi of George Washington University. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theiranpodcast/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theiranpodcast/support

Welcome back to SSP Weekly! This week, host Miriam Pasternak explores the U.S.'s posture on strategic nuclear deterrence and the concept of 'tripolar deterrence', in light of a recently published Congressional report. Miriam sits down with two guests: Shane Ward, an SSP Master's student at Georgetown University who focuses on nuclear deterrence in his studies at SSP, and Dr. Adam Mount, an important voice and expert in the debate on U.S. nuclear deterrence strategy. Dr. Mount is a senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists and holds a PhD from the Department of Government at Georgetown University. Earlier this week, he published his article: “A Not-So-Strategic Posture Commission” for the Arms Control Association, which sparked our interest. We hope you enjoy the episode!

A year has passed since the death in custody of Mahsa Amini and the Woman, Life, Freedom protests in Iran. This panel discusses the current state of Iran's domestic dissent, Tehran's foreign policy and shift to the East, the prisoner swap and nuclear tensions with the US, and Iran's engagement with its regional rivals. Negar Mortazavi joins Farnaz Fassihi from the New York Times, Kelsey Davenport from the Arms Control Association, Nader Hashemi from Georgetown University, and Barbara Slavin at the Stimson Center in Washington. (More details: www.stimson.org/event/iran-one-year-after-the-death-of-mahsa-amini/) --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theiranpodcast/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theiranpodcast/support

You would not know if from the onslaught of nuclear weapons threats from Russian TV propagandists and political figures, but there is a 1973 Treaty between the USSR and the United States -- still in effect with Russia -- under which both sides agree to refrain from the use of nuclear weapons threats.    I spoke with Tom Countryman, Board Chair of the Arms Control Association, about how to understand and confront Russia's barrage of threats.   Tom knows of what he speaks.   His 35-year career in the Foreign Service culminated in positions as Assistant Secretary and Acting Undersecretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation.   Topics included: The positions of China, India and the Global South on Russian nuclear threats; the possibilities for continued arms control with Russia despite its aggression and past treaty violations; the extreme danger of supposed limited nuclear weapons use leading to a strategic nuclear exchange; and the role of the Arms Control Association in advocating for a world without nuclear weapons. 

* House Progressives Propose Measure to Block Biden's Transfer of Cluster Bombs to Ukraine; Daryl Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association; Producer: Scott Harris. * Biden Believes Right Wing Extremist Supreme Court 'Not Normal,' But Resists Calls for Reform; Ben Burgis, Adjunct Philosophy Professor at Rutgers University and Jacobin magazine columnist; Producer: Scott Harris. * After Supreme Court Rejects Biden Student Debt Relief Plan, Public Service Workers Have Another Option; Christina Ceballos, founder of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program Support website; Producer: Scott Harris.

We're going nuclear today with Jayita Sarkar! Jay is a Senior Lecturer in Economic and Social History at the University of Glasgow. Before settling down in Scotland, she was an Assistant Professor at Boston University and a Niehaus Fellow at Dartmouth College. She was also a Fellow with Harvard University's Weatherhead Initiative in Global History, an Ernest May Fellow in History and Policy, and a Stanton Postdoctoral Fellow, all also at Harvard. She received her Ph.D. in History from the Graduate Institute Geneva, an MA at the University of Paris IV, Sorbonne, and a BA and MA in Political Science and International Relations at Jadavpur University. Jay is the author of Ploughshares and Swords: India's Nuclear Program in the Global Cold War (Cornell), which was a 2023 Honourable Mention for the Best Book Award of ISA Global Development Studies Section. Her articles have appeared in Cold War History, the Journal of Cold War Studies, the Journal of Strategic Studies, and the Journal of Global Security Studies, among others. Her 2018 article in Nonproliferation Review entitled “U.S. Technological Collaboration for Nonproliferation: Key Evidence from the Cold War”  (With J. Krige) won the 2018 Doreen and Jim McElvany Nonproliferation Award. Her second book, Atomic Capitalism: A Global History, is under contract with Princeton University Press. Jay has received grants from the Stanton Foundation, The Hoover Institution, The Swiss National Science Foundation, and the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies, to name just a few. She was recently granted a British Academy Award to support “Partition Machine,” an upcoming conference she has organized on territorial partitions. Jayita sits on the Editorial Board of Cold War History, the Editorial Advisory Board of Global Nuclear Histories Book Series at McGill-Queen's University Press, and the Board of Directors of the Arms Control Association. She is a member of the Royal Historical Society and the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. On top of all that, she's a polyglot who speaks Bengali, English, and French fluently with a little German, Hindu and Urdu thrown in for good measure. Join us for a delightful and really interesting chat with Jay Sarkar - we'll talk India's nuclear policy, Glasgow v. Edinburgh, Scottish Straight Cats, Diego Maradona, and Pink Martini, among many other topics! Rec.: 04/21/2023

Over 100 activist groups, including Greenpeace, Veterans for Peace, and the Arms Control Association have signed a letter calling on US President Joe Biden to apologise for nuclear tests conducted in the Marshall Islands; Pacific community leaders are calling for swift action over an overstayer petition that was launched almost three years ago; Luamanuvao Dame Winnie Laban says she hopes the appointment of Carmel Sepuloni as New Zealand's first ever deputy prime minister of Pasifika descent inspires young up and coming Pacific leaders to pursue careers in politics; ; Some Cook Islands tourism operators are struggling financially as they grapple with the country's holiday low season;Tonga's Prime Minister Siaosi Sovaleni Hu'akavameiliku enters his second year in power after a rocky start to his term;Tennis player Brett Baudinet might have passed the magical age of 40 but he's certainly not slowing down.

Over 100 activist groups, including Greenpeace, Veterans for Peace, and the Arms Control Association have signed a letter calling on US President Joe Biden to apologise for nuclear tests conducted in the Marshall Islands.

Over 100 activist groups, including Greenpeace, Veterans for Peace, and the Arms Control Association have signed a letter calling on US President Joe Biden to apologise for nuclear tests conducted in the Marshall Islands; Last week, Tongans commemorated the first year anniversary of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai Volcanic eruption. Remarkably only three people were killed. But despite the low casualty rate, Finau Fonua found many in the Kingdom are still haunted by the traumatic event; It's election week in Tokelau. As Lydia Lewis reports, for the first time in Tokelau's history, all three atolls will take part in the same electoral process; There is criticism of the Papua New Guinea parliament's decision to give Sir Bob Dadae a second term as governor general.There had been hopes that prominent woman candidate Winnie Kiap might have been chosen.

In this episode, our phones were blowing up with alerts to watch Blowing Up Right Now (2019), a romantic comedy about a couple on the rocks forced to shelter in place during a nuclear missile crisis. How does the plot mirror the real life nuclear missile false alarm Hawaiian citizens experienced in 2018? How does a nuclear war crisis look to the average person who can only get information from cable news and Twitter? What nuclear survival tips can we learn after 5 seconds of time on Google (asking for a panicked friend)? Tim Westmyer (@NuclearPodcast) and co-host Gabe answer these questions and more. Before we hunkered down inside our pillow fort fallout bunker, we recommend: • Danny Jolles, You Choose: The Full Interactive Comedy Special from Danny Jolles, Don't Tell Comedy, YouTube, 2022 • Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004 Movie) • False Alarm (2021 Documentary) • Daryll Kimball, “Nuclear False Warnings and the Risk of Catastrophe,” Arms Control Association, March 16, 2020 • “Ladybug Ladybug,” Super Critical Podcast, Episode #21, 2018 Check out our website, SuperCriticalPodcast.com, for more resources and related items. We aim to have at least one new episode every month. Let us know what you think about the podcast and any ideas you may have about future episodes and guests by reaching out at on Twitter @NuclearPodcast, GooglePlay, Spotify, SoundCloud, TuneIn, Stitcher Radio, SuperCriticalPodcast@gmail.com, and YouTube. Enjoy!

Over the last several weeks, North Korea has launched an unprecedented number of missile tests. In one week alone in early November, North Korea launched over 80 missiles, including short and long range ballistic missles.  So why is North Korea suddenly flexing like this? And what do these missile tests suggest about North Korea's nuclear strategies and intentions? I put these questions and more to Kelsey Davenport, Director of Nonproliferation Policy at the Arms Control Association. We kick off discussing the kinds of technologies that North Korea is testing and then have a long conversation that puts these tests in context of geopolitics, US policy towards North Korea and more. 

While all eyes are on Iran's protests, the country has advanced closer than ever to a nuclear weapon. Safeguards on the program are weak in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal. Where do things stand, and where are they going? We hear from Kelsey Davenport, Director for Nonproliferation Policy at the Arms Control Association, where she focuses on the nuclear and missile programs in Iran, North Korea, India, and Pakistan and on international efforts to prevent proliferation and nuclear terrorism.

Nuclear risk — what is it and how is it assessed? Ploughshares Fund President Dr. Emma Belcher discusses these questions with Dr. Patricia Lewis, director of the International Security program at Chatham House. On Early Warning, Lauren Billet is joined by Shannon Bugos, senior policy analyst at the Arms Control Association. She discusses Russia's decision to suspend inspections under New Start and what it means for future arms control dialogue between the US and Russia.

We begin with an update on the war in Ukraine. With the Russian invasion now 6 months in what might we expect to see next and could Russia resort to using a nuclear weapon in the conflict? We discuss with Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association.   It's one ‘positive' to come out of the Pandemic, an increased interest in gardening and it appears to be continuing, here in Canada. We talk about our national love for gardening with Michele Gautier, Executive Director of the Canadian Garden Council.   From baseball, to track and field and even football ... remember ‘inflate-gate?' Cheating ‘scandals' are nothing new in the world of Sports. Our Dave McIvor brings us a few of the most famous, or more to the point ‘infamous' cases of ‘sports cheating scandals'.   And finally, could it be that the old saying ‘an apple a day keeps the doctor away' is outdated? We speak with Dr. Ted Jablonski, our ‘on-call family physician' for details on a new study that says drinking a ‘beer a day' may be just what the doctor ordered!

On May 9, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave his annual victory day speech, with many looking to see if it would give any hints to his approach towards Ukraine. Emma Belcher sits down to discuss this speech with Tom Nichols, contributing writer at the Atlantic and author of its newsletter, “Peacefield”. He also discusses Putin's nuclear threats and the lessons of the Ukraine conflict for nuclear policy. On Early Warning, Lauren Billet talks with Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association. She discusses the leaked IAEA report that indicates that Iran has amassed enough enriched uranium to produce a nuclear weapon for the first time.

On May 10, 2022, NIAC hosted Ellie Geranmayeh of the European Council on Foreign Relations, Kelsey Davenport of the Arms Control Association, and sanctions attorney Tyler Cullis for a live discussion on the state of the Iran nuclear negotiations moderated by NIAC's Jamal Abdi. The panel discussed  the Trump-era sanctions that are holding up the nuclear agreement, the imminent proliferation risks if there is no deal, and how politics may be preventing Biden from reaching the finish line. More information is available here.

The United States remains the world's dominant exporter of weapons. Between 2017–2021, the U.S. share of the global arms market was 108 percent greater than that of Russia, which is the second‐​largest exporter. Since 2009, the United States has approved more than $1 trillion in weapons sales and delivered roughly $736 billion worth of weapons to 167 countries during the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations.A new Cato Institute update to the Arms Sales Risk Index evaluates the risk that these exports create for global human rights, international stability, and U.S. security.Representative Sara Jacobs (D‑CA), Cato's Jordan Cohen, and Jeff Abramson from the Arms Control Association will discuss the 2021 Arms Sales Risk Index and current efforts to weigh and mitigate risks that the sale of U.S. weapons can pose. The discussion will be moderated by Cato's Eric Gomez. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Concerns of nuclear fallout span decades, especially for those who lived through the peak of the Cold War. As Russia continues its attack on Ukraine, those concerns are growing. Curtis Jackson spoke with Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, to discuss the ramifications of nuclear war, arms control agreements and answers the question: "Should we worry about nuclear war right now?"

Russian President Vladimir Putin has launched an illegal, unjustified war against Ukraine and Putin himself is the only person who can stop the war immediately. In this episode, we seek to understand why President Putin has launched this horrific war in order to judge our country's ability to bring the war to a quicker end. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD244: Keeping Ukraine CD186: National Endowment for Democracy CD168: Nuclear Desperation Ukraine Civil War Alan MacLeod. Feb 22, 2022. “Documents Reveal US Spent $22 Million Promoting Anti-Russia Narrative in Ukraine & Abroad.” The Washington Standard. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Oct 8, 2021. “Conflict-related civilian casualties in Ukraine.” United Nations. Andrew Higgins and Peter Baker. Feb 6, 2014. “Russia Claims U.S. Is Meddling Over Ukraine.” The New York Times. NATO Expansion Becky Sullivan. Updated Feb 24, 2022. “How NATO's expansion helped drive Putin to invade Ukraine.” NPR. Henry Meyer and Ilya Arkhipov. Dec 17, 2021. “Russia Demands NATO Pullback in Security Talks With U.S.” Bloomberg. Joe Dyke. Mar 20, 2021. “NATO Killed Civilians in Libya. It's Time to Admit It.” Foreign Policy. NATO. Updated May 5, 2020. “Enlargement.” NATO. 2020. “The Secretary General's Annual Report.” National Security Archive. December 12, 2017. “NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard.” Arms Control Association. “The Debate Over NATO Expansion: A Critique of the Clinton Administration's Responses to Key Questions.” “Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow. (Excerpts.)” February 9, 1990. National Security Archive. “Ukraine: The Orange Revolution and the Yushchenko Presidency.” In The Encyclopedia Britannica. NATO in Ukraine Xinhua. Nov 14, 2021. “Ukraine, NATO countries hold naval drills in Black Sea.” News.cn Chad Menegay and Aimee Valles. Sept 22, 2021. “US, NATO, Ukraine enhance interoperability with Rapid Trident exercise.” NationalGuard.mil Reuters. April 3, 2021. “Ukraine and Britain to Hold Joint Military Drills.” U.S. News and World Report. NATO Allied Maritime Command. Mar 17, 2021. “NATO forces train with the Ukrainian Navy.” European Deterrence Initiative Paul Belkin and Hibbah Kaileh. Updated July 1, 2021. “The European Deterrence Initiative: A Budgetary Overview” [IF10946.] Congressional Research Service. Weapons Treaties TASS. Feb 21, 2022. “Europe won't understand Kiev talking of regaining nuclear weapons — Russian diplomat.” Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation. Updated March 2021. “Fact Sheet: Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.” Arms Control Association. Last reviewed August 2019. “The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty at a Glance.” General Dynamics General Dynamics. “Corporate Governance: Board of Directors.” Russia-China Alliance Chen Aizhu. Feb 4, 2022. “Russia, China agree 30-year gas deal via new pipeline, to settle in euros.” Reuters. Robin Brant. Feb 4, 2022. “China joins Russia in opposing Nato expansion.” BBC News. Sanctions Matina Stevis-Gridneff. Feb 25, 2022. “European Leaders Agree to a Second Wave of Russia Sanctions.” The New York Times. Congressional Response Joe Gould. Feb 22, 2022. “Emergency funding proposal for Ukraine gets bipartisan backing in Congress.” Defense News. Reuters. Feb 25, 2022. “U.S. providing $600 mln for Ukraine defensive weapons -House Speaker Pelosi.” Reuters. Images State Property Fund of Ukraine USAID Partnership Audio Sources House Speaker Weekly Briefing February 23, 2022 YouTube Version Overview: At her weekly briefing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), along with several of her Democratic colleagues, talked about the situation in Ukraine and President Biden's sanctions after Russia recognized the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk in the Donbas region. Clips 10:25 Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Putin is terrified by the prospect of a democracy at his border. A democracy, giving an example to the Russian people of the kind of life and economy they might enjoy if they cast aside their own autocrat. This is, I think, one of the preeminent motivations of Vladimir Putin. 15:32 Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA): I chair the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign operations, which oversees many of the resources to assist the Ukrainian people through this crisis. This includes our economic assistance to Ukraine, including loan guarantees. Economic assistance would come through the economic support accounts for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia, those of the accounts that would come through. Without getting in too many of the weeds, I wanted to just mention that because it's an effort that we're looking at now in terms of our funding. It also includes humanitarian plans, including funding for refugees, God forbid, and for those internally displaced by conflict. The administration has committed to us that in the event of conflict, there is a need over the next 12 months of at least $1 billion for humanitarian needs. So I support the efforts of the administration also to bolster Ukraine's economy, including the proposed $1 billion in loan guarantees to continue with Ukraine's economic reforms. 22:08 Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): I will just close by saying this: I had the privilege of going with President Clinton, who invited four members of Congress House and Senate, Democrat and Republican, the Senate Democrat was Senator Joe Biden. And we went to the expansion of NATO meeting in Paris. And it was all the heads of state of the then NATO countries who spoke and it was so beautiful because they all spoke in such a positive way about NATO. We thought like we were NATO and they were also NATO, they had ownership and agency in possession of the NATO possibilities. The representative of Russia who was there was Boris Yeltsin. And he was very ebullient, but he was welcoming to what was called was the expansion we had supported in our own country, the Baltic States, Poland, others countries becoming what was called the Partnership for Peace and it included many countries. Now Putin is saying push it back to pre-1997. Don't ever try to add another country and remove weapons out of Eastern Europe. That's what he wanted. No, that was not going to happen. 33:35 Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): What is this about? The people of Hung -- many of us have visited Ukraine and have seen that they love democracy. They do not want to live under Vladimir Putin. He does not want the Russian people to see what democracy looks like. And therefore he wants to bring them under his domain. 35:15 Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): When we talk about the president, he's doing the sanctions. He has a full picture of all this. As I said, he was present there the day of the expansion of NATO. I saw the respect he commanded then, and that was 1997, by the heads of state of all those countries, and of course, that has only grown over time, by his leadership, but also the expansion of NATO. I think we're very well served, I respect his judgement. And again, it's not just about when you do the sanctions, or how you support the people. It's about how the world views what Putin is doing. This is a very evil move on the part of Vladimir Putin. President Biden Remarks on Russia and Ukraine February 22, 2022 YouTube Version Transcript Overview: During an address, President Biden announced new sanctions against Russia in response to President Vladimir Putin sending Russian troops into separatist regions of Ukraine. Clips 1:57 President Biden So, today, I'm announcing the first tranche of sanctions to impose costs on Russia in response to their actions yesterday. These have been closely coordinated with our Allies and partners, and we'll continue to escalate sanctions if Russia escalates. We're implementing full blocking sanctions on two large Russian financial institutions: V.E.B. and their military bank. We're implementing comprehensive sanctions on Russian sovereign debt. That means we've cut off Russia's government from Western financing. It can no longer raise money from the West and cannot trade in its new debt on our markets or European markets either. Starting tomorrow [today] and continuing in the days ahead, we will also impose sanctions on Russia's elites and their family members. They share in the corrupt gains of the Kremlin policies and should share in the pain as well. And because of Russia's actions, we've worked with Germany to ensure Nord Stream 2 will not — as I promised — will not move forward. 3:23 President Biden: Today, in response to Russia's admission that it will not withdraw its forces from Belarus, I have authorized additional movements of U.S. forces and equipment already stationed in Europe to strengthen our Baltic Allies — Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Let me be clear: These are totally defensive moves on our part. We have no intention of fighting Russia. We want to send an unmistakable message, though, that the United States, together with our Allies, will defend every inch of NATO territory and abide by the commitments we made to NATO. 4:22 President Biden: Russian forces remain positioned in Belarus to attack Ukraine from the north, including war planes and offensive missile systems. Russia has moved troops closer to Ukraine's border with Russia. Russia's naval vessels are maneuvering in the Black Sea to Ukraine's south, including amphibious assault ships, missile cruisers, and submarines. Russia has moved supplies of blood and medical equipment into position on their border. You don't need blood unless you plan on starting a war. 6:25 President Biden: I'm going to take robust action and make sure the pain of our sanctions is targeted at the Russian economy, not ours. We are closely monitoring energy supplies for any disruption. We're executing a plan in coordination with major oil-producing consumers and producers toward a collective investment to secure stability and global energy supplies. This will be — this will blunt gas prices. I want to limit the pain the American people are feeling at the gas pump. This is critical to me. 7:37 President Biden: Yesterday, the world heard clearly the full extent of Vladimir Putin's twisted rewrite of history, going back more than a century, as he waxed eloquently, noting that — well, I'm not going to go into it, but nothing in Putin's lengthy remarks indicated any interest in pursuing real dialogue on European security in the year 2022. 8:04 President Biden: He directly attacked Ukraine's right to exist. He indirectly threatened territory formerly held by Russia, including nations that today are thriving democracies and members of NATO. He explicitly threatened war unless his extreme demands were met. And there is no question that Russia is the aggressor. Russian President Putin Statement on Ukraine February 21, 2022 YouTube Version Transcript Overview: Russian President Vladimir Putin announced after a Security Council meeting that Russia would recognize the independence of the separatist republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in Ukraine's Donbas region. Clips 00:15 President Putin: I would like to emphasise again that Ukraine is not just a neighbouring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space. These are our comrades, those dearest to us – not only colleagues, friends and people who once served together, but also relatives, people bound by blood, by family ties. 1:22 President Putin: I would like to start by saying that the modern Ukraine was completely created by Russia. To be more exact, Bolshevist, partially communist Russia. This process started almost immediately after the 1917 revolutions, leading and planning and his group of supporters did it in a rough way. If we talk about Russia, they were alienating parts of historical territories of Russia. And millions of people who live there, obviously no one asked anything. Then before the Great Patriotic War, Stalin added to the USSR and handed over some lands that belonged to Poland and Hungary, and as a compensation gave some ancient German lands to Poland. And the 1960s crucial decision to take Crimea away from Russia and also gave it to Ukraine. That's how the territory of Soviet Ukraine was formed. 3:05 President Putin: We cannot help but react to this real threat, especially since I would like to reiterate that Western backers they can help Ukraine with getting this weapon to create yet another threat for our country because we can see how consistently they are pumping Ukraine with weapons. The United States alone starting from 2014 transferred billions of dollars including the arm supply training personnel. In recent months, Western weapons are sent to Ukraine given ceaselessly in front of the eyes of the entire world 7:05 President Putin: Actually, as I have already said, Soviet Ukraine is the result of the Bolsheviks' policy and can be rightfully called “Vladimir Lenin's Ukraine.” He was its creator and architect. This is fully and comprehensively corroborated by archival documents, including Lenin's harsh instructions regarding Donbass, which was actually shoved into Ukraine. And today the “grateful progeny” has overturned monuments to Lenin in Ukraine. They call it decommunization. You want decommunization? Very well, this suits us just fine. But why stop halfway? We are ready to show what real decommunizations would mean for Ukraine. 9:31 President Putin: Everything seemed to be working well in conditions of the totalitarian regime, and outwardly it looked wonderful, attractive and even super-democratic. And yet, it is a great pity that the fundamental and formally legal foundations of our state were not promptly cleansed of the odious and utopian fantasies inspired by the revolution, which are absolutely destructive for any normal state. 10:05 President Putin: It seems that the Communist Party leaders were convinced that they had created a solid system of government and that their policies had settled the ethnic issue for good. But falsification, misconception, and tampering with public opinion have a high cost. The virus of nationalist ambitions is still with us, and the mine laid at the initial stage to destroy state immunity to the disease of nationalism was ticking. As I have already said, the mine was the right of secession from the Soviet Union. 13:55 President Putin: Even two years before the collapse of the USSR, its fate was actually predetermined. It is now that radicals and nationalists, including and primarily those in Ukraine, are taking credit for having gained independence. As we can see, this is absolutely wrong. The disintegration of our united country was brought about by the historic, strategic mistakes on the part of the Bolshevik leaders and the CPSU leadership, mistakes committed at different times in state-building and in economic and ethnic policies. The collapse of the historical Russia known as the USSR is on their conscience. 14:39 President Putin: It was our people who accepted the new geopolitical reality that took shape after the dissolution of the USSR, and recognised the new independent states. Not only did Russia recognise these countries, but helped its CIS partners, even though it faced a very dire situation itself. This included our Ukrainian colleagues, who turned to us for financial support many times from the very moment they declared independence. Our country provided this assistance while respecting Ukraine's dignity and sovereignty. According to expert assessments, confirmed by a simple calculation of our energy prices, the subsidised loans Russia provided to Ukraine along with economic and trade preferences, the overall benefit for the Ukrainian budget in the period from 1991 to 2013 amounted to $250 billion. 21:24 President Putin: A stable statehood has never developed in Ukraine; its electoral and other political procedures just serve as a cover, a screen for the redistribution of power and property between various oligarchic clans. Corruption, which is certainly a challenge and a problem for many countries, including Russia, has gone beyond the usual scope in Ukraine. It has literally permeated and corroded Ukrainian statehood, the entire system, and all branches of power. Radical nationalists took advantage of the justified public discontent and saddled the Maidan protest, escalating it to a coup d'état in 2014. They also had direct assistance from foreign states. According to reports, the US Embassy provided $1 million a day to support the so-called protest camp on Independence Square in Kiev. In addition, large amounts were impudently transferred directly to the opposition leaders' bank accounts, tens of millions of dollars. 23:37 President Putin: Maidan did not bring Ukraine any closer to democracy and progress. Having accomplished a coup d'état, the nationalists and those political forces that supported them eventually led Ukraine into an impasse, pushed the country into the abyss of civil war. 26:30 President Putin: In fact, it all came down to the fact that the collapse of the Ukrainian economy was accompanied by outright robbery of the citizens of the country, and Ukraine itself was simply driven under external control. It is carried out not only at the behest of Western capitals, but also, as they say, directly on the spot through a whole network of foreign advisers, NGOs and other institutions deployed in Ukraine. They have a direct impact on all the most important personnel decisions, on all branches and levels of government: from the central and even to the municipal, on the main state-owned companies and corporations, including Naftogaz, Ukrenergo, Ukrainian Railways, Ukroboronprom, Ukrposhta , Administration of Sea Ports of Ukraine. There is simply no independent court in Ukraine. At the request of the West, the Kiev authorities gave representatives of international organizations the pre-emptive right to select members of the highest judicial bodies - the Council of Justice and the Qualification Commission of Judges. In addition, the US Embassy directly controls the National Corruption Prevention Agency, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, and the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court. All this is done under a plausible pretext to increase the effectiveness of the fight against corruption. Okay, but where are the results? Corruption has blossomed as luxuriantly, and blooms, more than ever. Are the Ukrainians themselves aware of all these managerial methods? Do they understand that their country is not even under a political and economic protectorate, but reduced to the level of a colony with a puppet regime? The privatization of the state has led to the fact that the government, which calls itself the "power of patriots", has lost its national character and is consistently leading the matter towards the complete desovereignization of the country. 31:04 President Putin: In March 2021, a new Military Strategy was adopted in Ukraine. This document is almost entirely dedicated to confrontation with Russia and sets the goal of involving foreign states in a conflict with our country. The strategy stipulates the organisation of what can be described as a terrorist underground movement in Russia's Crimea and in Donbass. It also sets out the contours of a potential war, which should end, according to the Kiev strategists, “with the assistance of the international community on favourable terms for Ukraine.” 32:05 President Putin: As we know, it has already been stated today that Ukraine intends to create its own nuclear weapons, and this is not just bragging. Ukraine has the nuclear technologies created back in the Soviet times and delivery vehicles for such weapons, including aircraft, as well as the Soviet-designed Tochka-U precision tactical missiles with a range of over 100 kilometres. But they can do more; it is only a matter of time. They have had the groundwork for this since the Soviet era. In other words, acquiring tactical nuclear weapons will be much easier for Ukraine than for some other states I am not going to mention here, which are conducting such research, especially if Kiev receives foreign technological support. 33:47 President Putin: Foreign advisors supervise the activities of Ukraine's armed forces and special services and we are well aware of this. Over the past few years, military contingents of NATO countries have been almost constantly present on Ukrainian territory under the pretext of exercises. The Ukrainian troop control system has already been integrated into NATO. This means that NATO headquarters can issue direct commands to the Ukrainian armed forces, even to their separate units and squads. The United States and NATO have started an impudent development of Ukrainian territory as a theatre of potential military operations. Their regular joint exercises are obviously anti-Russian. Last year alone, over 23,000 troops and more than a thousand units of hardware were involved. A law has already been adopted that allows foreign troops to come to Ukraine in 2022 to take part in multinational drills. Understandably, these are primarily NATO troops. This year, at least ten of these joint drills are planned. Obviously, such undertakings are designed to be a cover-up for a rapid buildup of the NATO military group on Ukrainian territory. This is all the more so since the network of airfields upgraded with US help in Borispol, Ivano-Frankovsk, Chuguyev and Odessa, to name a few, is capable of transferring army units in a very short time. Ukraine's airspace is open to flights by US strategic and reconnaissance aircraft and drones that conduct surveillance over Russian territory. I will add that the US-built Maritime Operations Centre in Ochakov makes it possible to support activity by NATO warships, including the use of precision weapons, against the Russian Black Sea Fleet and our infrastructure on the entire Black Sea Coast. 36:54 President Putin: Article 17 of the Constitution of Ukraine stipulates that deploying foreign military bases on its territory is illegal. However, as it turns out, this is just a conventionality that can be easily circumvented. Ukraine is home to NATO training missions which are, in fact, foreign military bases. They just called a base a mission and were done with it. 37:16 President Putin: Kiev has long proclaimed a strategic course on joining NATO. Indeed, each country is entitled to pick its own security system and enter into military alliances. There would be no problem with that, if it were not for one “but.” International documents expressly stipulate the principle of equal and indivisible security, which includes obligations not to strengthen one's own security at the expense of the security of other states. This is stated in the 1999 OSCE Charter for European Security adopted in Istanbul and the 2010 OSCE Astana Declaration. In other words, the choice of pathways towards ensuring security should not pose a threat to other states, whereas Ukraine joining NATO is a direct threat to Russia's security 38:10 President Putin: Let me remind you that at the Bucharest NATO summit held in April 2008, the United States pushed through a decision to the effect that Ukraine and, by the way, Georgia would become NATO members. Many European allies of the United States were well aware of the risks associated with this prospect already then, but were forced to put up with the will of their senior partner. The Americans simply used them to carry out a clearly anti-Russian policy. 38:41 President Putin: A number of NATO member states are still very sceptical about Ukraine joining NATO. We are getting signals from some European capitals telling us not to worry since it will not happen literally overnight. In fact, our US partners are saying the same thing as well. “All right, then” we respond, “if it does not happen tomorrow, then it will happen the day after tomorrow. What does it change from the historical perspective? Nothing at all.” Furthermore, we are aware of the US leadership's position and words that active hostilities in eastern Ukraine do not rule out the possibility of that country joining NATO if it meets NATO criteria and overcomes corruption. All the while, they are trying to convince us over and over again that NATO is a peace-loving and purely defensive alliance that poses no threat to Russia. Again, they want us to take their word for it. But we are well aware of the real value of these words. In 1990, when German unification was discussed, the United States promised the Soviet leadership that NATO jurisdiction or military presence will not expand one inch to the east and that the unification of Germany will not lead to the spread of NATO's military organisation to the east. This is a quote. They issued lots of verbal assurances, all of which turned out to be empty phrases. Later, they began to assure us that the accession to NATO by Central and Eastern European countries would only improve relations with Moscow, relieve these countries of the fears steeped in their bitter historical legacy, and even create a belt of countries that are friendly towards Russia. However, the exact opposite happened. The governments of certain Eastern European countries, speculating on Russophobia, brought their complexes and stereotypes about the Russian threat to the Alliance and insisted on building up the collective defence potentials and deploying them primarily against Russia. Worse still, that happened in the 1990s and the early 2000s when, thanks to our openness and goodwill, relations between Russia and the West had reached a high level. Russia has fulfilled all of its obligations, including the pullout from Germany, from Central and Eastern Europe, making an immense contribution to overcoming the legacy of the Cold War. We have consistently proposed various cooperation options, including in the NATO-Russia Council and the OSCE formats. Moreover, I will say something I have never said publicly, I will say it now for the first time. When then outgoing US President Bill Clinton visited Moscow in 2000, I asked him how America would feel about admitting Russia to NATO. I will not reveal all the details of that conversation, but the reaction to my question was, let us say, quite restrained, and the Americans' true attitude to that possibility can actually be seen from their subsequent steps with regard to our country. I am referring to the overt support for terrorists in the North Caucasus, the disregard for our security demands and concerns, NATO's continued expansion, withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and so on. 43:05 President Putin: Today, one glance at the map is enough to see to what extent Western countries have kept their promise to refrain from NATO's eastward expansion. They just cheated. We have seen five waves of NATO expansion, one after another – Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were admitted in 1999; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in 2004; Albania and Croatia in 2009; Montenegro in 2017; and North Macedonia in 2020. As a result, the Alliance, its military infrastructure has reached Russia's borders. This is one of the key causes of the European security crisis; it has had the most negative impact on the entire system of international relations and led to the loss of mutual trust. The situation continues to deteriorate, including in the strategic area. Thus, positioning areas for interceptor missiles are being established in Romania and Poland as part of the US project to create a global missile defence system. It is common knowledge that the launchers deployed there can be used for Tomahawk cruise missiles – offensive strike systems. In addition, the United States is developing its all-purpose Standard Missile-6, which can provide air and missile defence, as well as strike ground and surface targets. In other words, the allegedly defensive US missile defence system is developing and expanding its new offensive capabilities. The information we have gives us good reason to believe that Ukraine's accession to NATO and the subsequent deployment of NATO facilities has already been decided and is only a matter of time. We clearly understand that given this scenario, the level of military threats to Russia will increase dramatically, several times over. 45:07 President Putin: I will explain that American strategic planning documents confirm the possibility of a so-called preemptive strike at enemy missile systems. We also know the main adversary of the United States and NATO. It is Russia. NATO documents officially declare our country to be the main threat to Euro-Atlantic security. Ukraine will serve as an advanced bridgehead for such a strike. 46:00 President Putin: Many Ukrainian airfields are located not far from our borders. NATO's tactical aviation deployed there, including precision weapon carriers, will be capable of striking at our territory to the depth of the Volgograd-Kazan-Samara-Astrakhan line. The deployment of reconnaissance radars on Ukrainian territory will allow NATO to tightly control Russia's airspace up to the Urals. Finally, after the US destroyed the INF Treaty, the Pentagon has been openly developing many land-based attack weapons, including ballistic missiles that are capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 5,500 km. If deployed in Ukraine, such systems will be able to hit targets in Russia's entire European part. The flying time of Tomahawk cruise missiles to Moscow will be less than 35 minutes; ballistic missiles from Kharkov will take seven to eight minutes; and hypersonic assault weapons, four to five minutes. It is like a knife to the throat. I have no doubt that they hope to carry out these plans, as they did many times in the past, expanding NATO eastward, moving their military infrastructure to Russian borders and fully ignoring our concerns, protests and warnings. Excuse me, but they simply did not care at all about such things and did whatever they deemed necessary. Of course, they are going to behave in the same way in the future. 47:46 President Putin: Russia has always advocated the resolution of the most complicated problems by political and diplomatic means, at the negotiating table. We are well aware of our enormous responsibility when it comes to regional and global stability. Back in 2008, Russia put forth an initiative to conclude a European Security Treaty under which not a single Euro-Atlantic state or international organisation could strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others. However, our proposal was rejected right off the bat on the pretext that Russia should not be allowed to put limits on NATO activities. Furthermore, it was made explicitly clear to us that only NATO members can have legally binding security guarantees. 48:35 President Putin: Last December, we handed over to our Western partners a draft treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on security guarantees, as well as a draft agreement on measures to ensure the security of the Russian Federation and NATO member states. The United States and NATO responded with general statements. There were kernels of rationality in them as well, but they concerned matters of secondary importance and it all looked like an attempt to drag the issue out and to lead the discussion astray. We responded to this accordingly and pointed out that we were ready to follow the path of negotiations, provided, however, that all issues are considered as a package that includes Russia's core proposals which contain three key points. First, to prevent further NATO expansion. Second, to have the Alliance refrain from deploying assault weapon systems on Russian borders. And finally, rolling back the bloc's military capability and infrastructure in Europe to where they were in 1997, when the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed. These principled proposals of ours have been ignored. 50:21 President Putin: They are again trying to blackmail us and are threatening us with sanctions, which, by the way, they will introduce no matter what as Russia continues to strengthen its sovereignty and its Armed Forces. To be sure, they will never think twice before coming up with or just fabricating a pretext for yet another sanction attack regardless of the developments in Ukraine. Their one and only goal is to hold back the development of Russia. 51:06 President Putin: I would like to be clear and straightforward: in the current circumstances, when our proposals for an equal dialogue on fundamental issues have actually remained unanswered by the United States and NATO, when the level of threats to our country has increased significantly, Russia has every right to respond in order to ensure its security. That is exactly what we will do. 51:33 President Putin: With regard to the state of affairs in Donbass, we see that the ruling Kiev elites never stop publicly making clear their unwillingness to comply with the Minsk Package of Measures to settle the conflict and are not interested in a peaceful settlement. On the contrary, they are trying to orchestrate a blitzkrieg in Donbass as was the case in 2014 and 2015. We all know how these reckless schemes ended. Not a single day goes by without Donbass communities coming under shelling attacks. The recently formed large military force makes use of attack drones, heavy equipment, missiles, artillery and multiple rocket launchers. The killing of civilians, the blockade, the abuse of people, including children, women and the elderly, continues unabated. As we say, there is no end in sight to this. Meanwhile, the so-called civilised world, which our Western colleagues proclaimed themselves the only representatives of, prefers not to see this, as if this horror and genocide, which almost 4 million people are facing, do not exist. But they do exist and only because these people did not agree with the West-supported coup in Ukraine in 2014 and opposed the transition towards the Neanderthal and aggressive nationalism and neo-Nazism which have been elevated in Ukraine to the rank of national policy. They are fighting for their elementary right to live on their own land, to speak their own language, and to preserve their culture and traditions. How long can this tragedy continue? How much longer can one put up with this? Russia has done everything to preserve Ukraine's territorial integrity. All these years, it has persistently and patiently pushed for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2202 of February 17, 2015, which consolidated the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015, to settle the situation in Donbass. Everything was in vain. Presidents and Rada deputies come and go, but deep down the aggressive and nationalistic regime that seized power in Kiev remains unchanged. It is entirely a product of the 2014 coup, and those who then embarked on the path of violence, bloodshed and lawlessness did not recognise then and do not recognise now any solution to the Donbass issue other than a military one. In this regard, I consider it necessary to take a long overdue decision and to immediately recognise the independence and sovereignty of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic. I would like to ask the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation to support this decision and then ratify the Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance with both republics. These two documents will be prepared and signed shortly. 54:52 President Putin: We want those who seized and continue to hold power in Kiev to immediately stop hostilities. Otherwise, the responsibility for the possible continuation of the bloodshed will lie entirely on the conscience of Ukraine's ruling regime. Ukraine is 'longing for peace' says Zelensky at Munich Security Conference February 19, 2022 Transcript Overview: Western powers should drop their policy of "appeasement" toward Moscow, Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky told a security forum Saturday, as fears mount of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Clips 13:37 Vladimir Zelensky: Ukraine has received security guarantees for abandoning the world's third nuclear capability. We don't have that weapon. We also have no security. 14:37 Vladimir Zelensky: Since 2014, Ukraine has tried three times to convene consultations with the guarantor states of the Budapest Memorandum. Three times without success. Today Ukraine will do it for the fourth time. I, as President, will do this for the first time. But both Ukraine and I are doing this for the last time. I am initiating consultations in the framework of the Budapest Memorandum. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was commissioned to convene them. If they do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt. President Biden Remarks on Russia-Ukraine Situation February 18, 2022 YouTube Version Transcript Overview: Following talks with NATO allies, President Biden provided an update on Russia-Ukraine tensions and international efforts to resolve the crisis. Clips 3:04 President Biden: You know, look, we have reason to believe the Russian forces are planning to and intend to attack Ukraine in the coming week — in the coming days. We believe that they will target Ukraine's capital, Kyiv, a city of 2.8 million innocent people.War posturing - Biden US provided record security assistance to Ukraine 4:00 President Biden: This past year, the United States provided a record amount of security assistance to Ukraine to bolster its defensive — $650 million, from Javelin missiles to ammunition. And we also previously provided $500 million in Ukrai- — in humanitarian aid and economic support for Ukraine. And earlier this week, we also announced an additional sovereign loan guarantee of up to $1 billion to strengthen Ukraine's economic resilience. 7:24 President Biden: Well, I don't think he is remotely contemplating nuclear — using nuclear weapons. But I do think it's — I think he is focused on trying to convince the world that he has the ability to change the dynamics in Europe in a way that he cannot. President Biden Remarks on Russia and Ukraine February 15, 2022 YouTube Version Transcript Overview: President Biden gave an update on tensions between Russia and Ukraine, calling for diplomacy to resolve tensions. Clips 1:47 President Biden: The United States has put on the table concrete ideas to establish a security environment in Europe. We're proposing new arms control measures, new transparency measures, new strategic stability measures. These measures would apply to all parties — NATO and Russia alike. 2:14 President Biden: We will not sacrifice basic principles, though. Nations have a right to sovereignty and territorial integrity. They have the freedom to set their own course and choose with whom they will associate. 3:17 President Biden: And the fact remains: Right now, Russia has more than 150,000 troops encircling Ukraine in Belarus and along Ukraine's border. An invasion remains distinctly possible. That's why I've asked several times that all Americans in Ukraine leave now before it's too late to leave safely. It is why we have temporarily relocated our embassy from Kyiv to Lviv in western Ukraine, approaching the Polish border. 4:12 President Biden: The United States and NATO are not a threat to Russia. Ukraine is not threatening Russia. Neither the U.S. nor NATO have missiles in Ukraine. We do not — do not have plans to put them there as well. 4:26 President Biden: To the citizens of Russia: You are not our enemy. And I do not believe you want a bloody, destructive war against Ukraine — a country and a people with whom you share such deep ties of family, history, and culture. 5:52 President Biden: Today, our NATO Allies and the Alliance is as unified and determined as it has ever been. And the source of our unbreakable strength continues to be the power, resilience, and universal appeal of our shared democratic values. Because this is about more than just Russia and Ukraine. It's about standing for what we believe in, for the future we want for our world. 7:25 President Biden: And when it comes to Nord Stream 2, the pipeline that would bring natural gas from Russia to Germany, if Russia further invades Ukraine, it will not happen. 7:35 President Biden: While I will not send American servicemen to fight Russia in Ukraine, we have supplied the Ukrainian military with equipment to help them defend themselves. We have provided training and advice and intelligence for the same purpose. 7:50 President Biden: And make no mistake: The United States will defend every inch of NATO territory with the full force of American power. An attack against one NATO country is an attack against all of us. And the United States commitment to Article 5 is sacrosanct. Already, in response to Russia's build-up of troops, I have sent additional U.S. forces to bolster NATO's eastern flank. Several of our Allies have also announced they'll add forces and capabilities to ensure deterrence and defense along NATO's eastern flank. We will also continue to conduct military exercises with our Allies and partners to enhance defensive readiness. And if Russia invades, we will take further steps to reinforce our presence in NATO, reassure our Allies, and deter further aggression. 9:12 President Biden: I will not pretend this will be painless. There could be impact on our energy prices, so we are taking active steps to alleviate the pressure on our own energy markets and offset rising prices. We're coordinating with major enersy [sic] — energy consumers and producers. We're prepared to deploy all the tools and authority at our disposal to provide relief at the gas pump. And I will work with Congress on additional measures to help protect consumers and address the impact of prices at the pump. Hearing on U.S. Policy Toward Russia Senate Committee on Foreign Relations December 7, 2021 Overview: Victoria Nuland, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, testified at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on U.S. policy toward Russia. She addressed President Biden's earlier call with Russian President Vladimir Putin and said that Russia would suffer severe consequences if it attacked Ukraine. Other topics included the use of sanctions if Russia invades Ukraine, the cooperation of NATO and U.S. allies, Russia's use of energy during conflict, and the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline Clips 10:42 Victoria Nuland: Since 2014 The United States has provided Ukraine with $2.4 billion in security assistance including $450 million this year alone. 30:55 Sen. Todd Young (R-IN): President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov have repeatedly indicated that they seek to deny any potential path to NATO membership for Ukraine and other Eastern European countries. Does the administration view this demand is a valid issue for negotiation? Victoria Nuland: No we do not and President Biden made that point crystal clear to President Putin today that the issue of who joins NATO is an issue for NATO to decide it's an issue for applicant countries to decide that no other outside power will or may have a veto or a vote in those decisions. Foreign Affairs Issue Launch with Former Vice President Joe Biden January 23, 2018 Clips 24:30 Former Vice President Biden: I'll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn't. So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I'm not going to—or, we're not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You're not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars. I said, you're not getting the billion. I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

Từ ngày 24 đến 28/01/2022, Hội nghị Thẩm định Hiệp ước lần thứ 10 của các bên tham gia ký kết Hiệp ước không phổ biến vũ khí hạt nhân (TNP) sẽ được tổ chức tại Geneve, Thụy Sĩ. Tuy nhiên, cuộc họp năm nay được dự báo sẽ diễn ra căng thẳng. Trung Quốc, với quyết tâm đuổi kịp sự chậm trễ của mình, đã thúc đẩy chương trình trang bị vũ khí hạt nhân, trong khi Hoa Kỳ xem vấn đề này là tâm điểm của cuộc đọ sức với Tập Cận Bình. Giải trừ hạt nhân : Mục tiêu vẫn còn xa ? Les Echos nhắc lại, tiến trình khởi động ký kết Hiệp ước Không phổ biến vũ khí hạt nhân (TNP), bắt đầu từ năm 1968 với ba nước thành viên ban đầu là Anh, Mỹ và Liên Xô (sau này được chuyển giao cho Liên bang Nga). Pháp và Trung Quốc chỉ gia nhập TNP từ năm 1992, nên được miễn trừ phê chuẩn. Đây cũng là 5 quốc gia thành viên thường trực Hội Đồng Bảo An Liên Hiệp Quốc (HĐBA), năm quốc gia duy nhất được quyền sở hữu bom nguyên tử và miễn trừ pháp lý. Lập luận đưa ra là vào thời điểm TNP có hiệu lực (1970) những nước này đã là cường quốc hạt nhân : Mỹ từ năm 1945, Vương quốc Anh (1952), Liên Xô – giờ là Nga (1953), Pháp (1960) và Trung Quốc (1964). Ngày nay, TNP quy tụ đến 191 nước tham gia. Hiệp ước cũng quy định cứ mỗi năm năm, các bên tham gia ký kết mở hội nghị một lần để có thể đưa ra các đề xuất cũng như là kiểm tra việc thực thi văn bản. TNP đề ra mục tiêu ngăn chặn phổ biến vũ khí hạt nhân và công nghệ vũ khí, và tạo thuận lợi cho việc thực hiện mục tiêu giải trừ hạt nhân và giải trừ quân bị toàn diện. Thế nhưng, theo giới quan sát sau hơn 50 năm tồn tại, những mục tiêu trên của TNP vẫn còn xa mới đạt được. Tính đến hôm nay, ước tính có khoảng 45% nhân loại hiện sinh sống tại những nước có bom nguyên tử. Số đầu đạn hạt nhân trên thế giới, tuy không bằng ở đỉnh điểm (70 ngàn) dưới thời Chiến Tranh Lạnh, nhưng vẫn còn đến hơn 13.000, theo như số liệu do Liên đoàn các nhà khoa học nguyên tử (Federation of the Atomic Scientists – FAS) cung cấp. Trong số này, Mỹ và Nga nắm giữ đến 90% kho dự trữ vũ khí thế giới. Mặt khác, cuộc chạy đua trang bị vũ khí hạt nhân dường như chưa bao giờ ngừng lại, và giờ đây còn mang một sắc thái khác. Nhà nghiên cứu Philippe Wodka-Gallien, Viện Phân tích Chiến lược Pháp trên tạp chí Conflit lưu ý những chiếc tầu ngầm mang tên lửa đạn đạo và những chiếc tên lửa hạt nhân cất trong các hầm chứa không cùng hạng với các loại vũ khí được cho là « chiến thuật ». Những loại vũ khí dễ di chuyển, cất giấu trong các hệ thống vũ khí truyền thống, và có độ chính xác cao, để nhắm vào các mục tiêu quân sự đối phương. Bối cảnh địa chính trị ngày nay đã khác. Năm xưa cuộc đối thoại bình ổn hạt nhân chỉ là giữa hai đại cường lúc bấy giờ là Mỹ và Liên Xô. Trong tinh thần này, các hiệp ước nối tiếp nhau được ký kết như Salt, Start và New Start từ nửa thế kỷ qua.   Nhưng việc Nga và Mỹ, năm 2019, lần lượt ra khỏi Hiệp ước loại bỏ các tên lửa tầm trung (INF), được ký kết năm 1987 giữa Washington và Matxcơva, đang kích hoạt một sự năng động mới về trang bị vũ khí đúng vào lúc mà các cuộc cạnh tranh trong lĩnh vực không gian và mạng tin học phát triển mạnh. Nếu như số lượng có giảm mạnh, người ta quan sát thấy có một sự tăng trưởng chung về chất lượng. Tất cả các nước sở hữu vũ khí hạt nhân đều theo đuổi các chương trình của riêng mình. Hoặc trong triển vọng đổi mới và duy trì ở mức độ tùy theo tiến triển của mối đe dọa và phòng thủ đối phương. Hoặc hiện đại hóa và đa dạng hóa kho vũ khí của mình với những hệ thống mới. Nhà nghiên cứu Corentin Brustlein, giám đốc Trung tâm Nghiên cứu về An ninh, Viện Quan Hệ Quốc Tế Pháp (IFRI) với báo Le Figaro hồi năm 2020 : « Các kho vũ khí của Nga và Mỹ ngày càng ít bị ràng buộc bởi các hiệp ước kiểm soát vũ khí, bởi vì họ đã lần lượt tuyên bố ra khỏi những văn bản đó. Mà nếu họ không có ra khỏi các hiệp ước, như trường hợp của Nga chẳng hạn, họ luồn lách một cách linh hoạt bằng cách phát triển nhiều loại vũ khí khác có thể không bị trói buộc vào một hiệp ước nào. Về phía Trung Quốc, họ có ý định ở ngoài hiệp ước lâu nhất có thể mọi sự ràng buộc cũng như là không chấp nhận kiểm soát các loại vũ khí. » L'Opinion : « Bắc Kinh tái khởi động cuộc đua vũ khí hạt nhân » Cuộc đua này còn trở nên gay gắt khi Trung Quốc, vốn không tham gia ký kết INF, cho tăng tốc hiện đại hóa và tăng cường kho vũ khí hạt nhân của mình – một điều kiện thiết yếu để Bắc Kinh khẳng định vị thế đại cường. Trung Quốc lần lượt cải thiện về chất và lượng số tên lửa tầm ngắn và trung, phát triển các loại tên lửa liên lục địa – một yếu tố quan trọng trong chiến lược đối đầu với Mỹ và các đồng minh của nước này tại châu Á. Trong một báo cáo thường niên về sức mạnh quân sự Trung Quốc cho quốc hội hồi tháng 11/2021, Lầu Năm Góc ước tính Trung Quốc rất có thể sẽ sở hữu đến 700 đầu đạn hạt nhân vào năm 2027 (thay vì là gần 300 như hiện nay) và 1.000 cho ba năm tiếp theo. Báo cáo của bộ Quốc Phòng còn báo động rằng Trung Quốc có thể đã « thiết lập được một bộ ba hạt nhân với việc phát triển một tên lửa hành trình hạt nhân phóng từ trên không cũng như là đã cải thiện được các năng lực hạt nhân trên bộ và trên biển. » Mối lo lắng này còn được tăng thêm một nấc khi vào tháng 7/2021, Bắc Kinh cho phát tán hình ảnh thử nghiệm tên lửa siêu thanh bay một vòng quanh trái đất rồi triển khai một thiết bị bay lượn điều khiển được, có khả năng thay đổi hành trình theo một quỹ đạo khó lường và nhất là có thể gắn được đầu đạn hạt nhân. Bà Kelsey Davenport, giám đốc về chính sách không phổ biến hạt nhân của Hiệp hội Kiểm soát Vũ khí (Arms Control Association), trả lời phỏng vấn báo l'Opinion cảnh báo rằng những tiến bộ của Trung Quốc trên phương diện vũ khí hạt nhân và sự thiếu minh bạch liên quan đến kích cỡ và thành phần kho vũ khí là thật sự « đáng lo ngại » và làm « gia tăng gay gắt những căng thẳng tại vùng châu Á – Thái Bình Dương ». Ông Uông Văn Bân, phát ngôn viên bộ Ngoại Giao Trung Quốc : « Trung Quốc luôn tuân thủ chiến lược hạt nhân tự vệ. Trung Quốc vẫn theo đuổi chính sách không sử dụng vũ khí hạt nhân trước tiên và duy trì lực lượng hạt nhân của mình ở mức thấp nhất cần thiết và để bảo vệ an ninh quốc gia. Điều này tự nó là một đóng góp quan trọng cho sự ổn định chiến lược toàn cầu. » Sự việc này cho thấy Bắc Kinh giờ là một đối thủ hạt nhân mới của Mỹ. Cuộc thử nghiệm tên lửa siêu thanh khẳng định chiến lược của giới quân sự Trung Quốc muốn dựa vào những loại vũ khí mới mà Mỹ chưa thể đối phó được. Tướng Jérôme Pellistrandi, tổng biên tập tạp chí Quốc phòng trên kênh truyền hình TV5Monde.   « Ý định của Trung Quốc chính là có được một loại vũ khí có khả năng phá hủy hàng không mẫu hạm Mỹ. Ở đây có một cuộc tranh luận về khả năng sống còn của các chiếc tầu sân bay […] Do vậy, đối với Mỹ, điều thiết yếu là phải có được những khoản ngân sách cực kỳ quan trọng vừa để phát triển các loại vũ khí cho chính họ nhưng cũng vừa để tự trang bị các phương tiện phòng thủ. Bởi vì Trung Quốc biết rất rõ là hàng không mẫu hạm của họ không thể đối đầu với tầu sân bay Mỹ. Họ cần những chiến lược kế bên và loại vũ khí siêu thanh này rất có thể là sẽ hữu ích. » Tên lửa siêu thanh : Cuộc đua vũ khí hạt nhân thời 2.0 ? Trong cuộc đua vũ khí nguyên tử thời 2.0, Hoa Kỳ dường như đang bị chậm một bước. Những tháng gần đây, nước Nga của ông Vladimir Putin thông báo thử nghiệm thành công tên lửa siêu thanh. Trong khi đó, Mỹ dự trù chỉ có được loại tên lửa này vào năm 2024. Từ đây đến đó, Washington tăng cường củng cố và cải tiến hệ thống phòng không. Theo giới quan sát, sự kiện này một lần nữa khẳng định : Làm chủ được công nghệ siêu thanh nghĩa là sẽ làm chủ được một loại vũ khí tương lai. Đây cũng chính là những gì tổng thống Pháp Emmanuel Macron cảnh báo trong một bài phát biểu tại Trường Ecole de Guerre, ở Paris ngày 07/02/2020. « Cùng với việc phổ biến các loại tên lửa với công nghệ tân tiến hơn, chúng ta đang phải đối mặt với một tình trạng chưa từng có mà ở đó các cường quốc khu vực đang hoặc sẽ có khả năng tấn công thẳng đến lãnh thổ châu Âu ». Trong cuộc đua này, Paris cũng không muốn lỡ nhịp chèo. Theo kế hoạch, một mặt Pháp đổi mới hệ thống tên lửa trang bị cho các chiến đấu cơ Rafale. Mặt khác, Paris cũng sẽ cho tiến hành thử nghiệm một loại tên lửa siêu thanh trong năm 2022, một loại vũ khí mà Pháp đánh giá là một thách thức quan trọng cho phòng thủ quốc gia. Chuyên gia Corentin Brustlein, Viện Quan Hệ Quốc Tế Pháp (IFRI) với Le Figaro.  « Một trong số các nguyên tắc bất di bất dịch đầu tiên từ năm 1960 đó là vũ khí nguyên tử là một loại vũ khí có bản chất khác, một loại vũ khí mang tính chính trị. Điều đó có nghĩa là chức năng duy nhất trong khuôn khổ chiến lược Pháp là phòng ngừa chiến tranh, tức là ngăn ngừa một cuộc xâm chiếm trực tiếp nhắm vào các lợi ích cốt lõi của quốc gia như tổng thống Pháp đã khẳng định. » Trong vài ngày tới đây, Hội nghị Thẩm định Hiệp ước TNP của nhóm ngũ cường hạt nhân sẽ được mở ra trong một bối cảnh địa chính trị ngày càng ít thiên về việc giải trừ vũ khí hạt nhân. Với ông Emmanuel Dupuy, Viện Nghiên cứu Triển vọng và An ninh châu Âu, trong một chương trình của TV5Monde, thì hiệp ước này là một văn bản đã lỗi thời, và cần phải có một quy chế mới để kiểm soát và giải trừ vũ khí hạt nhân vào lúc thế giới ngày càng có nhiều tác nhân mới tham gia. « Nên chú ý đến yếu tố là mọi thỏa thuận giới hạn vũ khí hay giải trừ hạt nhân, phi quân sự hóa, là một mong muốn chính trị chỉ có liên quan đến Mỹ và Nga nhưng không có Trung Quốc. Do vậy, yếu tố đầu tiên chắc chắn phải là xem xét lại các hiệp ước và kết hợp chúng với nhiều tác nhân mới đang gây ra nhiều rắc rối. Mỹ và Nga đã làm tan vỡ các hiệp ước này khi lần lượt rút ra khỏi Hiệp ước loại bỏ tên lửa hạt nhân tầm trung (INF), được khởi động từ năm 1987. Các chương trình SALT 1 và 2, trở thành hiệp ước New Start, liên quan đến việc hạn chế tên lửa đạn đạo đặc biệt chỉ can dự đến Nga và Mỹ. Đây sẽ là vấn đề được hai nước bàn đến trong cuộc họp tại Geneve sắp tới. Ngoài văn bản này ra, chẳng có một hiệp ước nào khác có dính líu đến Trung Quốc. Do vậy, có thể yếu tố đầu tiên chính là có được một cơ cấu mới, một hạn chế mới về vũ khí áp dụng cho các tác nhân mới như Bắc Triều Tiên chẳng hạn. Người ta ước tính có gần 5 hay 6 quốc gia là có năng lực này. »

Hoy en #Noticias7AM, entrevistamos vía telefónica a la especialista en seguridad, la Mtra. María de Haas, quien nos platica sobre el reconocimiento 2021 de la Arms Control Association para México. #UniradioInforma

Combating gender-based violence in the U.S. military Kyleanne Hunter, adjunct senior fellow for the Military, Veterans, and Society Program at the Center for a New American Security, discusses the Defense Department's progress on implementing the Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017 and explains how the legislation helps address sexual harassment and assault in the military Latest on military situation with Russia at Ukraine border Steven Pifer, nonresident senior fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution, discusses conversations between Biden and Putin and potential sanctions the U.S. would impose on Russia in the event of further military action towards Ukraine Developments in nuclear stockpiles for U.S., allies, adversaries Daryl Kimball, executive director at the Arms Control Association, discusses the possibility of a U.S. shift to a No First Use nuclear policy and considerations Biden will make in the Nuclear Posture Review

This past summer saw China's launch of a hypersonic missile. This delivery system involves a missile launch into space, but deploys a vehicle that cruises the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds throughout the globe. It is then maneuvered to a chosen target. The U.S. may not be ready when it comes to detecting, and intercepting a hypersonic launch and China may soon hold a significant strategic advantage. Retired generals Jack Keane and Keith Kellogg weigh in, as do former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Darryl Kimball from the Arms Control Association.

When Joe Biden came to office the Iran Nuclear Dead was on life support. Known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, the Obama-era deal lifted US and UN  sanctions on Iran in return for Iran placing verifiable limits on its nuclear program. The deal was rejected by the Trump administration which re-imposed sanctions; and Iran has responded in kind by re-starting certain aspects of its nuclear program. Here to explain where things stand with nuclear diplomacy between the United States and Iran is Kelsey Davenport, director for non-proliferation policy policy at the Arms Control Association. We spoke ahead of planned talks in Vienna between the United States and Iran, scheduled for the end of November and early December.

In this episode of the ChinaPower Podcast, Mr. Ryan Fedasiuk joins us to discuss the People's Liberation Army's (PLA) efforts to adopt artificial intelligence (AI) technology. Mr. Fedasiuk explains the findings of his new report, which analyzes critical AI defense industry suppliers to the PLA and the implications for China's ability to compete with the US on AI defense technology. Mr. Fedasiuk says AI technology will be central to the PLA's goal of becoming a “world-class” military force and for preparing the PLA for “intelligentized” warfare. In addition, Mr. Fedasiuk argues that through AI technology, the PLA has the potential to compensate for areas where it has historically been vulnerable, such as undersea warfare. He also discusses PLA's procurement of different AI technologies, including intelligent autonomous vehicles. Lastly, he explains that only a small portion of identified AI suppliers to the PLA are subject to US export controls or sanctions regimes, and he analyzes the corresponding policy implications for the United States. Ryan Fedasiuk is a research analyst at Georgetown's Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET). His work explores military applications of artificial intelligence, as well as China's efforts to acquire foreign technology. Prior to joining CSET, Mr. Fedasiuk worked at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Arms Control Association, the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, and the Council on Foreign Relations, where he primarily covered aerospace and nuclear issues. His writing has appeared in Foreign Policy, Defense One, the Jamestown Foundation's China Brief, and CFR's Net Politics.

The U.S. arms trade is complex. There are a lot of moving parts with not a whole lot of transparency. Listen to our episode "Weapons Sales 101" to learn the basics about the U.S. arms trade with the director of Forum on the Arms Trade Jeff Abramson! Jeff Abramson is a senior fellow for arms control and conventional arms transfers at the Washington DC-based Arms Control Association and also directs the Forum on the Arms Trade. Prior to re-joining the Arms Control Association in September 2019, he managed the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor, the de facto monitoring regime for the Mine Ban Treaty and Convention on Cluster Munitions. Immediately prior to joining the Monitor, he served as a policy advisor and director to the secretariat of Control Arms, the global civil society alliance that championed the adoption of the Arms Trade Treaty that for the first time established global regulations for the trade in a wide array of conventional weapons. He is former Deputy Director of the Arms Control Association and Managing Editor of their publication Arms Control Today. An arms trade expert, his work has been published in numerous journals and comments cited by major US and global media.

Shannon Bugos at the Arms Control Association is co-author of a new report called “The Allure and Risks of Hypersonic Weapons.” She goes in depth with Michelle Dover on the state of development for hypersonic missiles around the world and what we can do to reduce these threats. On Early Warning: Colleen Moore of Women Cross DMZ discusses North Korea's recent missile tests, prospects for US-North Korean talks and what the renewed travel ban means for families.

Scott talks to William Hartung about America's nuclear policy and the shocking profit motives that end up determining it. Hartung draws particular attention to land-based ICBMs, which, he explains, aren't nearly as effective, since they're fixed in one place, and for that same reason are especially vulnerable to the possibility of an accidental launch. When a country's government thinks their missile silos are being attacked, they have very little time to decide whether to launch those missiles in a counter-strike before losing the opportunity forever. This is why cutting back on ICBMs is one of the most important steps in reducing the risk of nuclear war. Unfortunately, leading voices in the U.S. government actually want to expand the nuclear arsenal, and since the money for such programs is often spread out in local political districts, opposition can be nearly impossible. Discussed on the show: "Inside the ICBM Lobby: Special Interests Or the National Interest?" (Arms Control Association) "George Carlin: Jammin' in New York (TV Special 1992)" (IMDb) William Hartung is director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy, and the author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex. Find him on Twitter @WilliamHartung. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: The War State, by Mike Swanson; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott; Photo IQ; Green Mill Supercritical; Zippix Toothpicks; and Listen and Think Audio. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjYu5tZiG.

Academy Award-winning director Bryan Fogel discusses his latest film The Dissident, a documentary chronicling the life and work of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi Arabian journalist who was murdered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, by agents of the Saudi government. Fogel speaks with Ploughshares Fund board member and actor Farshad Farahat on the making of and reaction to the film. Early Warning features Kingston Reif of the Arms Control Association on the Biden administration's current plans to pursue nuclear modernization, which is estimated to cost $634 billion over the next ten years.

Guests:Christopher Lawrence is Assistant Professor of Science, Technology and International Affairs at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.Ankit Panda is the Stanton Senior Fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is also editor-at-large at the Diplomat and a contributing editor at War on the Rocks.International Security Article:This podcast is based on Christopher Lawrence, “Normalization by Other Means—Technological Infrastructure and Political Commitment in the North Korean Nuclear Crisis,” International Security, Vol. 45, No. 1 (Summer 2020), pp. 9–50.Related Readings:“North Korean Nuclear Negotiations: 1985–2019,” Council on Foreign Relations.Kelsey Davenport, “The U.S.-North Korean Agreed Framework at a Glance,” Arms Control Association, July 2018.Kim Tong-Hyung, “Moon Urges Biden To Learn from Trump’s N. Korea Diplomacy,” Associated Press, January 18, 2021.Patricia M. Kim, “North Korea Conducted More Missile Tests. What Happens Next?” Monkey Cage blog, Washington Post, March 27, 2021.Christopher Lawrence, “‘Transactional’ Nuclear Diplomacy May Provide a Path toward ‘Grand Bargains’ with Iran and North Korea,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 29, 2021.Betsy Klein, “Biden Administration Completes North Korea Review Process, Will Pursue ‘Calibrated’ Diplomacy,” CNN, April 30, 2021.Ankit Panda, “What Biden Should Know about North Korea’s New Nuclear Plans,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, January 15, 2021.Originally released on May 6, 2021.

Kelsey Davenport of the Arms Control Association joins Press the Button to discuss Iran's plans to enrich uranium up to 60% following an attack on its Natanz nuclear facility, and what that means for efforts to save the Iran nuclear agreement. Early Warning features Adam Weinstein of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft on the implications of President Biden's decision to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan nearly 20 years after the initial invasion.

In the third episode of the Iran Watch Listen podcast, we speak with Laura Rockwood, a former senior official at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), about the authorities that the IAEA uses to conduct nuclear inspections in Iran, as well as Iran's recent decision to reduce the Agency's level of access. Background The IAEA plays a leading role in monitoring Iran’s nuclear program, including through inspections of nuclear material and related facilities. The international community relies on the IAEA and its public reporting as an objective source of information about the status of Iran's nuclear program and Iran’s compliance with restrictions set forth in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 agreement placing limits on Iran’s nuclear activities. However, nuclear monitoring in Iran did not begin with the JCPOA. As a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has had a Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA) in force for decades. These Agreements are intended to cover all nuclear material and nuclear facilities in a country and are used to verify that a nuclear program is peaceful. Following the discovery in the 1990s of Iraq's undeclared nuclear program, the IAEA developed an Additional Protocol to CSAs. This Protocol provides the IAEA with more information about and access to the entirety of a country's nuclear fuel cycle. Iran signed an Additional Protocol in 2003 and implemented it provisionally until 2006. In 2015, Iran agreed to resume its provisional implementation of its Additional Protocol—pending its entry into force—under the JCPOA. The IAEA was granted further access pursuant to the JCPOA, including to inventories of key gas centrifuge components and manufacturing equipment, and was provided with a mechanism to request access to locations not declared by Iran but suspected of involvement in Iran’s nuclear-related work. Our Discussion Laura explains the relationship between the IAEA's authorities in Iran and the differing levels of access that they provide. She uses the analogy of a jigsaw puzzle, with the Agency bringing together pieces of information obtained through inspection to verify the peaceful nature of a country’s nuclear program. Iran's CSA gives the Agency a number of puzzle pieces; provisional application of the Additional Protocol provides more pieces of the puzzle and therefore a higher degree of confidence in the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program; the JCPOA adds still more pieces and therefore provides even greater confidence. Late last year, Iran’s parliament ordered the government to suspend all voluntary measures under the JCPOA, including provisional application of the Additional Protocol, by February 23 if the United States failed to lift sanctions. The order has limited the Agency's access in Iran, although Iran and the IAEA did strike a short-term agreement, or “temporary bilateral technical understanding,” just before the deadline. While Agency access will be limited to that provided under Iran’s CSA, Iran has agreed to maintain surveillance in other locations that don’t fall under the CSA for up to three months—though it will not share the images unless sanctions are lifted and the JCPOA is again being implemented. Our discussion also covers the world of open source research—both data, and the tools used to ingest that data and turn it into knowledge. The IAEA has embraced this resource: it has a section dedicated to open source data analysis and is increasingly interested in such research from civil society. Laura describes how analysis based on open source data provides a useful check on government conclusions; it offers a means of verifying governments' claims and a way for governments to share information without compromising sources and methods. Laura further emphasizes the value of publicly releasing IAEA reports, and for those reports to include a high level of detail. This provides transparency and confidence in the nuclear intent of the country being inspected. Expert Bio Laura Rockwood is Director of One Earth Future's Open Nuclear Network, which works on the reduction of nuclear risk using innovation, inclusion, and dialogue supported by open-source data. She spent 28 years at the IAEA, including as the Section Head for Non-Proliferation and Policy in the Office of Legal Affairs. Laura was also the senior legal advisor on all aspects of IAEA safeguards, the principal author of what became the IAEA's Model Additional Protocol, and a participant in negotiations on Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Useful Links “IAEA Safeguards Overview: Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols,” International Atomic Energy Agency “IAEA and Iran,” International Atomic Energy Agency “Monitoring Iran’s Nuclear Activities: NPT and JCPOA Requirements,” Arms Control Association, February 2021 “Joint Statement by the Vice-President of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Head of the AEOI and the Director General of the IAEA,” Atomic Energy Organization of Iran and International Atomic Energy Agency, February 21, 2021 “Verification and Monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in Light of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015),” International Atomic Energy Agency, February 16, 2021 “How Will Inspections Work in Iran under the Nuclear Deal?” Iran Watch, July 14, 2015

Daryl Kimball talks about the need to limit the creation and proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world. Today, says Kimball, the U.S. is heading in the wrong direction: a $200 billion plan is in the works to update and expand America's nuclear arsenal, even though, according to Kimball and all reasonable observers, we already have way more nukes than anyone needs. Most disinterested experts agree that a small arsenal is more than enough to deter other nuclear-armed countries, and that the kind of stockpiles the U.S. and Russia have don't make anybody any safer. In fact, it greatly increases the chances of a full-scale nuclear war. Because of the global consequences of nuclear fallout, such a war can never be won, and so it must never be fought. Discussed on the show: "Enough Already: No New ICBMs" (Arms Control Association) Daryl Kimball has been the Executive Director of the Arms Control Association since September 2001. He has written and spoken extensively about nuclear arms control, non-proliferation and weapons production. Follow him on Twitter @DarylGKimball. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: The War State, by Mike Swanson; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott; Photo IQ; Green Mill Supercritical; Zippix Toothpicks; and Listen and Think Audio. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjYu5tZiG.

Welcome to Majority.FM's AM QUICKIE! Brought to you by justcoffee.coop TODAY'S HEADLINES: Scientists warn in a new study that global warming is seriously messing with Atlantic Ocean currents. The consequences for marine life, not to mention people living on the Eastern Seaboard, could be catastrophic. Meanwhile, whistleblowers and the family of a police shooting victim point to a violent gang inside the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. A newly elected district attorney has pledged to tackle the problem. And lastly, the Biden administration has expanded eligibility for unemployment benefits to cover some workers whose employers flouted pandemic safety standards. Although the new rules won’t apply to everyone affected, they’re a step in the right direction. THESE ARE THE STORIES YOU NEED TO KNOW: The Atlantic Ocean circulation that underpins the Gulf Stream, the crucial global weather system, is at its weakest in more than a millennium, the Guardian reports. Climate breakdown is the probable cause. Further weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, could result in more storms, more intense winters, and an increase in damaging heatwaves and droughts. Scientists predict that the AMOC will weaken further if global heating continues, and could reduce by up to forty-five percent by the end of this century. That could bring us close to a tipping point at which the system could become irrevocably unstable. A weakened Gulf Stream would raise sea levels on the Atlantic coast of the US, with potentially disastrous consequences. Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who co-authored the study published yesterday in Nature Geoscience, told the Guardian that circulation had already slowed by about fifteen percent and the impacts were being seen. Scientists have long predicted a weakening of the AMOC as a result of global heating, and have raised concerns that it could collapse altogether. The new study found that any such point was likely to be decades away, but that continued high greenhouse gas emissions would bring it closer. Rahmstorf said QUOTE The consequences of this are so massive that even a ten percent chance of triggering a breakdown would be an unacceptable risk ENDQUOTE. As well as causing more extreme weather across Europe and the east coast of the US, the weakening of the AMOC could have severe consequences for Atlantic marine ecosystems, the Guardian reports. Karsten Haustein, of the Climate Services Center in Germany, said the US could be at risk of stronger hurricanes as a result of the Gulf Stream’s weakening. Another reason we need the Green New Deal. Police Gangs Stalk LA A CBS News investigation has uncovered allegations of gangs existing within the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, possibly for decades. Current deputies out of the East Los Angeles station say the existence of gangs within law enforcement has been a problem. The deputies, who do not want to be identified for fear of reprisal, claim the most prevalent are called the Banditos – comprised of mostly Latino deputies who serve predominantly African American and Latino neighborhoods. One deputy told CBS QUOTE They operate as a gang. They commit crimes, they assault people ENDQUOTE. The deputy said the gang is based out of East LA, and that Banditos there have been promoted and spread all over the county. Members of the gang identify themselves with a tattoo. Sources said the initiation process could involve getting in a shooting, which the deputy called QUOTE a definite brownie point ENDQUOTE. Members would plant weapons on suspects to justify those shootings. The deputy told CBS the gang targets other young Latinos. That targeting is what grieving mother Lisa Vargas has contended happened to her twenty one-year-old son Anthony Vargas, who aspired to be a chef. He was shot thirteen times by sheriff's deputies while on his way home. Vargas claimed her son's death was part of the gang's initiations. She filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles County and the deputies who shot her son. The suit alleges that the individuals who shot Anthony were members of the Banditos gang, or prospects. Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva has denied the existence of gangs within his department. Newly-elected Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón said his department takes the allegations seriously. A federal grand jury investigation has been convened. After they break up the Banditos, they need to bust some white police gangs, too. Biden Expands Unemployment Eligibility The Biden administration expanded unemployment insurance eligibility yesterday to include workers who refused job offers at unsafe worksites, the Washington Post reports. The new rule makes good on Joe Biden’s pledge to reduce the pressure on people who say they have been forced to choose between staying healthy or getting a paycheck. The Department of Labor made the shift in response to an executive order from President Biden in January, broadening the eligibility of Pandemic Unemployment Assistance to include workers whose unemployment benefits were denied because they refused to return to workplaces that were not in compliance with coronavirus health and safety standards. The change in eligibility goes into affect immediately, according to the Post. But officials cautioned that it could take at least a month for workers claims to be approved, if not longer. Eligible workers will be able to receive backdated payments for unemployment claims dating to the beginning of the pandemic, as well as the supplemental $600 a week bonus that the federal government has approved through the end of July. The change in exemptions does not appear to help people who quit work in the last year, many presumably because they felt unsafe – another category of unemployed workers who have been denied benefits. The Post reports that the guidelines will also expand eligibility for some workers who have lost hours at work, like at restaurants, but have not been eligible for unemployment insurance due to technicalities, like not making enough in wages to qualify. For workers at unsafe workplaces to qualify, they will be required to attest, under the threat of perjury, that their workplace was not in compliance with either local, state or national standards about the coronavirus, the DOL said. The new rules don’t go far enough, but they’re an improvement. AND NOW FOR SOME QUICKER QUICKIES: The House of Representatives yesterday voted to pass the Equality Act, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the Washington Post reports. It is a top legislative priority of President Biden. In twenty-seven states, a person can be denied housing because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. It’s time for that to end. Tax and financial records that Donald Trump fought to keep secret for nearly eighteen months have been turned over to the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which is investigating fraud by Trump and his company, the New York Times reports. The records, including eight years of personal tax returns, were handed over on Monday, the same day that the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s final bid to block a subpoena for them. Fingers crossed for indictments to follow. The US Capitol Police plans to maintain enhanced security around the Capitol through at least Biden's first official address to Congress because intelligence suggests extremists could be planning an attack, acting Chief Yogananda Pittman said yesterday, according to NBC News. She said members of the militia groups present on January 6th QUOTE want to blow up the Capitol and kill as many members as possible with a direct nexus to the State of the Union ENDQUOTE. So DC will look like a fortress for a while still. A secretive Israeli nuclear facility at the center of the nation’s undeclared atomic weapons program is undergoing what may be its biggest construction project in decades, satellite photos analyzed by the Associated Press show. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, said the Israeli government needs to come clean about whatever it’s doing at the plant. Is that too much to ask? Apparently. FEB 26, 2021 - AM QUICKIE HOSTS - Sam Seder & Lucie Steiner WRITER - Corey Pein PRODUCER - Dorsey Shaw EXECUTIVE PRODUCER - Brendan Finn

Global Town Hall Iran and the Nuclear Deal: The Clock is Ticking A Conversation With Kelsey Davenport Director of Non Proliferation Policy, Arms Control Association and host Lt.Cmdr. Patrick Ryan, USN(Ret) Founding President, TNWAC Kelsey Davenport is the Director for Nonproliferation Policy at the Arms Control Association, where she focuses on the nuclear and missile programs in Iran, North Korea, India, and Pakistan and on international efforts to prevent proliferation and nuclear terrorism. She also reports on developments in these areas for Arms Control Today and runs the Arms Control Association’s project assessing the effectiveness of multilateral voluntary initiatives that contribute to nonproliferation efforts. She is the lead author of the P4+1 and Iran Nuclear Deal Alertnewsletter, which assesses developments related to the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran, and the North Korea Denuclearization Digest, which tracks efforts to negotiate with North Korea over its nuclear weapons program. Kelsey is also the co-author of a series of seven reports assessing the impact of the Nuclear Security Summits on efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism. Kelsey joined the Arms Control Association in August 2011 as a Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellow. Kelsey has been quoted in numerous publications, including the Washington Post, The New York Times, Foreign Policy, Newsweek, Reuters, Christian Science Monitor, Vox, and The Guardian and has provided commentary on NPR, CBC, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, Fox News, al-Jazeera, and C-Span. She has published opeds in various outlets, including TIME, Reuters, CNN, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and Defense One. Kelsey is a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a member of the National Committee on North Korea. She was selected to the CSIS Mid-Career Cadre in 2018 and serves on the Board of Directors for the Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellowship. Prior to joining the Arms Control Association, Kelsey worked a think tank in Jerusalem researching Middle East security issues. She holds a masters degree in peace studies from the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame and a bachelor of arts summa cum laude in international studies and political science from Butler University.

Philip Taubman, consulting professor at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation and Ploughshares Fund board member, joins Press the Button to remember the late George Shultz, former Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan and a prominent advocate for nuclear arms control. Early Warning features Kelsey Davenport of the Arms Control Association on a temporary agreement reached between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency that ensures the continuation of some nuclear verification and monitoring activities.

On this edition of Parallax Views, the Committee for a SANE U.S.-China Policy was recently formed by Michael Klare, Senior Visiting Fellow at the Arms Control Association, and Joseph Gerson, a long-time peace organizer whose work stretches back to the days of the Vietnam War, over their concerns that the hawkish Washington D.C. consensus on U.S. foreign policy towards China has birthed a dangerous New Cold War that could, through one false move by either side, turn hot. Klare joins us on this edition of the program to describe this new organization's goals and how the U.S. could take a different approach to China. Among the topics we cover:- The fear permeating Washington, D.C. over the rise of China as a rival superpower to the United States- The military-industrial complex that benefits from a New Cold War between China and the U.S. In this regards we discuss military spending, the Pentagon, and defense contractors- The problems on both the U.S. and China sides of this New Cold War. Tensions over the South China Sea and Taiwan- The frightening potential for a World War- The challenges and potentials for the U.S. of China's rise and the alternative approaches that can be taken to dealing with China's rise rather than aggression and provocation- Can we achieve a co-existence?- The need to address the climate change crisis globally and how China and the U.S. may have to cooperate on this matter- The relationship between the U.S. and China as a clash of two nationalisms backed by militarism- Greater dialogue between the U.S. and China as a possible way forward in U.S.-China relations; discussing other forms of conflict resolutions that are mutually beneficial to the U.S., China, and the world- Policy Papers — Committee for a SANE U.S.-China Policy by Michael Klare- Track 2 and Track 1.5 diplomacy- And much, much more!

Negar Mortazavi speaks to Kelsey Davenport, Director of Nonproliferation at the Arms Control Association, about the current state of Iran’s nuclear program, the limits set by the JCPOA, Iran’s past nuclear activities, and the path forward for a full return to the Iran nuclear deal. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/theiranpodcast/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/theiranpodcast/support

Drs. Katlyn Turner, Denia Djokic, and Aditi Verma are back on Press the Button to further explore systemic racism in the nuclear field, and how to begin rooting it out. They also discuss the production of their recently co-authored an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, titled "A Call for Anti-Racist Action and Accountability in the US Nuclear Community." Early Warning features Shannon Bugos of the Arms Control Association and Alicia Sanders-Zakre of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons on the Nuclear Ban Treaty's entry into force and the Biden administration's plans to formally extend the New START Treaty with Russia.

In this sample from the United Security podcast, Jim Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, speaks with host Ken Wainstein about his experiences as a top intelligence official in South Korea during the 1970s and 1980s.  In the full episode, Director Clapper takes Ken on a panorama of American intelligence successes and failures, touching on the Vietnam War, the Soviet Union, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War. Along the way, Clapper offers novel observations on the state of geopolitics and American institutions. To listen to the full episode and get access to the full archive of CAFE Insider content, try the membership free for two weeks: www.cafe.com/insider Sign up to receive the free weekly CAFE Brief newsletter, featuring analysis by Elie Honig: wwww.cafe.com/brief This podcast is produced by CAFE Studios.  Tamara Sepper – Executive Producer; Adam Waller – Senior Editorial Producer; Nat Weiner — Audio Producer; David Kurlander — Editorial Producer, Sam Ozer-Staton — Editorial Producer.  REFERENCES:  Luis Martinez, “How Clapper's Secret Mission to North Korea Came About,” ABC News, 11/9/2014 Jim Clapper, “Ending the Dead End in North Korea,” New York Times, 5/19/2018 Kelsey Davenport, “Chronology of Libya's Disarmament and Relations with the United States,” Arms Control Association, 1/2018 Connor O’Brien, “Clapper: North Korean leader 'may have met his match' in Trump,” Politico, 5/27/2018 Jim Clapper, “James Clapper: Kim Jong Un Is a God in North Korea,” The Daily Beast, 6/1/2018 Uri Friedman, “The ‘God Damn’ Tree That Nearly Brought America and North Korea to War,” The Atlantic, 6/10/2018 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Michael T. Klare, The Nation's defense correspondent, is professor emeritus of peace and world-security studies at Hampshire College and senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association in Washington, DC. Most recently, he is the author of All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon's Perspective on Climate Change, and his latest article for The Nation is "A Very Trumpian Christmas Surprise? Signs Point to a Possible US Attack on Iran.”

Stephen Wertheim, Deputy Director of Research and Policy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, joins Press the Button for an in-depth analysis of the decades-long consensus around US global military dominance, and how views on American primacy are changing among the public and politicians. Early Warning features Jessica Lee of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and Shannon Bugos of the Arms Control Association discussing the Trump's administration handling of North Korea and updates on US-Russia negotiations to extend the New START Treaty.

Kingston Reif talks about the imminent lapse of the New START treaty, one of the last remaining nuclear safeguard agreements between the U.S. and Russia. Russia has made some moves to renegotiate the treaty, but the Trump administration has refused to do so, ostensibly in the name of making it much more restrictive, and of including China in the negotiations. These efforts would be admirable, Reif notes, except that there is little reason to believe they are legitimate. Reif suspects that the U.S. and Russia are actually both interested in being able to use the threat of medium range missiles to rein in China, and that Trump’s overtures are mostly an excuse to let the current treaty lapse. When it comes to nuclear issues, Reif and Scott agree that Trump has delivered on his worst promises to increase funding to the arms industry, while failing to follow through on his pledge to get along better with Putin. Discussed on the show: “No Progress Toward Extending New START” (Arms Control Associate) New START Treaty Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty Kingston Reif is the Director for Disarmament and Threat Reduction Policy at the Arms Control Association, where his work focuses on nuclear disarmament, deterrence, and arms control, preventing nuclear terrorism, missile defense, and the defense budget. Find him on Twitter @KingstonAReif. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: NoDev NoOps NoIT, by Hussein Badakhchani; The War State, by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com; Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott; Listen and Think Audio; TheBumperSticker.com; and LibertyStickers.com. Donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal, or Bitcoin: 1Ct2FmcGrAGX56RnDtN9HncYghXfvF2GAh.

Kingston Reif talks about the imminent lapse of the New START treaty, one of the last remaining nuclear safeguard agreements between the U.S. and Russia. Russia has made some moves to renegotiate the treaty, but the Trump administration has refused to do so, ostensibly in the name of making it much more restrictive, and of including China in the negotiations. These efforts would be admirable, Reif notes, except that there is little reason to believe they are legitimate. Reif suspects that the U.S. and Russia are actually both interested in being able to use the threat of medium range missiles to rein in China, and that Trump’s overtures are mostly an excuse to let the current treaty lapse. When it comes to nuclear issues, Reif and Scott agree that Trump has delivered on his worst promises to increase funding to the arms industry, while failing to follow through on his pledge to get along better with Putin. Discussed on the show: “No Progress Toward Extending New START” (Arms Control Associate) New START Treaty Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty Kingston Reif is the Director for Disarmament and Threat Reduction Policy at the Arms Control Association, where his work focuses on nuclear disarmament, deterrence, and arms control, preventing nuclear terrorism, missile defense, and the defense budget. Find him on Twitter @KingstonAReif. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: NoDev NoOps NoIT, by Hussein Badakhchani; The War State, by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com; Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott; Listen and Think Audio; TheBumperSticker.com; and LibertyStickers.com. Donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal, or Bitcoin: 1Ct2FmcGrAGX56RnDtN9HncYghXfvF2GAh. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOc2dSmyRTY

This week the band is back together with Loren, Radha, and Erin once again all in the same time zone. They dive into Mike Pompeo's China speech, global COVID trends, and the world-famous Missile Technology Control Regime. Also, Congress approved the NDAA, and they have lots of thoughts on DHS "troops" engaging protesters in Portland. Stick around for pop-culture dissection of the Guinevere Deception!   Links “Communist China and the Free World’s Future,” US Department of State, July 23, 2020 Thomas Wright, “Pompeo’s Surreal Speech on China,” Atlantic, July 25, 2020 Richard Haass, “What Mike Pompeo Doesn’t Understand about China, Richard Nixon and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Washington Post, July 25, 2020 “The Missile Technology Control Regime at a Glance,” Arms Control Association, July 2017 Aaron Mehta and Valerie Insinna, “Trump Admin Officially Makes It Easier to Export Military Drones,” Defense One, July 25, 2020 Amanda Macias, “Trump Allows Defense Contractors to Sell More Armed Droned to Foreign Militaries,” CNBC, July 24, 2020 Rachel S. Cohen, “House, Senate Approve Defense Authorization Bills,” Air Force Magazine, July 23, 2020 Connor O’Brien, “Senate Clears Bill Removing Confederate Names from Military Bases, Setting Up Clash with Trump,” Politico, July 23, 2020 Jacob Nagel and Mark Dubowitz, “With a Potential Iran-China Deal, Time for Israel to Reassess its Policy,” Newsweek, July 26, 2020 Philip H. Gordon, “Has Trump Driven China and Iran Together?” War on the Rocks, July 21, 2020 Pablo Gutierrez and Sean Clarke, “Coronavirus World Map: Which Countries Have the Most Covid-19 Cases and Deaths?” Guardian, July 28, 2020 Pablo Gutierrez and Ashley Kirk, “Revealed: Data Shows 10 Countries Risking Coronavirus Second Wave as Lockdown Relaxed,” Guardian, June 25, 2020 “Global Coronavirus Cases Surge, Stinging Even Places That Seemed to Have Control,” New York Times, July 23, 2020

This week the band is back together with Loren, Radha, and Erin once again all in the same time zone. They dive into Mike Pompeo's China speech, global COVID trends, and the world-famous Missile Technology Control Regime. Also, Congress approved the NDAA, and they have lots of thoughts on DHS "troops" engaging protesters in Portland. Stick around for pop-culture dissection of the Guinevere Deception!   Links “Communist China and the Free World’s Future,” US Department of State, July 23, 2020 Thomas Wright, “Pompeo’s Surreal Speech on China,” Atlantic, July 25, 2020 Richard Haass, “What Mike Pompeo Doesn’t Understand about China, Richard Nixon and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Washington Post, July 25, 2020 “The Missile Technology Control Regime at a Glance,” Arms Control Association, July 2017 Aaron Mehta and Valerie Insinna, “Trump Admin Officially Makes It Easier to Export Military Drones,” Defense One, July 25, 2020 Amanda Macias, “Trump Allows Defense Contractors to Sell More Armed Droned to Foreign Militaries,” CNBC, July 24, 2020 Rachel S. Cohen, “House, Senate Approve Defense Authorization Bills,” Air Force Magazine, July 23, 2020 Connor O’Brien, “Senate Clears Bill Removing Confederate Names from Military Bases, Setting Up Clash with Trump,” Politico, July 23, 2020 Jacob Nagel and Mark Dubowitz, “With a Potential Iran-China Deal, Time for Israel to Reassess its Policy,” Newsweek, July 26, 2020 Philip H. Gordon, “Has Trump Driven China and Iran Together?” War on the Rocks, July 21, 2020 Pablo Gutierrez and Sean Clarke, “Coronavirus World Map: Which Countries Have the Most Covid-19 Cases and Deaths?” Guardian, July 28, 2020 Pablo Gutierrez and Ashley Kirk, “Revealed: Data Shows 10 Countries Risking Coronavirus Second Wave as Lockdown Relaxed,” Guardian, June 25, 2020 “Global Coronavirus Cases Surge, Stinging Even Places That Seemed to Have Control,” New York Times, July 23, 2020

Listen now to WACA's Cover to Cover conference call from Thursday, May 14, at 2:00-2:30 PM ET, featuring Michael Klare, Senior Visiting Fellow at the Arms Control Association and Professor Emeritus of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College, on his book All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon's Perspective on Climate Change Of all major institutions in American society, none take climate change as seriously as the U.S. military and the Pentagon. Drawing on previously obscure reports and government documents, renowned security expert Michael Klare shows that the U.S. military sees the climate threat as imperiling the country on several fronts at once. The military now regards climate change as one of the top threats to American national security, and is busy developing strategies to cope with it.

The Trump administration continues to undermine global arms control and increase the threat of a nuclear weapons race with Russia and China. The U.S. has announced plans to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty, which allows participants to launch joint surveillance flights in a bid to avert military conflict. Trump officials have also rejected talks on renewing New START and reportedly discussed conducting the first US nuclear test since 1992. All this comes as Trump's arms control envoy said that Trump can outspend Russia and China on nuclear weapons "into oblivion." Guest: Daryl Kimball, Director of the Arms Control Association. Support Pushback at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/aaronmate

Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS), joins Press the Button to discuss the intersection of immigration and national security, and how the work of LIRS makes us safer. Early Warning features our deputy policy director Mary Kaszynski and Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association on the veracity of reports that Russia and China have conducted nuclear tests, and the latest news on US-Iran tensions. Joe Cirincione answers a question on nuclear close calls.

A 2011 agreement known as the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START, is the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty between the United States and Russia. The treaty imposes limits on the size and composition of the nuclear arsenals of the world's two largest nuclear powers. And it allows Russia and the United States to inspect each others nuclear arsenals to ensure compliance.  New START is now the only nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia because last year, the Trump administration withdrew from a Ronald Reagan era agreement called the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF, that eliminated a certain class of nuclear weapons.  But New START may not last much longer. The treaty officially expires in February 2021. And so far, it is unclear whether or not the Trump administration will seek its extension. Russia has already signaled that it would extend the agreement another five years, but the Trump administration has so far demurred. On the line with me to discuss the significance of New START is Thomas Countryman. He was a longtime career diplomat who served as the US Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation from 2011 to 2017. He is now the chair of the board of the Arms Control Association.  https://www.undispatch.com/

How close is Iran to obtaining a nuclear weapon? Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association, joins Joe Cirincione and Michelle Dover to debunk a few myths surrounding Iran and the bomb, and what 'breakout time' really means. Early Warning features our Roger L. Hale fellow Akshai Vikram and Andrey Baklitskiy of the Center for Strategic and International Studies discussing the future of US-Russia arms control and the role of nuclear weapons policy in the upcoming US presidential elections. Joe answers a question from Ariel in Maryland.

“Sicherheitshalber” ist der Podcast zur sicherheitspolitischen Lage in Deutschland, Europa und der Welt. In Folge 21 sprechen Thomas Wiegold, Ulrike Franke, Frank Sauer und Carlo Masala zuerst über die Rückkehr und die Rolle der militärischen Abschreckung in Europa - und zwar konkret am Beispiel des Beitrags der Bundeswehr zur NATO Enhanced Forward Presence in Litauen. Als zweites wagen die vier Podcast eine sicherheitspolitische Vorausschau auf das Jahr 2020 und darüber hinaus. Es wird eher düster, so viel sei verraten. Abschließend diesmal ausnahmsweise kein Sicherheitshinweis, sondern unsere traditionellen Buchtipps - diesmal mit vielen Sachbüchern und Romanen in deutscher und englischer Sprache zum Lesen und Verschenken. Sicherheitshalber kommt 2020 zurück - und zwar LIVE, am 23. Januar in der Urania in Berlin! Am besten gleich jetzt hier ganz fix (das womöglich letzte) Ticket sichern: https://www.urania.de/sicherheitshalber-der-podcast-zur-sicherheitspolitischen-lage Bis dahin wünschen Thomas, Frank, Carlo und Ulrike allen Hörerinnen und Hörern schöne Feiertage und einen guten Start ins neue Jahr. Thema #1: 02:31 Thema #2: 45:15 Buchtipps: 01:15:05 Unser Shop: https://shop.spreadshirt.de/sicherheitshalbershop/ Erwähnte und weiterführende Interviews, Literatur und Dokumente: Thema 1 - Konventionelle Abschreckung in Europa (am Beispiel Baltikum) Abschlusserklärung des NATO-Gipfels in Warschau, 9. Juli 2016 https://bit.ly/2sRpBDC Augen geradeaus!, 7. Februar 2017: Offizieller Start für erste NATO-Battlegroup im Nordosten https://bit.ly/2SdxAoR Bundesverteidigungsministerium: Baltikum, 2019, https://bit.ly/391QFjO Richard K. Betts: Conventional Deterrence. Predictive Uncertainty and Policy Confidence. In World Politics 37 (2), 1985, S. 153-179. Bernard Brodie (Hrsg.): The Absolute Weapon. Atomic Power and World Order. Harcourt, Brace & Co, 1946. Lawrence Freedman: Deterrence. Polity, 2004. Frank Sauer: Atomic Anxiety: Deterrence, Taboo and the Non-Use of U.S. Nuclear Weapons. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. Richard Shirreff: War With Russia: A Menacing Account. Hodder&Stoughton, London 2016 Berlin Pulse 2019 https://bit.ly/2MhNJ95 Thema 2 - Vorausschau 2020+ Julian Borger: Trump re-election could sound death knell for Nato, allies fear. The Guardian, December 3, 2019, https://bit.ly/35IUYOV Jonathan V Last: Trump is forever: The four reasons why Republicans won't turn on Trump, no matter what. The Bulwark, December 17, 2019, https://bit.ly/35IIg2Z Georg Mascolo: Bundesregierung will "Open Skies"-Abkommen retten. Süddeutsche Zeitung, 5. November 2019, https://bit.ly/2s6rrQR Ankit Panda: Putin: Russia Ready to Extend New START With US ‘Without Any Preconditions’. The Diplomat, December 06, 2019, https://bit.ly/35PhkPa Alicia Sanders-Zakre: NPT Meeting Looks to 2020 Review Conference. Arms Control Association, June 2019, https://bit.ly/2MhewlT Interview mit Prof. Dr. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber: “Es kommt auf jedes Zehntelgrad an”. Metis Interview #1, Mai 2019, https://bit.ly/35Kd6rZ Buchtipps: Rike: Sarah Brockmeier und Philipp Rotmann: “Krieg vor der Haustür. Die Gewalt in Europas Nachbarschaft und was wir dagegen tun können.” Dietz Verlag 2019 Kathleen McInnes, The Heart of war: Misadventures in the Pentagon, 2018, Post Hill Press Frank: Marc-Uwe Kling: QualityLand, 384 Seiten, Verlag: Ullstein Hardcover; Auflage: 7. (22. September 2017). Stuart Russell: Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control, 352 Seiten, Verlag: Viking (8. Oktober 2019). Carlo: Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson: Rising Titans, Falling Giants: How Great Powers Exploit Power Shifts (Cornell Studies in Security Affairs) 2019. Marlon James: Schwarzer Leopard, roter Wolf. Übers. Stephan Kleiner. Heyne, München 2019. Thomas: Peter W. Singer, August Cole: Ghost Fleet - A Novel of the Next World War. Heiner Möllers: Die Affäre Kießling – Der größte Skandal der Bundeswehr; Ch. Links Verlag, Berlin 2019.

74 years after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a special episode of Press the Button analyzes the events and rationale that led to the only instances of nuclear weapons being used in combat. Using clips of recent interviews, Joe Cirincione takes a deeper look at the bombings, and what they mean in the context of modern-day calls to implement a ‘No First Use’ policy that would make it the official policy of the United States to never start a nuclear war. Also, Early Warning nuclear news analysis with Joe, Michelle Dover, and Kingston Reif of the Arms Control Association. Impending Boom, Blue Sizzle - Madness Paranoia, Departure - Ghostpocalypse, and Constance - The Descent by Kevin MacLeod are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Source: http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/index.html?isrc=USUAN1100198 http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/index.html?isrc=USUAN1100668  http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/index.html?isrc=USUAN1100385 https://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/index.html?isrc=USUAN1100850 Artist: http://incompetech.com/

In this episode: We meet Alex Wagner, the Aerospace Industries Association’s Vice President, Strategic Initiatives and the Senior Advisor to the President. Alex joined AIA after serving nearly seven years in the Department of Defense, most recently as Chief of Staff to the 22nd Secretary of the Army. Previously, Alex managed Uber’s global policy development team, practiced law at K&L Gates in Seattle, and served in various capacities on four U.S. presidential campaigns. Prior to law school, he worked as a reporter and policy analyst for the Arms Control Association, a national security think tank in Washington, D.C. Alex received his B.A. from Brown University and his J.D. from Georgetown Law, where he has taught as an adjunct professor since 2011. Alex shares with us his interest with law, government and technology, as well as the work he is currently doing with the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA). Alex also shares AIA’s Vision for 2050, "an optimistic vision of where aerospace & defense can take our world in the coming years."  Introductory and closing music: Paint the Sky by Hans Atom (c) copyright 2015 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/hansatom/50718 Ft: Miss Judged

This episode is dedicated to the fast-developing twin crises in Iran and North Korea. Ambassador Wendy R. Sherman shares her thoughts on National Security Advisor John Bolton's campaign to provoke Iran. Kelsey Davenport, Director of Nonproliferation Policy at the Arms Control Association, joins Early Warning as a guest analyst. She is a leading expert on nuclear and missile programs in Iran. Roger L. Hale Fellow Catherine Killough discusses North Korea's most recent missile tests. Chain Reaction 2019: A New Moment: http://ploughshares.org/chainreaction2019

Yemen: Most of us don't know where that is but we Americans have been participating in a war there since 2015. In a surprise move, the 116th Congress recently put a resolution on President Trump's desk that would LIMIT our participation in that war. In this episode, learn about our recent history in Yemen: Why are we involved? When did our involvement start? What do we want from Yemen? And why is Congress suddenly pursuing a change in policy? In the second half of the episode, Jen admits defeat in a project she's been working on and Husband Joe joins Jen for the thank yous. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD167: Combating Russia (NDAA 2018) LIVE CD131: Bombing Libya CD102: The World Trade Organization: COOL? Additional Reading Article: Hurricane Michael upgraded to a Category 5 at time of U.S. landfall, NOAA, April 19, 2019. Article: US carries out first airstrikes in Yemen in nearly 3 months by Ryan Browne, CNN, April 1, 2019. Article: The assassination of Jamal Khashoggi by Joyce Lee and Dalton Bennett, The Washington Post, April 1, 2019. Article: Trump revokes Obama rule on reporting drone strike deaths, BBC News, March 7, 2019. Article: US carried out 36 airstrikes in Yemen last year by Andrew Kennedy, The Defense Post, January 7, 2019. Article: See no evil: Pentagon issues blanket denial that it knows anything about detainee abuse in Yemen by Alex Emmons, The Intercept, January 7, 2019. Report: Senate bucks Trump's Saudi approach by Jeff Abramson, Arms Control Association, January/February 2019. Article: Saudi strikes, American bombs, Yemeni suffering by Derek Watkins and Declan Walsh, The New York Times, December 27, 2018. Article: The wooing of Jared Kushner: How the Saudis got a friend in the White House by David D. Kirkpatrick, Ben Hubbard, Mark Landler, and Mark Mazzetti, The New York Times, December 8, 2018. Report: Saudi lobbyists bout 500 nights at Trump's DC hotel after 2016 election by John Bowden, The Hill, December 5, 2018. Article: Hidden toll of US drone strikes in Yemen: Nearly a third of deaths are civilians, not al-Quaida by Maggie Michael and Maad al-Zikry, Military Times, November 14, 2018. Article: Jamal Khashoggi's friends in Washington are in shock by Scott Nover, The Atlantic, October 12, 2018. Report: Catastrophic Hurricane Michael strikes Florida Panhandle, National Weather Service, October 10, 2018. Article: Yemen's President Hadi heads to US for medical treatment, Aljazeera, September 3, 2018. Article: Bab el-Mandeb, an emerging chokepoint for Middle East oil flows by Julian Lee, Bloomberg, July 26, 2018. Report: YEM305: Unknown reported killed, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, March 29, 2018. Article: Yemen: Ex-President Ali Abdullah Saleh killed, Aljazeera, December 10, 2017. Article: In Yemen's secret prisons, UAE tortures and US interrogates by Maggie Michael, AP News, June 22, 2017. Report: Yemen: UAE backs abusive local forces, Human Rights Watch, June 22, 2017. Article: What we know about Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11 by Simon Henderson, Foreign Policy, July 18, 2016. Report: Yemen: Background and U.S. relations by Jeremy M. Sharp, Congressional Research Service, February 11, 2015. Article: How al Qaeda's biggest enemy took over Yemen (and why the US government is unlikely to support them) by Casey L. Coombs and Jeremy Scahill, The Intercept, January 22, 2015. Report: Yemen protests erupt after fuel price doubled, Aljazeera, July 30, 2014. Article: U.S. charges saudi for 2002 oil tanker bombing by MAREX, Feburary 6, 2014. Report: "Between a Drone and Al-Qaeda": The civilian cost of US targeted killings in Yemen, Human Rights Watch, October 22, 2013. Article: Yemen: Opposition leader to be sworn in Saturday by Reuters, The New York Times, December 7, 2011. Article: Yemen's Saleh signs deal to give up power by Marwa Rashad, Reuters, November 23, 2011. Article: Yemen's leader agrees to end 3-decade rule by Kareem Fahim and Laura Kasinof, The New York Times, November 23, 2011. Article: Yemeni president's shock return throws country into confusion by Tom Finn, The Guardian, September 23, 2011. Article: Yemen: President Saleh 'was injured by palace bomb', BBC News, June 23, 2011. Article: Government in Yemen agrees to talk transition by Laura Kasinof, The New York Times, April 26, 2011. Article: Hundreds take to streets in Yemen to protest by Faud Rajeh, The New York Times, February 16, 2011. Article: U.S. plays down tensions with Yemen by Eric Schmitt, The New York Times, December 17, 2010. Article: Cables depict range of Obama diplomacy by David E. Sanger, The New York Times, December 4, 2010. Article: Yemen's drive on Al Qaeda faces international skepticism by Mona El-Naggar and Robert F. Worth, The New York Times, November 3, 2010. Article: Op-Ed: The Yemeni state against its own people by Subir Ghosh, Digital Journal, October 11, 2010. Roundtable Summary: Reform priorities for Yemen and the 10-Point agenda, MENAP, Chatham House, February 18, 2010. Article: As nations meet, Clinton urges Yemen to prove itself worthy of aid by Mark Landler, The New York Times, January 27, 2010. Article: After failed attack, Britain turns focus to Yemen by John F. Burns, The New York Times, January 1, 2010. Resources Congress.gov: S.J.Res.54 - A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress Govtrack: S.J.Res. 7: A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by ... Congress IMF.org: Gulf Cooperation Council Countries Middle East Institute: Addressing the Crisis in Yemen: Strategies and Solutions Open Knowledge Repository: Leveraging Fuel Subsidy Reform for Transition in Yemen US Dept. of Treasury: International Monetary Fund Sound Clip Sources House Proceedings: Yemen Resolution Debate, 116th Congress, April 4, 2019. Congressional Record Sound Clips: 1:06:30 Rep. Michael McCaul (TX):This resolution stretches the definition of war powers hostilities to cover non-U.S. military operations by other countries. Specifically, it reinterprets U.S. support to these countries as ‘‘engagement in hostilities.’’ This radical reinterpretation has implications far beyond Saudi Arabia. This precedent will empower any single Member to use privileged war powers procedures to force congressional referendums that could disrupt U.S. security cooperation agreements with more than 100 countries around the world. 1:14:30 Rep. Barbara Lee (CA): Yes, Madam Speaker, I voted against that 2001 resolution, because I knew it was open-ended and would set the stage for endless wars. It was a blank check. We see this once again today in Yemen. We must repeal this 2001 blank check for endless wars. Over the past 18 years, we have seen the executive branch use this AUMF time and time again. It is a blank check to wage war without congressional oversight. 1:21:30 Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): My motivation for this bill is very simple. I don’t want to see 14 million Yemenis starve to death. That is what Martin Griffith had said at the U.N., that if the Saudis don’t stop their blockade and let food and medicine in, within 6 months we will see one of the greatest humanitarian crises in the world. Senate Floor Proceedings: Yemen Resolution Debate, 115th Congress, 2nd Session, December 12, 2018. Congressional Record Pt. 1 Congressional Record Pt. 2 Sound Clips: 7:09:00 Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT): Finally, an issue that has long been a concern to many of us—conservatives and progressives—is that this war has not been authorized by Congress and is therefore unconstitutional. Article I of the Constitution clearly states it is Congress, not the President, that has the power to send our men and women into war—Congress, not the President. The Framers of our Constitution, the Founders of this country, gave the power to declare war to Congress—the branch most accountable to the people—not to the President, who is often isolated from the reality of what is taking place in our communities. The truth is—and Democratic and Republican Presidents are responsible, and Democratic and Republican Congresses are responsible—that for many years, Congress has not exercised its constitutional responsibility over whether our young men and women go off to war. I think there is growing sentiment all over this country from Republicans, from Democrats, from Independents, from progressives, and from conservatives that right now, Congress cannot continue to abdicate its constitutional responsibility. 7:14:45 Sen. Bob Corker (TN): I have concerns about what this may mean as we set a precedent about refueling and intelligence activities being considered hostilities. I am concerned about that. I think the Senator knows we have operations throughout Northern Africa, where we are working with other governments on intelligence to counter terrorism. We are doing refueling activists in Northern Africa now, and it concerns me—he knows I have concerns—that if we use this vehicle, then we may have 30 or 40 instances where this vehicle might be used to do something that really should not be dealt with by the War Powers Act. 7:49:06 Sen. Todd Young (IN): We don’t have much leverage over the Houthis. We have significant leverage over the Saudis, and we must utilize it. 7:58:30 Sen. Jim Inhofe (OK): The Sanders-Lee resolution is, I think, fundamentally flawed because it presumes we are engaged in military action in Yemen. We are not. We are not engaged in military action in Yemen. There has been a lot of discussion about refueling. I don’t see any stretch of the definition that would say that falls into that category. 8:01:00 Sen. Jim Inhofe (OK): Saudi Arabia is an important Middle Eastern partner. Its stability is vital to the security of our regional allies and our partners, including Israel, and Saudi Arabia is essential to countering Iran. We all know that. We know how tenuous things are in that part of the world. We don’t have that many friends. We can’t afford to lose any of them. 8:04:30 Sen. Chris Murphy (CT): It is important to note some-thing that we take for granted in the region—this now long-term detente that has existed between the Gulf States and Israel, which did not used to be something you could rely on. In fact, one of the most serious foreign policy debates this Senate ever had was on the sale of AWACS to Saudi Arabia back in the 1980s. The objection then was that by empowering Saudi Arabia, you were hurting Israel and Israeli security. No one would make that argument today because Saudi Arabia has been a good partner in trying to figure out a way to calm the tensions in the region and, of course, provide some balance in the region, with the Iranian regime on the other side continuing to this day to use inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric about the future of Israel. So this is an important partnership, and I have no interest in blowing it up. I have no interest in walking away from it. But you are not obligated to follow your friend into every misadventure they propose. When your buddy jumps into a pool of man-eating sharks, you don’t have to jump with him. There is a point at which you say enough is enough. 8:06:00 Sen. Chris Murphy (CT): Muhammad bin Salman, who is the Crown Prince, who is the effective leader of the country, has steered the foreign policy of Saudi Arabia off the rails. Folks seem to have noticed when he started rounding up his political opponents and killing one of them in a consulate in Turkey, but this has been ongoing. Look back to the kidnapping of the Lebanese Prime Minister, the blockade of Qatar without any heads-up to the United States, the wholesale imprisonment of hundreds of his family members until there was a payoff, the size of which was big enough to let some of them out. This is a foreign policy that is no longer in the best interests of the United States and cannot be papered over by a handful of domestic policy reforms that are, in fact, intended to try to distract us from the aggressive nature of the Saudis’ foreign policy in the region. 8:08:15 Sen. Chris Murphy (CT): I am appreciative that many of my colleagues are willing to stand up for this resolution today to end the war in Yemen. I wish that it weren’t because of the death of one journalist, because there have been tens of thousands who have died inside Yemen, and their lives are just as important and just as worthwhile as Jamal Khashoggi’s life was, as tragic as that was. But there is a connection between the two, which is why I have actually argued that this resolution is in some way, shape, or form a response to the death of Jamal Khashoggi, for those who are primarily concerned with that atrocity. Here is how I link the two: What the Saudis did for 2 weeks was lie to us, right? In the most bald-faced way possible. They told us that Jamal Khashoggi had left the consulate, that he had gotten out of there alive, that they didn’t know what happened, when of course they knew the entire time that they had killed him, that they had murdered him, that they had dismembered his body. We now know that the Crown Prince had multiple contacts all throughout the day with the team of operatives who did it. Yet they thought we were so dumb or so weak— or some combination of the two—that they could just lie to us about it. That was an eye-opener for a lot of people here who were long-term supporters of the Saudi relationship because they knew that we had trouble. They knew that sometimes our interests didn’t align, but they thought that the most important thing allies did with each other was tell the truth, especially when the truth was so easy to discover outside of your bilateral relationship. Then, all of a sudden, the Saudis lied to us for 2 weeks—for 2 weeks—and then finally came around to telling the truth because everybody knew that they weren’t. That made a lot of people here think, well, wait a second—maybe the Saudis haven’t been telling us the truth about what they have been doing inside Yemen. A lot of my friends have been supporting the bombing campaign in Yemen. Why? Because the Saudis said: We are hitting these civilians by accident. Those water treatment plants that have been blowing up—we didn’t mean to hit them. That cholera treatment facility inside the humanitarian compound—that was just a bomb that went into the wrong place, or, we thought there were some bad guys in it. It didn’t turn out that there were. It turns out the Saudis weren’t telling us the truth about what they were doing in Yemen. They were hitting civilian targets on purpose. They did have an intentional campaign of trying to create misery. I am not saying that every single one of those school buses or those hospitals or those churches or weddings was an attempt to kill civilians and civilians only, but we have been in that targeting center long enough to know—to know—that they have known for a long time what they have been doing: hitting a lot of people who have nothing to do with the attacks against Saudi Arabia. Maybe if the Saudis were willing to lie to us about what happened to Jamal Khashoggi, they haven’t been straight with us as to what is happening inside Yemen, because if the United States is being used to intentionally hit civilians, then we are complicit in war crimes. And I hate to tell my colleagues that is essentially what the United Nations found in their most recent report on the Saudi bombing campaign. They were careful about their words, but they came to the conclusion that it was likely that the Saudi conduct inside Yemen would amount to war crimes under international law. If it is likely that our ally is perpetuating war crimes in Yemen, then we cannot be a part of that. The United States cannot be part of a bombing campaign that may be—probably is— intentionally making life miserable for the people inside of that country. 8:14:00 Sen. Chris Murphy (CT): There is no relationship in which we are the junior partner—certainly not with Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia can push us around like they have over the course of the last several years and in particular the last several months, that sends a signal to lots of other countries that they can do the same thing—that they can murder U.S. residents and suffer almost no consequences; that they can bomb civilians with our munitions and suffer no consequences. This is not just a message about the Saudi relationship; this is a message about how the United States is going to interact with lots of other junior partners around the world as well. Saudi Arabia needs us a lot more than we need them, and we need to remind folks of that over and over again. Spare me this nonsense that they are going to go start buying Russian jets or Chinese military hardware. If you think those countries can protect you better than the United States, take a chance. You think the Saudis are really going to stop selling oil to the United States? You think they are going to walk away from their primary bread winner just because we say that we don’t want to be engaged in this particular military campaign? I am willing to take that chance. We are the major partner in this relationship, and it is time that we start acting like it. If this administration isn’t going to act like it, then this Congress has to act like it. 8:44:15 Sen. Mike Lee (UT): Many of my colleagues will argue—in fact some of them have argued just within the last few minutes—that we are somehow not involved in a war in Yemen. My distinguished friend and colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma, came to the floor a little while ago, and he said that we are not engaged in direct military action in Yemen. Let’s peel that back for a minute. Let’s figure out what that means. I am not sure what the distinction between direct and indirect is here. Maybe in a very technical sense—or under a definition of warfare or military action that has long since been rendered out- dated—we are not involved in that, but we are involved in a war. We are co-belligerents. The minute we start identifying targets or, as Secretary James Mattis put it about a year ago, in December 2017, the minute we are involved in the decisions involving making sure that they know the right stuff to hit, that is involvement in a war, and that is pretty direct. The minute we send up U.S. military aircraft to provide midair refueling assistance for Saudi jets en route to bombing missions, to combat missions on the ground in Yemen, that is our direct involvement in war. 8:48:00 Sen. Mike Lee (UT): Increasingly these days, our wars are high-tech. Very often, our wars involve cyber activities. They involve reconnaissance, surveillance, target selection, midair refueling. It is hard—in many cases, impossible—to fight a war without those things. That is what war is. Many of my colleagues, in arguing that we are not involved in hostilities, rely on a memorandum that is internal within the executive branch of the U.S. Government that was issued in 1976 that provides a very narrow, unreasonably slim definition of the word ‘‘hostilities.’’ It defines ‘‘hostilities’’ in a way that might have been relevant, that might have been accurate, perhaps, in the mid-19th century, but we no longer live in a world in which you have a war as understood by two competing countries that are lined up on opposite sides of a battlefield and engaged in direct exchanges of fire, one against another, at relatively short range. War encompasses a lot more than that. War certainly encompasses midair refueling, target selection, surveillance, and reconnaissance of the sort we are undertaking in Yemen. Moreover, separate and apart from this very narrow, unreasonably slim definition of ‘‘hostilities’’ as deter- mined by this internal executive branch document from 1976 that contains the outdated definition, we our- selves, under the War Powers Act, don’t have to technically be involved in hostilities. It is triggered so long as we ourselves are sufficiently involved with the armed forces of another nation when those armed forces of another nation are themselves involved in hostilities. I am speaking, of course, in reference to the War Powers Act’s pro- visions codified at 50 USC 1547(c). For our purposes here, it is important to keep in mind what that provisions reads: ‘‘For purposes of this chapter [under the War Powers Act], the term ‘introduction of United States Armed Forces’ includes the assignment of members of such Armed Forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.’’ In what sense, on what level, on what planet are we not involved in the commanding, in the coordination, in the participation, in the movement of or in the accompaniment of the armed forces of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia-led coalition in the civil war in Yemen? 9:57:15 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): In March of this year, I led a letter to the Department of Defense with my colleague Senator JACK REED of Rhode Island, along with many of our colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee, stating our concern regarding U.S. support for Saudi military operations against the Houthis in Yemen and asking about the DOD’s involvement, apparently without appropriate notification of Congress, and its agreements to provide refueling sup- port to the Saudis and the Saudi coalition partners. We were concerned that the DOD had not appropriately documented reimbursements for aerial re- fueling support provided by the United States. Eight months later—just days ago— the Department of Defense responded to our letter and admitted that it has failed to appropriately notify Congress of its support agreements; it has failed to adequately charge Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for fuel and refueling assistance. That admission 8 months after our inquiry is a damning indictment. These errors in accounting mean that the United States was directly funding the Saudi war in Yemen. It has been doing it since March of 2015. Video: Trump: Khashoggi case will not stop $110bn US-Saudi arms trade, The Guardian, October 12, 2018. Donald Trump: I would not be in favor of stopping from spending $110 billion, which is an all-time record, and letting Russia have that money, and letting China have that money. Because all their going to do is say, that's okay, we don't have to buy it from Boeing, we don't have to buy it from Lockheed, we don't have to buy it from Ratheon and all these great companies. We'll buy it from Russia and we'll buy it from China. So what good does that do us? Hearing: U.S. Policy Toward Middle East, House Foreign Affairs Committee, C-SPAN, April 18, 2018. Witnesses: David Satterfield: Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Wess Mitchell: Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Sound Clips: 18:00 David Satterfield: We all agree, as does the Congress, that the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is unacceptable. Last month, the governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates provided $1 billion to Yemen's humanitarian response appeal, and this complements the US government pledge of $87 million and more than $854 million contributed since beginning of fiscal year 2017. 19:45 Wess Mitchell: Turkey is a 66 year member of the NATO alliance and member of the defeat ISIS coalition. It has suffered more casualties from terrorism than any other ally and hosts 3.5 million Syrian refugees. It supports the coalition through the use of Incirlik air base through its commitment of Turkish military forces against Isis on the ground in (Dibick? al-Bab?) And through close intelligence cooperation with the United States and other allies. Turkey has publicly committed to a political resolution in Syria that accords with UN Security Council. Resolution 2254. Turkey has a vested strategic interest in checking the spread of Iranian influence and in having a safe and stable border with Syria. Despite these shared interests, Turkey lately has increased its engagement with Russia and Iran. Ankara has sought to assure us that it sees this cooperation as a necessary stepping stone towards progress in the Geneva process, but the ease with which Turkey brokered arrangements with the Russian military to facilitate the launch of its Operation Olive Branch in Afrin district, arrangements to which America was not privy, is gravely concerning. Ankara claims to have agreed to purchase, to, to purchase the Russian S 400 missile system, which could potentially lead to sanctions under section 231 of CAATSA and adversely impact Turkey's participation in the F-35 program. It is in the American national interest to see Turkey remains strategically and politically aligned with the west. Hearing: U.S. Policy Toward Yemen, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, C-SPAN, April 17, 2018. Witnesses: Robert Jenkins: Deputy Assistant Administrator at USAID Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, & Humanitarian Assistance David Satterfield: Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Robert Karem: Assistant Defense Secretary for International Security Affairs Nominee and former Middle East Adviser to Vice President Cheney Sound Clips: 9:30 Chairman Bob Corker (TN): Well, Yemen has always faced significant socioeconomic challenges. A civil war, which began with the Houthis armed takeover of much of the country in 2014 and their overthrow of Yemen's legitimate government in January 2015, has plunged the country into humanitarian crisis. 17:25 Chairman Bob Corker (TN): Our first witness is acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, Ambassador David Satterfield. Ambassador Satterfield is one of the most distinguished, one of our most distinguished diplomats. He most recently served as director general, the multinational force and observers in the Sinai peninsula and previously served as US Abassador to Lebanon. 17:45 Chairman Bob Corker (TN): Our second witness is Robert Jenkins, who serves as the Deputy Assistant Administrator for USA ID Bureau for Democracy, conflict and humanitarian assistance. Mr. Jenkins, recently mark 20 years at USAID and previously served as the Director of Office of Transition Initiatives. 18:15 Chairman Bob Corker (TN): Our third witness is Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Robert Kerem. Prior to his Senate confirmation last year, Mr. Karem served as National Security of Staff of Vice President Cheney and then as National Security Advisor to the House, majority leader's Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy. 20:15 David Satterfield: US military support serves a clear and strategic purpose to reinforce Saudi and Mrid self defense in the face of intensifying Houthi and Iranian enabled threats and to expand the capability of our Gulf partners to push back against Iran's regionally destabilizing actions. This support in turn provides the United States access and influence to help press for a political solution to the conflict. Should we curtail US military support? The Saudis could well pursue defense relationships with countries that have no interest in either ending the humanitarian crisis, minimizing civilian casualties or assisting and facilitating progress towards a political solution. Critical US access to support for our own campaign against violent extremists could be placed in jeopardy. 30:00 Robert Karem: Conflict in Yemen affects regional security across the Middle East, uh, and threatens US national security interests, including the free flow of commerce and the Red Sea. Just this month, the Houthi, his attack to Saudi oil tanker and the Red Sea threatening commercial shipping and freedom of navigation and the world's fourth busiest maritime choke point, the Bab el Mandeb. 32:00 Robert Karem: The Defense Department is currently engaged in two lines of effort in Yemen. Our first line of effort and our priority is the fight against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS in Yemen, two terrorist organizations that directly threaten the United States, our allies and our partners. To combat AQIP, AQAP, and ISIS, US forces in coordination with the UN recognized government of Yemen are supporting our regional key counter terrorism partners in ongoing operations to disrupt and degrade their ability to coordinate, plot and recruit for external terrorist operations. Additionally, US military forces are conducting airstrikes against AQAP and ISIS in Yemen pursuant to the 2001 a authorization for the use of military force to disrupt and destroy terrorist network networks. Our second line of effort is the provision of limited noncombat support to the Saudi led coalition in support of the UN recognized government of Yemen. The support began in 2015 under President Obama and in 2017 president Trump reaffirmed America's commitment to our partners in these efforts. Fewer than 50 US military personnel work in Saudi Arabia with the Saudi led coalition advising and assisting with the defense of Saudi territory, sharing intelligence and providing logistical support, including aerial refueling. 35:45 Sen. Ben Cardin (MD): Mr. Karem. I'm gonna Start with you. Um, in regards to the US military assistance that we give to the kingdom, you said that is to embolden their capacity and to reduce noncombatant casualties. Last March, the CENTCOM commander General Votel stated that the United States government does not track the end results of the coalition missions. It refills and supports with targeting assistance. So my question to you is, how do you determine that we are effectively reducing the non combatant casualties if we don't in fact track the results of the kingdoms military actions? Robert Karem: Senator, thank you. Um, it's correct that we do not monitor and track all of the Saudi aircraft, um, uh, a loft over Yemen. Uh, we have limited personnel and assets in order to do that. Uh, and CENTCOM's focus is obviously been on our own operations in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in Syria. Sen. Ben Cardin (MD): I understand that, but my question is, our stated mission is to reduce noncombat and casualties. If we don't track, how do we determine that? Robert Karem: So I think one of our stated missions is precisely that. Um, there are multiple ways that I think we do have insight into, uh, Saudi, uh, targeting behavior. Um, we have helped them with their processes. Um, we have seen them implement a no strike list. Um, and we have seen their, their, their uh, capabilities, uh, improved. So the information is based upon what the Saudis tell you, how they're conducting the mission rather than the after impact of the mission. I think our military officers who are resident in Saudi Arabia are seeing how the Saudis approach, uh, this, this effort that took getting effort. Sen. Ben Cardin (MD): But you know, obviously the proof is in the results and we don't know whether the results are, there are not fair statement. Robert Karem: I think we do see a difference in how the Saudis have operated in Yemen, how they operate. Sen. Ben Cardin (MD): I understand how they operate but we don't know whether in fact that's been effective. The United Nations Security Council panel of experts on Yemen concluded in recent reports that the cumulative effect of these airstrikes on civilian infrastructure demonstrates that even with precaution, cautionary measures were taken, they were largely inadequate and ineffective. Do you have any information that disagrees with that assessment? Robert Karem: Senator, I think the assessment of, uh, our central command is that the Saudi, uh, and Emirati targeting efforts, uh, have improved, um, uh, with the steps that they've taken. We do not have perfect understanding because we're not using all of our assets to monitor their aircraft, but we do get reporting from the ground on what taking place inside Yemen. 40:15 Sen. Rand Paul (KY): Ambassador Satterfield. I guess some people when they think about our strategy might question the idea of our strategy. You know, if your son was shooting off his pistol in the back yard and doing it indiscriminately and endangering the neighbors, would you give hmi more bullets or less? And we see the Saudis acting in an indiscriminate manner. They've bombed a funeral processions, they've killed a lot of civilians. And so our strategy is to give them more bombs, not less. And we say, well, if we don't give him the bomb, somebody else will. And that's sort of this global strategy, uh, that many in the bipartisan foreign policy consensus have. We have to, we have to always be involved. We always have to provide weapons or someone else will and they'll act even worse. But there's a, I guess a lot of examples that doesn't seem to be improving their behavior. Um, you could argue it's marginally better since we've been giving them more weapons, but it seems the opposite of logic. You would think you would give people less where you might withhold aid or withhold a assistance to the Saudis to get them to behave. But we do sort of the opposite. We give them more aid. What would your response be to that? David Satterfield: Senator, when I noted in my remarks that progress had been made on this issue of targeting, minimizing or mitigating civilian casualties, that phrase was carefully chosen into elaborate further on, uh, my colleagues remarks, uh, Robert Karem. We do work with the Saudis and have, particularly over the last six to nine months worked intensively on the types of munitions the Saudis are using, how they're using, how to discriminate target sets, how to assure through increased loiter time by aircraft that the targets sought are indeed clear of collateral or civilian damage. This is new. This is not the type of interaction… Sen. Rand Paul (KY): And yet the overall situation in Yemen is a, is a disaster. David Satterfield: The overall situation is extremely bad. Senator. Sen. Rand Paul (KY): I guess that's really my question. We had to rethink...And I think from a common sense point of view, a lot of people would question giving people who misbehave more weapons instead of giving them less on another question, which I think is a broad question about, you know, what we're doing in the Middle East in general. Um, you admitted that there's not really a military solution in Yemen. Most people say it's going to be a political solution. The Houthis will still remain. We're not going to have Hiroshima. We're not going to have unconditional surrender and the good guys win and the bad guys are vanquished. Same with Syria. Most people have said for years, both the Obama administration and this administration, probably even the Bush administration, the situation will probably be a political solution. They will no longer, it's not going to be complete vanquished meant of the enemy. We're also saying that in Afghanistan, and I guess my point as I think about that is I think about the recruiter at the station in Omaha, Nebraska, trying to get somebody to sign up for the military and saying, please join. We're going to send you to three different wars where there is no military solution. We're hoping to make it maybe a little bit better. I think back to Vietnam. Oh, we're going to take one more village. If we take one more village, they're going to negotiate and we get a little better negotiation. I just can't see sending our young men and women to die for that for one more village. You know the Taliban 40% in Afghanistan. Where are we going to get when they get to 30% don't negotiate and when we it, it'll be, it'll have been worth it for the people who have to go in and die and take those villages. I don't think it's one more life. I don't think it's worth one more life. The war in Yemen is not hard. We talk all about the Iranians have launched hundreds of missiles. Well, yeah, and the Saudis have launched 16,000 attacks. Who started it? It's a little bit murky back and forth. The, the Houthis may have started taking over their government, but that was a civil war. Now we're involved in who are the good guys of the Saudis, the good guys or the others, the bad guys. Thousands of civilians are dying. 17 million people live on the edge of starvation. I think we need to rethink whether or not military intervention supplying the Saudis with weapons, whether all of this makes any sense at all or whether we've made the situation worse. I mean, humanitarian crisis, we're talking about, oh, we're going to give my, the Saudis are giving them money and I'm like, okay, so we dropped, we bomb the crap out of them in this audience. Give them $1 billion. Maybe we could bomb last maybe part of the humanitarian answers, supplying less weapons to a war. There's a huge arms race going on. Why do the Iranians do what they do? They're evil. Or maybe they're responding to the Saudis who responded first, who started it? Where did the arms race start? But we sell $300 billion a weapons to Saudi Arabia. What are the Iranians going to do? They react. It's action and reaction throughout the Middle East. And so we paint the Iranians as the, you know, these evil monsters. And we just have to correct evil monster. But the world's a much more complicated place back and forth. And I, all I would ask is that we try to get outside our mindset that we, uh, what we're doing is working because I think what we're doing hasn't worked, and we've made a lot of things worse. And we're partly responsible for the humanitarian crisis in Yemen.  48:30 David Satterfield: The political picture on the ground in Yemen has changed radically with the death, the killing of a Ali Abdullah Saleh, uh, with the fragmentation of the General People's Congress. All of that, while tragic in many of its dimensions, has provided a certain reshuffling of the deck that may, we hope, allow the United Nations to be more effective in its efforts. 1:05:45 Sen. Todd Young (IN): Approximately how many people, Mr. Jenkins require humanitarian assistance in Yemen? David Jenkins: 22 million people. Sen. Todd Young (IN): What percent of the population is that? David Jenkins: Approximately 75% was the number of people requiring humanitarian assistance increase from last year. It increased by our, we're estimating 3.5 million people. Sen. Todd Young (IN): And how much has it increased? David Jenkins: About 3.5 million people. Sen. Todd Young (IN): Okay. How many are severely food insecure? David Jenkins: 17.8 million. Sen. Todd Young (IN): How many children are severely malnourished? David Jenkins: 460,000 Sen. Todd Young (IN): How many people lack access to clean water and working toilets? David Jenkins: We estimate it to be around 16 million people. Sen. Todd Young (IN): Does Yemen face the largest cholera outbreak in the world? David Jenkins: It does. Sen. Todd Young (IN): How many cholera cases have we seen in Yemen? David Jenkins: A suspected over a 1 million cases. Sen. Todd Young (IN): And how many lives has that cholera outbreak claim? David Jenkins: Almost 2100. 1:46:00 Robert Jenkins: I do know that the vast majority of people within that, the majority of people in need, and that 22 million number live in the northern part of the country that are accessible best and easiest by Hodeidah port, there is no way to take Hodeidah out of the equation and get anywhere near the amount of humanitarian and more importantly, even commercial goods into the country. Hearing: Violence in Yemen, House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Middle East and North America, C-SPAN, April 14, 2015. Witnesses: Gerald Feierstein: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. Former Ambassador to Yemen (2010-2013) Sound Clips: 1:45 Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (FL): On September 10th of last year, President Obama announced to the American public his plan to degrade and destroy the terrorist group ISIL. While making his case for America's role in the fight against ISIL, the president highlighted our strategy in Yemen and held it up as a model of success to be emulated in the fight against ISIL. Yet about a week later, the Iran backed Houthis seized control of the capital and the government. Despite this, the administration continued to hail our counter-terror operations in Yemen as a model for success, even though we effectively had no partner on the ground since President Hadi was forced to flee. But perhaps even more astonishingly in what can only be described as an alarmingly tone deaf and short sighted, when Press Secretary Ernest was asked at a press briefing if this model was still successful after the Yemeni central government collapsed and the US withdrew all of our personnel including our special forces, he said yes, despite all indications pointing to the contrary. So where do we stand now? That's the important question. President Hadi was forced to flee. Saudi Arabia has led a coalition of over 10 Arab nations and Operation Decisive Storm, which so far has consisted of airstrikes only, but very well could include ground forces in the near future. 4:45 Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (FL): Iran has reportedly dispatched a naval destroyer near Yemen in a game of chicken over one of the most important shipping routes in the Gulf of Aden. This area is a gateway between Europe and the Middle East and ran was not be allowed to escalate any tensions nor attempt to disrupt the shipping lanes. 13:30 Rep. David Cicilline (NJ): I think it's safe to say that the quick deterioration of the situation in Yemen took many people here in Washington by surprise. For many years, Yemen was held up as an example of counter-terrorism cooperation and it looked as if a political agreement might be achieved in the aftermath of the Arab spring. The United States poured approximately $900 million in foreign aid to Yemen since the transition in 2011 to support counter-terrorism, political reconciliation, the economy and humanitarian aid. Now we face a vastly different landscape and have to revise our assumptions and expectations. Furthermore, we risk being drawn deeply into another Iranian backed armed conflict in the Middle East. 17:30 Rep. Ted Deutch (FL): Following the deposition of Yemen's longtime autocratic Saleh in 2011, the US supported an inclusive transition process. We had national dialogue aimed at rebuilding the country's political and governmental institutions and bridging gaps between groups that have had a long history of conflict. Yemen's first newly elected leader, President Hadi made clear his intentions to cooperate closely with the United States. 18:00 Rep. Ted Deutch (FL): Yemen, the poorest country on the peninsula, needed support from the international community. The United States has long viewed Yemen as a safe haven for all Qaeda terrorists, and there was alarming potential for recruitment by terrorist groups given the dire economic conditions that they faced. In fact, the US Department of Homeland Security considers al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate, most likely the al Qaeda affiliate, most likely to attempt transnational attacks against the United States. 18:30 Rep. Ted Deutch (FL): While the national dialogue was initially viewed as successful, the process concluded in 2014 with several key reforms still not completed, including the drafting of the new constitution. The Hadi government had continued to face deep opposition from Yemen's northern tribes, mainly the Shiite Iranian backed Houthi rebels, over the past year. The Houthis, in coordination with tribes and military units still loyal to Saleh, began increasing their territorial control, eventually moving in to Sanaa. Saleh had long been thought to have used his existing relationship to undermine the Hadi government. Houthis are well trained, well funded, and experienced fighters, having fought the Yemeni government and Saudi Arabia in 2009. 23:15 Gerald Feierstein: I greatly appreciate this opportunity to come before you today to review recent developments in Yemen and the efforts that the United States is undertaking to support the government of Yemen under president Rabu Mansour Hadi and the Saudi led coalition of Operation Decisive Storm, that is aimed at restoring the legitimate government and restarting the negotiations to find peaceful political solutions to Yemen's internal conflict. 26:45 Gerald Feierstein: To the best of our understanding, the Houthis are not controlled directly by Iran. However, we have seen in recent years, significant growth and expansion of Iranian engagement with the Houthis. We believe that Iran sees opportunities with the Houthis to expand its influence in Yemen and threatened Saudi and Gulf Arab interests. Iran provides financial support, weapons training, and intelligence of the Houthis and the weeks and months since the Houthis entered Sanaa and forced the legitimate government first to resign and ultimately to flee from the capitol, we have seen a significant expansion of Iranian involvement in Yemen's domestic affairs. 27:30 Gerald Feierstein: We are also particularly concerned about the ongoing destabilizing role played by former President Saleh, who since his removal from power in 2011 has actively plotted to undermine President Hadi and the political transition process. Despite UN sanctions and international condemnation of his actions, Saleh continues to be one of the primary sources of the chaos in Yemen. We have been working with our Gulf partners and the international community to isolate him and prevent the continuation of his efforts to undermine the peaceful transition. Success in that effort will go a long way to helping Yemen return to a credible political transition process. 42:00 Gerald Feierstein: From our perspective, I would say that that Yemen is a unique situation for the Saudis. This is on their border. It represents a threat in a way that no other situation would represent. 52:30 Gerald Feierstein: I mean, obviously our hope would be that if we can get the situation stabilized and get the political process going again, that we would be able to return and that we would be able to continue implementing the kinds of programs that we were trying to achieve that are aimed at economic growth and development as well as supporting a democratic governance and the opportunity to try to build solid political foundations for the society. At this particular moment, we can't do that, but it's hard to predict where we might be in six months or nine months from now. 1:10:00 Gerald Feierstein: When the political crisis came in Yemen in 2011, AQAP was able to take advantage of that and increase its territorial control, to the extent that they were actually declaring areas of the country to be an Islamic caliphate, not unlike what we see with ISIL in Iraq and Syria these days. Because of our cooperation, primarily our cooperation with the Yemeni security forces, uh, we were able to, uh, to defeat that, uh, at a significant loss of a life for AQAP. Uh, as a result of that, they changed their tactics. They went back to being a more traditional terrorist organization. They were able to attack locations inside of, uh, inside of Sanaa and and elsewhere. But the fact of the matter is that, uh, that we, uh, were achieving a progress in our ability to pressure them, uh, and, uh, to keep them on the defensive as opposed to giving them lots of time. And remember in 2009 in 2010, uh, we saw AQAP mount a fairly serious efforts - the underwear bomber and then also the cassette tape effort to attack the United States. After 2010, uh, they were not able to do that, uh, despite the fact that their intent was still as clear and as strong as it was before. And so a while AQAP was by no means defeated and continue to be a major threat to security here in the United States as well as in Yemen and elsewhere around the world, nevertheless, I think that it was legitimate to say that we had achieved some success in the fight against AQAP. Unfortunately what we're seeing now because of the change in the situation again, inside of Yemen, uh, is that we're losing some of the gains that we were able to make, uh, during that period of 2012 to 2014. That's why it's so important that we, uh, have, uh, the ability to get the political negotiation started again, so that we can re-establish legitimate government inside of Sanaa that will cooperate with us once again in this fight against violent extremist organizations. 1:16:45 Rep. Ted Yoho (FL): How can we be that far off? And I know you explained the counter-terrorism portion, but yet to have a country taken over while we're sitting there working with them and this happens. I feel, you know, it just kinda happened overnight the way our embassy got run out of town and just says, you have to leave. Your marines cannot take their weapons with them. I, I just, I don't understand how that happens or how we can be that disconnected. Um, what are your thoughts on that? Gerald Feierstein: You know, it was very, it was very frustrating. Again, I think that, if you go back to where we were a year ago, the successful conclusion of the National Dialogue Conference, which was really the last major hurdle and completion of the GCC initiative, Houthis participated in that. They participated in the constitutional drafting exercise, which was completed successfully. Uh, and so we were in the process of moving through all of the requirements of the GCC initiative that would allow us to complete successfully the political transition. I think there were a combination of things. One, that there was a view on the part of the Houthis that they were not getting everything that they wanted. They were provoked, in our view, by Ali Abdullah Saleh, who never stopped plotting from the very first day after he signed the agreement on the GCC initiative. He never stopped plotting to try to block the political transition, and there was, to be frank, there was a weakness in the government and an inability on the part of the government to really build the kind of alliances and coalition that would allow them to sustain popular support and to bring this to a successful conclusion. And so I think that all through this period there was a sense that we were moving forward and that we believed that we could succeed in implementing this peaceful transition. And yet we always knew that on the margins there were threats and there were risks, and unfortunately we got to a point where the Houthis and Ali Abdullah Saleh, my personal view is that they recognized that they had reached the last possible moment, where they could obstruct the peaceful political transition that was bad for them because it would mean that they wouldn't get everything that they wanted, and so they saw that time was running out for them, and they decided to act. And unfortunately, the government was unable to stop them. Hearing: Targeted Killing of Terrorist Suspects Overseas, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, C-SPAN, April 23, 2013. Sound Clips: 44:30 Farea al-Muslimi: My name as you mentioned, is Farea al-Muslimi, and I am from Wessab, a remote village mountain in Yemen. I spent a year living with an American family and attended an American high school. That was one of the best years of my life. I learned about American culture, managed the school basketball team and participated in trick or treat and Halloween. But the most exceptional was coming to know someone who ended up being like a father to me. He was a member of the U S Air Force and most of my year was spent with him and his family. He came to the mosque with me and I went to church with him and he became my best friend in America. I went to the U.S. as an ambassador for Yemen and I came back to Yemen as an ambassador of the U.S. I could never have imagined that the same hand that changed my life and took it from miserable to a promising one would also drone my village. My understanding is that a man named Hamid al-Radmi was the target of the drone strike. Many people in Wessab know al-Radmi, and the Yemeni government could easily have found and arrested him. al-Radmi was well known to government officials and even local government could have captured him if the U.S. had told them to do so. In the past, what Wessab's villagers knew of the U.S. was based on my stories about my wonderful experiences had. The friendships and values I experienced and described to the villagers helped them understand the America that I know and that I love. Now, however, when they think of America, they think of the terror they feel from the drones that hover over their heads ready to fire missiles at any time. What violent militants had previously failed to achieve one drone strike accomplished in an instant. 1:17:30 Farea al-Muslimi: I think the main difference between this is it adds into Al Qaeda propaganda of that Yemen is a war with the United States. The problem of Al Qaeda, if you look to the war in Yemen, it's a war of mistakes. The less mistake you make, the more you win, and the drones have simply made more mistakes than AQAP has ever done in the matter of civilians. News Report: Untold Stories of the underwear bomber: what really happened, ABC News 7 Detroit, September 27, 2012. Part 1 Part 2 Hearing: U.S. Policy Toward Yemen, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, C-SPAN, July 19, 2011. Witnesses: Janet Sanderson: Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Daniel Benjamin: State Department Counterterrorism Coordinator Sound Clips: 21:00 Janet Sanderson: The United States continues its regular engagement with the government, including with President Ali, Abdullah Saleh, who's currently, as you know, recovering in Saudi Arabia from his injuries following the June 3rd attack on his compound, the acting president, Vice President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, the opposition, civil society activists, and others interested in Yemen's future. We strongly support the Gulf Cooperation Council's initiative, which we believe would lead to a peaceful and orderly political transition. The GCC initiative signed by both the ruling General People's Congress party and the opposition coalition, joint meeting parties. Only president Saleh is blocking the agreement moving forward and we continue to call on him to sign the initiative. 22:30 Janet Sanderson: While most protests in Yemen have been peaceful over the last couple of months, there have been violent clashes between pro- and anti-government demonstrators and between protesters and government security forces and irregular elements using forced to break up demonstrations. The United States is strongly urged the Yemeni government to investigate and prosecute all acts of violence against protesters. 27:00 Janet Sanderson: We strongly believe that a transition is necessary, that an orderly, peaceful transition is the only way to begin to lead Yemen out of the crisis that it has been in for the last few months. 34:30 Daniel Benjamin: Really, I just want to echo what ambassador Sanderson said. It is vitally important that the transition take place. 1:02:15 Daniel Benjamin: The the view from the administration, particularly from a DOD, which is doing of course, the lion's share of the training, although State Department through anti-terrorism training is doing, uh, uh, a good deal as well, is that the Yemenis are, uh, improving their capacities, that they are making good progress towards, uh, being, able to deal with the threats within their border. But it is important to recognize that, uh, uh, our engagement in Yemen was interrupted for many years. Uh, Yemen, uh, did not have the kind of mentoring programs, the kind of training programs that many of our other counter-terrorism partners had. Um, it was really when the Obama administration came into office that a review was done, uh, in, in March of, uh, beginning in March of 2009, it was recognized that Yemen was a major challenge in the world of counter terrorism. And it was not until, uh, December after many conversations with the Yemenis that we really felt that they were on-board with the project and in fact took their first actions against AQAP. This, as you may recall, was just shortly before the attempted, uh, December 25th bombing of the northwest flight. So this is a military and a set of, uh, Ministry of Interior that is civilian, uh, units that are making good progress, but obviously have a lot to learn. So, uh, again, vitally important that we get back to the work of training these units so that they can, uh, take on the missions they need to. Press Conference: Yemen Conference, C-SPAN, January 27, 2010. Speakers: David Miliband - British Foreign Secretary Hillary Clinton - Secretary of State Abu Bakr al-Kurbi - Yemeni Foreign Minister Sound Clips: 3:30 David Miliband: And working closely with the government of Yemen, we decided that our agenda needed to cover agreement on the nature of the problem and then address the, uh, solutions across the economic, social, and political terrain. Five key items were agreed at the meeting for the way in which the international community can support progress in Yemen. First, confirmation by the government of Yemen, that it will continue to pursue its reform agenda and agreement to start discussion of an IMF program. The director of the IMF represented at the meeting made a compelling case for the way in which economic reform could be supported by the IMF. This is important because it will provide welcome support and help the government of Yemen confront its immediate challenges. 11:45 Hillary Clinton: The United States just signed a three year umbrella assistance agreement with the government of Yemen that will augment Yemen's capacity to make progress. This package includes initiatives that will cover a range of programs, but the overarching goal of our work is to increase the capacity and governance of Yemen and give the people of Yemen the opportunity to better make choices in their own lives. President Saleh has outlined a 10 point plan for economic reform along with the country's national reform agenda. Those are encouraging signs of progress. Neither, however, will mean much if they are not implemented. So we expect Yemen to enact reforms, continue to combat corruption, and improve the country's investment in business climate. 15:45 Abu Bakr al-Kurbi: This commitment also stems from our belief that the challenges we are facing now cannot be remedied unless we implement this agenda of reforms and the 10 points that her exellency alluded to because this is now a priority number of issues that we have to start with, and I hope this is what will be one of the outcomes of this meeting. 16:30 Hillary Clinton: One of the factors that's new is the IMF's involvement and commitment. the IMF has come forward with a reform agenda that the government of Yemen has agreed to work on. 24:30 Hillary Clinton: We were pleased by the announcement of a cease fire, um, between the Saudis and the Houthis. That should lead, we hope, to broader negotiations and a political dialogue that might lead to a permanent, uh, end to the conflict in the north. It's too soon to tell. The Daily Show with John Stewart: Terror 2.0 by Yemen - Sad Libs, CC.com, January 6, 2010. The Daily Show with John Stewart: Terror 2.0 by Yemen, CC.com, January 4, 2010. Community Suggestions See Community Suggestions HERE. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

"Sometimes you gotta walkaway,"   That is how Donald Trump described the failure of he and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to come to an agreement during their summit in Hanoi, Vietnam.   So now that this meeting has ended in failure what comes next for nuclear diplomacy with North Korea?   On the line with me to discuss the events in Hanoi and talk through possible scenarios for future engagement with North Korea is Kelsey Davenport, the director of non-proliferation policy at the Arms Control Association.      We kick off discussing why this summit ended without any agreement. We also go over the events leading up to this Hanoi meeting, including the first summit between these two men in Singapore eight months ago. We then have a longer conversation about what the next iteration of diplomacy between the United States and North Korea may look like.    This conversation does a good job both explaining what happened in Hanoi and setting the context for understanding what may come next between the US and North Korea.   Support the show on Patreon and become a premium subscriber!       

Glen Weyl, author of Radical Markets, on replacing votes with "voice credits" // Daryl Kimball from the Arms Control Association on denuclearizing North Korea // Paging Dr Cohen -- genetic testing // Sports Insider Danny O'Neil on the red hot Mariners/ Kam Chancellor's apparent retirement // Chris Sullivan's Chokepoint -- the future of I-5 tolling // Hanna Scott on the local immigration rallies

  When I last spoke with my guest today, Kelsey Davenport, the saber rattling between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un had reached a fever pitch. North Korea was launching nuclear and missile tests; the United States was undertaking aggressive military drills, with Donald Trump routinely threatening war via Twitter. Then this meeting in Singapore happened. Now things look much different, so I invited Kelsey Davenport back on the show to help explain the significance of this meeting and what we may expect next from this diplomatic opening between the United States and North Korea. Kelsey Davenport is the Director for Non Proliferation Policy at the Arms Control Association and a longtime analyst of the situation on the Korean Peninsula. She does a very good job explaining both what happened in Singapore -- beyond the optics.  She also offers some helpful analysis to help us understand how this diplomatic process may shake out in the coming months. If you have 20 minutes and want to learn what comes next in high stakes diplomacy with North Korea then have a listen.     Before we begin, I wanted to let you know that I have just released a new bonus episode of the show that is exclusively for premium subscribers to the podcast--these are the amazing people who make a monthly recurring contribution to the show via the Patreon platform.   The bonus episode features Samantha Power and the activist John Prendergast, who was the co-founder of the Enough Project. I participated in a short but sweet press roundtable with them last week and decided to share with premium subscribers part of that conversation. You'll hear Samantha Power talk about examples of democratic renewal around the world in the context of democratic backsliding; and you'll hear John Prendergast address questions about being perceived as a "white savior." It was quite and interesting conversation and I am glad to be able to serve it to my premium subscribers, who really do help keep the lights on around there.   If you want to become a premium subscriber to unlock this episode and other bonus episodes, and also receive a complimentary subscription to my daily email news clips service then please sign up. I'll post a link in the description field of the podcast and you can also find a link at GlobalDispatchesPodcast.com    https://www.patreon.com/GlobalDispatches   

  You've may of the Doomsday Clock. This is a rubric created by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists at the dawn of the nuclear age to demonstrate how close humanity is to nuclear annihilation. Midnight symbolizes doomsday -- and the closer the clock moves to midnight, the closer we are to nuclear war.   Well, on January 25th, the scientists behind the nuclear clock moved it a tic closer -- to two minutes before midnight. This is the closest the clock has been to the doomsday scenario since 1953. They cited the impetuousness of Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un as their rational. But adding to the growing concern over the possible use of nuclear weapons is also a new nuclear weapons policy that is being rolled out by the Trump administration. The world caught a glimpse of what this policy might be when a draft of a document called the Nuclear Posture Review was leaked to the press.  The nuclear posture review is a document that tends to be released in the early stages of an administration to set its over all nuclear weapons policy. And here, you will probably not be surprised to learn that Trump's nuclear policy review is likely to deviate from his predecessors in important ways.  On the line with me to discuss the Trump administration's emerging approach to nuclear weapons, nuclear deterrence and other key nuclear policy issues is Tom Countryman. He was a career diplomat who served for decades in various postings at the State Department and around the world. He most recently served as the Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation until the very early days of the Trump administration. He is now the chair of the board of the Arms Control Association.  Countryman does a very good job explaining what is the same--and what is so different about Donald Trump's approach to the bomb. And in so doing, I think he offers some important insights into how some of the underlying logic of nuclear policy planners might rest on some faulty assumptions.      --- Please leave a review on iTunes. You can click this link or follow these instructions ---    Launch Apple's Podcast app. Tap the Search tab. Enter "Global Dispatches" in the search bar. Tap the blue Search key at the bottom right. Tap the album art for the podcast. Tap the Reviews tab. Tap Write a Review at the bottom.

CQ foreign policy reporter Rachel Oswald and Kelsey Davenport of the Arms Control Association explain why Congress is in no rush to change the Iran nuclear deal. And CQ defense reporter John M. Donnelly argues the Pentagon does not necessarily need more money to prevent deadly accidents.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Brian Becker is joined by award-winning political cartoonist and columnistTed Rall, as well as by Glen Ford, the executive editor of Black Agenda Report. Donald Trump Jr. has released the full emails related to a meeting he set up with a Russian lawyer during the election campaign. She was introduced to him by someone who said she was part of the Russian government effort to help Trump who had dirt on Hillary Clinton’s dealings with Russia. Democrats are calling this treason and the smoking gun? Is it a blip or a big deal?The United States has deployed the highly advanced Patriot missile system to the Baltics for the first time as war exercises are set to commence. An arms race between the United States and Russia may be set to intensify.Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, joins the show. Was an award-winning CNN documentary on Syria actually filmed by a member of the country’s al-Qaeda affiliate? The CNN journalist behind the documentary called the fighters ‘heroes on the ground’, but did she turn a blind eye to their atrocities to promote the regime change narrative?Ben Norton of AlterNet's The GrayZone Project, joins Brian to discuss an article he co-wrote exposing the CNN project.

---Go Premium! Support the Show! Unlock Bonus Episodes! Earn Rewards! --- Over the past several months, North Korea has engaged in a series of provocative nuclear and missile tests. It conducted nuclear tests in January and then September of last year along with several ballistic missile tests. And in 2017 alone there have been no less than 5 missile launches, most recently on March 6, when North Korea launched four missiles which landed off the coast of Japan.  Meanwhile, later in March Secretary of State Tillerson traveled to the region, in his first big foray into the vexing regional diplomacy that so far has failed to stop North Korea from advancing its nuclear weapons programs. And while visiting the region, Tillerson promised to end the Obama-era strategy of strategic patience,  but has not yet articulated what kinds of policies would take its place.    On the line with me to discuss the North Korea nuclear issue is Kelsey Davenport, who is the director for non-proliferation policy at the Arms Control Association. She discusses the strategic implications of the specific technologies that North Korea is testing, that is, why Pyongyang is conducting these kinds of tests. She also describes the policy options in the table for the Trump administration as is tries to confront North Korea's nuclear ambitions. And i must say, this conversation was very helpful to me personally and I suspect you'll learn a lot from it as well.

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Brian Becker is joined by independent political analyst Catherine Shakdam. President Donald Trump has said he will establish so-called “safe zones” in Syria. What is a safe zone, how would they be established, and would this set the U.S. up for a much deeper illegal intervention?Vice President Mike Pence is speaking today at the anti-abortion March for Life in Washington, part of a heavy Trump administration presence at the rally. Brian is joined by Jane Cutter, editor of LiberationNews.org, and Danielle Norwood, an organizer with Women Organized to Resist and Defend (WORD), to speak about Trump's anti-women agenda.As the world marks the 50th anniversary of banning nuclear weapons in space, is the rush to militarize space bringing the prospect of war closer to realization? Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, joins the show.

The deadline to fund the government has passed and only one section of the government was funded in full for 2017: Military Construction and the Veteran's Administration. In this episode, analyze the wisdom of the military construction projects that are soon to begin and learn about the rest of the law that extended current funding for eleven out of twelve sections of our government until December 9th. Also in this episode, Jen admits a big mistake, an outline of the "9/11 victims bill", some suggestions to help you research your Election Day ballot, and the longest Thank You segment in Congressional Dish history. Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bill Highlighted In This Episode H.R. 5325: Continuing Appropriations and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriates Act 2017 and ZIKA Response and Preparedness Act Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017 $7.2 billion for more than 200 military construction projects $177 million will go towards NATO facilities Funds can't be used to pay property taxes in foreign countries Any projects in Japan, a NATO country, or in countries that border the Arabian Gulf worth more than $500,000 must be awarded to United States firm or be awarded to a partnership including United States firms Money can't be used to close or realign the base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba No money can be used to create space within the United States for current prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Department of Veterans' Affairs Provides over $103 billion for Veteran's benefits Provides approximately $56 billion for the Veteran's Administration and veteran's medical expenses. Provides approximately $7.2 billion in additional funding for private health care for veterans. Adds whistleblower protections and procedures Whistleblowers will submit paperwork to their supervisor; if the supervisor finds it to be legit, the whistleblower will be informed of transfer opportunities. Whistleblowers will have to provide their name and contact information A central whistleblower office will handle all whistleblower complaints, and will have a hotline for anonymous complaints Supervisors can be suspended and/or removed for failing to act on a whistleblower complaint, restricting an employees ability to file a complaint, or conducting a negative peer review or retaliating against a whistleblower. Supervisors who are suspended or removed can have their bonuses denied or rescinded. Includes $1.5 billion for Hepatitis C drug, which is $840 million above the request Zika Response & Preparedness $394 million, available until September 30, 2017, will be put in the "Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund" and be used for: Stockpiles of "products purchased" Purchase of and insurance for motor vehicles in foreign countries Construction, alteration, or renovation of "non-federally owned facilities" at State and local laboratories From Explanatory Statement: "Within the funds provide for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a robust level of funding is intended to support mosquito control efforts conduct by State, county, or municipal programs, including mosquito control districts." $387 million, available until September 30, 2017, will be used for: To response to Zika "and other vector-borne diseases domestically and internationally" To develop and purchase vaccines For health care for mothers and children To reimburse States for health care costs related to Zika that aren't covered by private insurance For projects in Puerto Rico and other territories for mothers and children $152 million, available until September 30, 2017, will be used for: Zika research Vaccine development $145 million will go to "Global Health Programs" for: Mosquito control (spraying) Vaccines The money can be donated to the World Health Organization, the United Nations Children's Fund, the Pan American Health Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Food and Agriculture Organization Money is prohibited from being spent on "the Grand Challenges for Development" program $15 million will go to the State Department $10 million will go to USAID Money can be used by Dept. of Health and Human Services, the State Department, and USAID to hire people to "perform critical work relating to Zika response" The hires will be exempt from some Federal laws (Sections 3309-3319) The money can be transferred to and merged with other accounts as long as Congress is informed Continuing Appropriations Extends current funding for the other 11 divisions of government until December 9, 2016. $174,000 is appropriated for the family of former Rep. Mark Takai Explanatory Statement for H.R. 5325 Missile Defense Fully funded an Aegis Ashore missile defense site in Deveselu, Romania and a second site at Redzikowo, Poland. "European Reassurance Initiative" Announced in 2014, EIR is designed to increase" the presence and joint training activities of U.S. military forces in Europe". The Department of Defense requested four times the money for ERI for 2017; they want an increase from $789 million in 2016 to over $3.4 billion. The request would support 5,100 active and reserve personel in the U.S. European Command (USEUCOM) More than double requested for "Improved Infrastructure", from $89 million in 2016 to $217 million in 2017. Explanatory Statement: “Although ERI military construction funding was originally intended to be a one-time only investment, the evolving nature of the threat has prompted the DoD to expand its plans for investing in military construction to support the continual presence of U.S. rotational military forces in Europe, increased training activities with European allies, and the prepositioning of Army combat-ready equipment in Poland to support and armored brigade combat team.” Plans include a $200 million facility for prepositioning Army combat brigade equipment in Poland and nine Air Force projects in Germany that will cost $260 million. Huge increase in funding for "Enhanced Prepositioning", from $57.8 million in 2016 to $1.9 billion in 2017. S. 2040: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) "International terrorism" Does NOT include any act of war No Immunity for Foreign States "A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in civil cases, seeking money, for injuries, damage to property, or deaths occurring in the United States and caused by an "act of international terrorism in the United States" or "acts of the foreign state, or of any official, employee, or agent of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office"...regardless of where the act occurred. A foreign state can not be sued for negligence Stay of the Civil Action The Attorney General can intervene and stop or delay the civil action against a foreign country. The Attorney General can do this by granting unlimited stays of 180 day periods. The court can delay the proceeding against a foreign state for 180 days if the State Department "certifies that the United States is engaged in good faith discussions with the foreign state defendant" in an attempt find a resolution. The court must grant "an extension" if the State Department says the U.S. is still "engaged in good faith discussions" Applicability Applies to injuries caused to a person, property, or business on or after September 11, 2001. Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Oversight of the European Reassurance Initiative, House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, July 13, 2016. Witnesses: Major General David Allvin: J-5, US Air Force, US European Command (EUCOM) Rachel Ellehuus: Principal Director, Europe & NATO Policy, Office of the Secretary of Defense Tom Tyra: G-3/5/7, US Army Timestamps & Transcripts {06:10} Chairman Vicky Hartzler (MO)- "Foremost of these challenges is a resurgent Russia." {08:12} Rep. Jackie Speier (CA)- "Recent events in Europe have underscored this threat. For example, Russia has occupied Crimea and has fomented the continuing separatists struggle in eastern Ukraine. Across Europe and in particular along Russia’s border, the threat of Russian intervention is on many people’s minds." {11:45} Major General David Allvin - "The strategic environment in Europe has changed drastically over the past 30 months. One of the key reasons for the growing instability has been Russian malign influence, coercion, and aggression against NATO allies and other partner nations. Since the illegal annexation of Crimea and the Russian activity in the Donbass region of Ukraine, the potential for Russia to further advance their military adventurism into NATO countries has demanded a strong response. We at U.S. European Command have been working to assure our allies that our commitment to Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty is iron clad." {15:59} Rachel Ellehuus- "The three challenges that I see post-Warsaw, and as we continue to think about the future of ERI, are, firstly, institutional adaptation—we need to find a way to make NATO more agile in terms of its decision making, command structure, and defense planning; secondly, defense investment—and that’s not just monetary but also in terms of political will—we need to encourage folks to continue to increase their defense spending and to support operations both within the European and transatlantic theater and further afield; and finally, we need to combat internal political challenges and resist those who seek to divide us or undermine the international security order." {18:10} Major General David Allvin -"We find that within the European theater, we see a more aggressive Russia that is influencing on the periphery states of NATO, and so given the current correlation of forces that might exist in a conflict, specifically with the United States, we do not have nearly the forces we had after 25 years of the degradation of the forces in Europe. This has been understandable because there have been other national-security priorities that have actually taken precedence in other parts of the world. However, we find ourself now with smaller number of forces from all services, as well as the appropriate equipment, in order to be able to field and to respond to any other Russian aggression, and I would say that what ERI has done is it is rapidly enabled us to reverse that trend." {20:35} Rachel Ellehuus -"So we’ve seen the French carrier, Charles de Gaulle, deploy in the Middle East to help us with some of our stress on our naval and maritime Forces, we’ve seen cooperative arrangements to use one another’s bases, and we’ve seen host nations stepping up. So when we send our forces to the Baltic states, host nations such as Poland and the Balts are stepping forward to provide that infrastructure and support." {26:40} Rep. Jackie Speier -"You had indicated to me privately that the troops that we will have stationed as part of ERI would be engaged in military exercises, and you had suggested that the numbers may be as high as a hundred per year, some smaller, some larger. How many of these are air shows?" Major General David Allvin: "Ma’am, I actually wouldn’t put an air show in the—" Rep. Speier: "Good." Major General Allvin: "—category of exercise. When we refer to these exercises, and when I say a hundred, some of these are small, maybe company-level exercises, but these are building that understanding that cohesion at the unit level, and I would say those are the most prolific. However, with the initial funding we’ve been able to receive through ERI, we’re able to have exercises at the larger level, the battalion level and above, which really help us understand the inner operability between formations, because we understand that U.S. European Command will not be the sole entity that will have to defend against Russian aggression; we will be fighting with our allies and partners in the region. And so these broader exercises, these higher-level exercises, really enhance that confidence to be able to fight and maneuver and do combined-armed warfare beyond just the United States but in the coalition." {29:33} Tom Tyra -"In the 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, you would see 80 M1 tanks and 140 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, 18 artillery systems, a number of mortar systems and smaller pieces of equipment. So we would end up with that plus the support vehicles that enable that to fight. Then, there would be a rotating brigade that would bring identical sets of equipment. As you delivered the Fires Brigade, you would expect, a another hundred or so artillery systems, either tube or rocket launched to be added to that Fires Brigade." {52:16} Rep. Beto O’Rourke (TX) - "What are the potential risks of this strategy? What could go wrong?" Major General David Allvin: "So, you actually touched on it very well, Congressman, is that there is an escalation risk here." Suggested Congressional Dish Episodes Topic: Ukraine CD067: What Do We Want in Ukraine? CD068: Ukraine Aid Bill Topic: Syria CD041: Why Attack Syria? CD108: Regime Change Topic: Drug Prices for the Veteran's Administration CD107: New Laws & Veterans' Health Care Additional Reading Congressional Report: The 9/11 "28 pages" (previously classified) Article: Fanning: Continuing Resolution Could Snarl European Reassurance Initiative Efforts by Jen Judson, Defense News, October 2, 2016. Article: Budget deal avoids government shutdown, finalizes next year's VA budget by Leo Shane III, Military Times, September 28, 2016. Article: Mylan will help more patients pay for it's EpiPen. Why that's bad news for healthcare by Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times, August 25, 2016. Article: A Permanent Fund That Could Help Fight Zika Exists, But It's Empty by Alison Kodjak, NPR, June 3, 2016. Op-Ed: Russia's got a point: The U.S. broke a NATO promise by Joshua R. Itzdowitz Shifrinson, Los Angeles Times, May 30, 2016. Defense Dept. Report: European Reassurance Initiative, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, February 2016. Article: The Same Pill That Costs $1,000 in America Sells for $4 in India by Ketaki Gokhale, Bloomberg, December 28, 2015. Fact Sheet: The European Phased Adaptive Approach at a Glance by Kingston Reif, Arms Control Association, posted May 1, 2013. Additional Information OpenSecrets: Influence & Lobbying Profile for Gilead Sciences Webpage: Information on Aerial Spraying, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Webpage: What is NATO? Hear Jen On... Rhodes to Success: Listener Supported Political Podcasting with Jen Briney Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations

I caught up with my guest today, Arms Control Association president Daryl Kimball from his hotel in Vienna. Daryl, along with hundreds of diplomats around the world were gathered for the 20th anniversary of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.   This is a treaty that bans the testing of nuclear weapons and establishes a global monitoring system to ensure that no one can secretly test a nuclear bomb. The treaty was signed by the USA and most countries on the planet back in 1996, but it has not been ratified by some key countries, including the United States, and accordingly has not formally entered into force.    Despite that, Daryl Kimball explains how the CTBT has become a very effective treaty over the past two decades, in particular through deployment of a system of monitoring stations around the world that can detect anomalous seismic activity and radioactive discharge into the atmosphere. We also discusses the implications of the continues non-ratification of the treaty by the USA.

ECFR policy fellow Ellie Geranmayeh is in Vienna where the nuclear talks between Iran and six major powers are being held. She speaks to Kelsey Davenport, director of Nonproliferation Policy at the Arms Control Association, and gives an update on the state of the nuclear negotiations. Picture: Flickr/European External Action Service

SPY Historian Vince Houghton sat down with Kelsey Davenport, the Director for Nonproliferation Policy at the Arms Control Association, where she provides research and analysis on the nuclear and missile programs in Iran, North Korea, India, and Pakistan and on nuclear security issues. Vince and Kelsey discuss the complexity of the arms control process, the role of intelligence in verifying the status of nuclear weapon states, and the hope for a future without the danger of nuclear proliferation.

All eyes are on Vienna as delegations from the United States, Germany, France, the UK, Russia and China meet with Iranian officials in a final push to secure a comprehensive agreement over Iran's nuclear program. They have until July 20 to come to terms.  The negotiations are complex and the issues vexing. But one thing is certain: if an agreement is struck it could change international relations in the entire Middle East and even the world. Here to take us inside the negotiations is veteran journalist Laura Rozen. She sets the scene for what to expect in Vienna in the coming days. I also speak with Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association who breaks down the wonky key points of negotiation in an easily digestible way.  I think you'll enjoy this episode. This is a hugely significant moment for Obama's foreign policy legacy, the Middle East, and the cause of non-proliferation. Have a listen.   

This roundtable conference was organized by the Mission of Mexico in Vienna as Co-Chair of the Article XIV Conference and Member of the Non Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative (NPDI) with the support of the Arms Control Association (ACA). This conference seeks to present the latest technical and political arguments that could help Member States in their internal efforts to achieve signing/ratification, as well as to reiterate the broad support by the international community to achieve early entry into force of the CTBT. Welcome by Amb. Alejandro Díaz, Permanent Representative to the International Organizations of Mexico in Vienna (Member of the NPDI); Key findings of the 2012 US National Academy of Sciences Report on the CTBT, Dr. Ellen D. Williams, Chair, 2012 National Academy of Sciences Report on CTBT; Benefits and progress of the CTBT International Monitoring System, Dr. Lassina Zerbo, Director of the International Data Centre Division, CTBTO; Pathways towards entry into force: Indonesia’s process of ratification. Amb. I Gusti Puja, Permanent Representative of Indonesia to the International Organizations in Vienna; International support for the CTBT, Amb. Nils Daag, Permanent Representative of Sweden to the International Organizations in Vienna, Co-Chair of Article XIV Conference; Moderator: Tom Collina, Research Director, Arms Control Association

In view of the current political climate, this edition of CTBTO Spectrum focuses on the role of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in the wider non-proliferation and disarmament context. We are privileged to have received articles from several internationally acclaimed leaders and political figures including President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, former US Senator Sam Nunn, and US senior diplomats, Ambassadors Max Kampelman and Tom Graham. Their contributions are complemented by an article by Daryl Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association, and there are also feature articles on the Integrated Field Exercise 2008 for on-site inspections, the challenges of establishing monitoring stations in Antarctica, the ongoing International Scientific Studies project to assess the readiness and capability of the CTBT to detect nuclear explosions worldwide, and the cooperation between the CTBTO and the World Meteorological Organization.