Podcasts about new start treaty

Curtis hosts a discussion with Jim and Maj Gen (Ret.) Garrett Harencak, focusing on recent developments in nuclear news, particularly regarding the New START Treaty and Russia's compliance, informal agreements in arms control, Japan's nuclear deterrence strategy, and the importance of extended deterrence in global security.

Jim, Curtis, and Adam reflect on the Nuclear Deterrence Summit and discuss the Report to Congress on Implementation of the New START Treaty.

In our news wrap Friday, the Biden administration says the U.S. will not build more nuclear weapons to counter Russia and will adhere to limits under the 2010 New START Treaty, former Vice President Mike Pence will not face criminal charges over classified material found at his home in Indiana and the U.S. Army's Fort Bragg shed its Confederate name Friday and is now Fort Liberty. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

In our news wrap Friday, the Biden administration says the U.S. will not build more nuclear weapons to counter Russia and will adhere to limits under the 2010 New START Treaty, former Vice President Mike Pence will not face criminal charges over classified material found at his home in Indiana and the U.S. Army's Fort Bragg shed its Confederate name Friday and is now Fort Liberty. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

AP correspondent Lisa Dwyer reports on United States Russia.

This Monterey Conversation is with one of the world's leading arms control experts, Rose Gottemoeller, who has served as Deputy Secretary General of NATO and as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security at the U.S. Department of State. In conversation with Hanna Notte, Rose Gottemoeller reflected on her experience in negotiating arms control agreements between Russia and the United States, discussed the current impasse over the New START Treaty and other arms control instruments, and offered her thoughts on how arms control may be handled in the future.  This Monterey Conversation was co-hosted with Russia Matters. 

In February 2023, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that his country will suspend its participation in the New START Treaty. But does this mean the end of bilateral arms control between Russia and the United States? Not quite so. In this episode, Aditya Ramanathan and Pranav Satyanath discuss the nuances of the New START treaty's suspension and its implications for future arms control treaties. Check out Takshashila's courses: https://school.takshashila.org.in/ Do follow IVM Podcasts on social media. We are @ivmpodcasts on Facebook, Twitter, & Instagram. https://twitter.com/IVMPodcasts https://www.instagram.com/ivmpodcasts/?hl=en https://www.facebook.com/ivmpodcasts/ You can check out our website at https://shows.ivmpodcasts.com/featured Follow the show across platforms: Spotify, Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, JioSaavn, Gaana, Amazon Music Do share the word with your folks! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this bonus episode of CNA Talks, we are bringing you the recording of CNA's recent National Security Seminar, “Nuclear cooperation with strategic competitors,” which has held on March 21, 2023. The event featured panelists Timothy McDonnell and Rose Gottemoeller. McDonnell is the author of a recent CNA publication entitled, “Working with the Adversary: Great Power Cooperation and Nuclear Risk Management.” This report uses archival sources to examine three historical cases of great power nuclear cooperation, distilling lessons and insights for practitioners. During the event Dr. McDonnell shared his findings and then discussed them with Gottemoeller, a seasoned arms control practitioner, about its findings and implications. The event was moderated by CNA's Mary Chesnut. Rose Gottemoeller, Steven C. Házy Lecturer, Center for International Security and Cooperation, and Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University; former Deputy Secretary General, NATO; former Under Secretary for Arms Control & International Security and chief US negotiator for the New START Treaty, US State Department Timothy P. McDonnell, Research Analyst and nuclear weapons policy expert, Strategy and Policy Analysis Program, CNA. He is the author of the report, “Working with the Adversary: Great Power Cooperation and Nuclear Risk Management.” Mary Chesnut, Research Analyst and nuclear weapons policy expert, Russia Studies Program, CNA Further Reading CNA- Working with the Adversary: Great Power Competetion and Nuclear Risk Management

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

In this edition of Wilson Center NOW, we are joined by Robert Litwak, Senior Vice President and Director of International Security Studies at the Wilson Center. He discusses Russia's decision to suspend participation in the New START Treaty, its last nuclear arms treaty with the United States. He also discusses increased nuclear sabre rattling by Russia since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine and highlights how China's rapid nuclear arsenal expansion has only increased tensions with the West.

Peace Action Executive Director Jon Rainwater: Putin's Suspension of New START Treaty Endangers Last Remaining U.S.-Russia Nuclear Arms PactThe Real News Network Associate Editor Mel Buer: Toxic Ohio Train Derailment Underscores Urgent Need for Tough Government Regulation350.org co-founder Bill McKibben: Third Act, Organizing People Over 60 to Defend Democracy and Address the Climate Crisis Bob Nixon's Under-reported News SummaryColombia's President Gustavo Petro election presents social justice opportunitySen. Kyrsten Sinema tied to exploitive Payday lending industry$80 billion for IRS is a once-in-a-century chance to collect dues from wealthyVisit our website at BTLonline.org for more information, in-depth interviews, related links, transcripts and subscribe to our BTL Weekly Summary and/or podcasts. New episodes every Wednesday at 12 noon ET, website updated Wednesdays after 4 p.m. ETProduced by Squeaky Wheel Productions: Scott Harris, Melinda Tuhus, Bob Nixon, Anna Manzo, Susan Bramhall, Jeff Yates and Mary Hunt. Theme music by Richard Hill and Mikata.Visit our website at BTLonline.org for more information, in-depth interviews, related links and transcripts and to sign up for our BTL Weekly Summary. New episodes every Wednesday at 12 noon ET, website updated Wednesdays after 4 p.m. ETProduced by Squeaky Wheel Productions: Scott Harris, Melinda Tuhus, Bob Nixon, Anna Manzo, Susan Bramhall, Jeff Yates and Mary Hunt. Theme music by Richard Hill and Mikata.

February marked the one-year anniversary of Russia's brutal and unjust invasion of Ukraine. In this special report, Tom Collina sits down with Rose Gottemoeller, former Deputy Secretary General of NATO, to talk about the New START Treaty and Russia's move to suspend the treaty. Alex Hall also talks with Andrea Gittleman, the policy director at the Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide. She talks about how nuclear weapons have enabled Russia to violate human rights in Ukraine.

Professor Kim Byung-joo of Hankuk University of Foreign Studies joins us to discuss the implications of Biden-Putin confrontation and Russia's suspension of New START Treaty.

Russia has halted its involvement in the New START treaty - the sole remaining arms control agreement. As a result, both the United States and Russia's nuclear warheads will be without monitoring for the first time in 50 years, creating concerns about a potential nuclear arms race. Guests: David Jonas Adjunct Professor of Law at George Washington University Sergey Markov Former Member of Russian Parliament John Erath Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Director Paul Ingram Senior Research Associate at Cambridge University

One year on from Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, David Wroe asks Paul Dibb, Emeritus Professor of strategic studies at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre in the ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, how Russia's war in Ukraine will play out in the coming months. They discuss Putin's calculations and the durability of support from the West, as well as the implications of Russia's suspension of the New START Treaty and the Russia-China relationship. Dr Alex Bristow speaks to Walter Russell Mead, Ravenel B. Curry III Distinguished Fellow in Strategy and Statesmanship at Hudson Institute and James Clarke Chace Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities at Bard College, about the US approach to foreign policy. They discuss where Australia sits on the list of US priorities, US thinking around Russia's war on Ukraine and global support for Ukraine. Guests (in order of appearance): David Wroe: https://www.aspi.org.au/bio/david-wroe Paul Dibb: https://researchprofiles.anu.edu.au/en/persons/paul-dibb Alex Bristow: https://www.aspi.org.au/bio/dr-alex-bristow Walter Russell Mead: https://www.hudson.org/experts/1038-walter-russell-mead Image: "Ukraine War" via PublicDomainPictures.net Music: Music: "Just Wondering" by Maarten Schellekens, licensed with permission from the Independent Music Licensing Collective - imlcollective.uk

Russia has suspended their participation in New START but are we actually at a greater risk of nuclear war? David discusses with Jon Wolfsthal of Global Zero and Dr. Emma Belcher of the Ploughshares Fund. Is nuclear war imminent? Does the U.S. still have visibility on Russia's nukes? What comes next? Find out during this expert discussion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Russia has suspended their participation in New START but are we actually at a greater risk of nuclear war? David discusses with Jon Wolfsthal of Global Zero and Dr. Emma Belcher of the Ploughshares Fund. Is nuclear war imminent? Does the U.S. still have visibility on Russia's nukes? What comes next? Find out during this expert discussion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Pentagon reacts to Russia's suspension of the New Start Treaty. A visit with NATO pilots in Romania, a pro-Ukraine rally in Australia and Russian naval exercises off the coast of South Africa. Plus we visit the site where alleged Russian war crimes shocked the world.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Vladimir Putin really hit Joe Biden where he lives yesterday in the Russian dictator's “State of the Nation” address. He suspended Russia's adherence to the Obama-era New START Treaty that Biden extended early in his presidency to 2026.    Throughout Joe's five decades in Washington, there have been few politicians more obsessed with promoting Kremlin-backed arms control agreements that had the effect of unilaterally disarming the United States.  Experts believe that Putin's massive nuclear build-up may already have violated the New START Treaty. If not, he has prepared to break out at any time. In addition, his “no-limits” partners in China have amassed their own, formidable nuclear arsenal unconstrained by any arms control deal.  What's needed now is a renewed U.S. policy of Peace through Strength underpinning credible deterrence – not delusions encouraged by our enemies that security lies in defective treaties.  This is Frank Gaffney.  

*) Death toll from Feb 6 Türkiye quakes tops 42,000 The death toll from February 6 powerful earthquakes has hit 42,310, a day after another tremor jolted Türkiye's southern Hatay province. A total of 7,242 aftershocks have been recorded since February 6, said the Turkish disaster management agency AFAD. The reported toll in Syria is 5,814, taking the combined death toll in both countries to over 48,000. *) Türkiye mobilises all resources, means for quake-hit provinces: Erdogan Türkiye is mobilising all of its resources and means to carry out accommodation and subsistence services for earthquake victims, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said. Within one year, the country will revive the quake-hit villages and cities, and a total of 70,000 houses will be built in the villages, Erdogan said at a briefing. The new buildings will be no taller than three or four stories in addition to the ground floor, he added. *) Putin delivers nuclear warning to West over Ukraine, suspends START pact Russian President Vladimir Putin has delivered a warning to the West, suspending a bilateral nuclear arms control treaty and announcing that a new strategic system had been put on combat duty. Cautioning the US that it was stoking the Ukraine war into a global conflict, Putin said Russia was suspending participation in the New START Treaty – the last major arms control treaty between Moscow and Washington. Meanwhile, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy claimed his forces were maintaining their positions on the front line in eastern Ukraine despite considerable pressure from Russia. *) Church of Virgin Mary in Hatay suffers further damage in fresh quakes The Church of the Virgin Mary in Türkiye's Hatay province has suffered extensive new damage following Monday's latest tremors. The damage to the outer walls of the church from the previous quakes was exacerbated by Monday's quake and an intensity 5.8 aftershock, both of which were centred in Hatay province. The historic Orthodox church, used by local Turkish citizens of Armenian origin, is reportedly some 700 years old. And finally… *) Türkiye's Hatayspor sporting director Taner Savut found dead under rubble Turkish football club Atakas Hatayspor has confirmed that their sporting director Taner Savut died in the earthquakes in southern Türkiye. He was 48 years old. Hatayspor expressed "deep sadness" over the death and offered condolences to Savut's family and friends. Savut was trapped alongside Ghanaian football player Christian Atsu, who was also killed in the disaster. Their sports club reported a total of seven deaths from the February 6 quakes. Several Turkish clubs, including Fenerbahce, have offered their condolences over the death of Savut, who played for the Istanbul team from 1997 to 1999.

①China's top diplomat Wang Yi is visiting Russia, just ahead of the one-year anniversary of the Ukraine crisis. We discuss the significance of the visit and the messages it sends. (00:48) ②Putin has announced that his country is suspending participation in the New Start Treaty. We examine the potential implications for global security. (13:00) ③How can business communities in both countries contribute to the development of bilateral relations? (24:35) ④China has released "The Global Security Initiative Concept Paper" to lay out core concepts and principles around global security and peace. (34:23) ⑤A four-day workweek trial is so successful in the UK that most of the participating companies said they won't be going back. What does that mean for the future of work? (44:05)

Dr. Cindy Banyai of Dr. Cindy Speaks takes a look at the new for Tuesday, February 21, 2023. Russia pulls out of the New START Treaty edging up global nuclear concerns. The EPA orders Norfolk Southern to clean up toxic train derailment in East Palestine or pay triple the costs. Marjorie Taylor Greene doubles down on Red Stat, Blue State divorce talk, saying people from Blue states should be striped of their right to vote. 

As Russia's invasion of Ukraine marks one year and Putin announces his country will suspend participation in the New START Treaty, where does that leave U.S.-Russia relations? Rose Gottemoeller, the chief U.S. negotiator for the treaty during the Obama administration, and Angela Stent, a top intelligence officer on Russia during the second Bush administration, joined Amna Nawaz to discuss. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

As Russia's invasion of Ukraine marks one year and Putin announces his country will suspend participation in the New START Treaty, where does that leave U.S.-Russia relations? Rose Gottemoeller, the chief U.S. negotiator for the treaty during the Obama administration, and Angela Stent, a top intelligence officer on Russia during the second Bush administration, joined Amna Nawaz to discuss. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow #Russia: New Start Treaty is out of date technology and threat. John Bolton, The Hill https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3838556-is-washingtons-arms-control-theology-finally-on-the-verge-of-collapse/

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow #Russia: New START Treaty postponement for Kremlin agtiprop. Anthony Ruggiero, FDD https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-postpones-talks-on-new-start-pact-imperiling-major-nuclear-accord/ar-AA14JVhE

Last month, President Biden warned of “nuclear Armageddon” as tensions with Russia reached their highest point since the Cuban Missile Crisis. While the Biden administration appears to be working around the clock to prevent this kind of nuclear catastrophe, the American public has been largely kept in the dark about how the United States would respond if Russia used a tactical nuclear weapon against Ukraine.  To help us make sense of all of this, and to walk us through what options are on the table for the United States to de-escalate tensions with Russia, we are joined by none other than Rose Gottemoeller. Rose was the chief negotiator of New START, the last remaining strategic arms control treaty between the two nuclear-armed countries. With the treaty set to expire in 2026, and recent news of Russia delaying talks on a potential New START renewal, is there hope for the easing of tensions via diplomacy? Or, is a new arms race to out-compete Russia (and other nuclear-armed countries like China) the answer to avoid nuclear war? Rose Gottemoeller is the Steven C. Házy Lecturer at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and its Center for International Security and Cooperation. Rose recently served as Deputy Secretary General of NATO and the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security at the U.S. State Department. She is the author of Negotiating the New START Treaty (2021). To listen to more episodes or learn more about None Of The Above, go to www.noneoftheabovepodcast.org. To learn more about the Eurasia Group Foundation, please visit www.egfound.org and subscribe to our newsletter.

The Biden administration recently released its Nuclear Posture Review, which sets forth a strategy intended to address the growing nuclear threat from China since the “strategic breakout” of its nuclear forces was revealed to the public in summer 2021. China has surpassed its historic nuclear strategy of minimum deterrence and can now execute any nuclear employment strategy, according to U.S. Strategic Command. Meanwhile, the U.S. nuclear arsenal has not significantly changed and remains designed around the 2010 New START Treaty. Whether this posture is sufficient to deter the growing Chinese nuclear threat while still deterring Russia's expanding arsenal at the same time is uncertain.Given the Nuclear Posture Review's long-awaited release, join us to learn what China's nuclear expansion means for the U.S. and what options policymakers should consider in response. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Rose Gottemoeller, the Steven C. Házy lecturer at the Center for International Security and Cooperation in Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and research fellow at the Hoover Institution, leads a conversation on international security and cooperation. FASKIANOS: Welcome to today's session of the Winter/Spring 2022 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on our website at CFR.org/academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted and honored to have Rose Gottemoeller with us today to talk about international security and cooperation. Rose Gottemoeller is the Steve C. Házy lecturer at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and its Center for International Security and Cooperation. She is also a fellow at the Hoover Institution. From 2016 to 2019, she served as the deputy secretary-general (DSG) of NATO, where she advanced NATO's adaptation to the new security challenges in Europe and the fight against terrorism. And before that, she served as the undersecretary for arms control and international security at the State Department. In 2009 and 2010, she was the assistant secretary of state for arms control, verification, and compliance, during which time she served as chief U.S. negotiator of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russian Federation. So, Rose Gottemoeller, thank you very much for being with us. I can't think of anybody better to have this conversation with us than you. When we planned this webinar, we knew it was the sixtieth anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but what we did not know was Russia would invade Ukraine and that there would be a war going on. So perhaps you can put this in context, talk about the lessons learned from the Cuban Missile Crisis, and where we are now, given what's going on in Ukraine. GOTTEMOELLER: Thank you so much, Irina. And it's wonderful to be with you, and with everyone who was able to join us today from across the country. I know there are many impressive institutions who are dialing in, and I really appreciate the chance to have a conversation with you and look forward to talking with the students and hearing what your questions are as well. Let me indeed begin talking today about the Cuban Missile Crisis, which happened sixty years ago this coming October. It was a time—I was a fourth grader at the time. And I remember, I was going to a Catholic school in Dearborn, Michigan. And the nuns said to us: You really must get home quickly tonight, children, there might be a nuclear war. You need to be with your parents. None of us knew exactly what was going on, but we knew that nuclear war was a really bad thing. We'd been through many drills, hiding under our desks or out in the hallway with our head between our knees. I have to tell you, even as a third grader, during one of those drills I thought to myself: If we get hit by a nuclear weapon, putting my head between my knees is not going to help one bit. So even as a third grader, I knew that nuclear weapons were weapons of mass destruction. So, we did manage to solve that crisis, with a secret deal, as it turned out. President Kennedy agreed quietly to withdraw intermediate-range nuclear missiles from Turkey. Never made public, until much later. And Khrushchev agreed to withdraw what were equivalent missiles from Cuba. And we got back to the negotiating table. In fact, the Cuban Missile Crisis dealt not only the United States and the Soviet Union, but other countries around the world, what I call a short, sharp shock. We recognized how devastating would be the effect of nuclear war, and we decided we really did need to talk together about how we were going to control and limit those risks. So, it led to a blossoming of negotiations on all kinds of limitations and controls. First, the Limited Test Ban Treaty. It was a test ban on nuclear testing in the atmosphere that was very quickly agreed after the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Kennedy gave an important speech at American University in June of 1963, when he said we really must control this most dangerous of weapons. And he proposed at that time a test ban treaty limiting testing in the atmosphere. And that was agreed rather quickly. It's amazing to me, as an arms control negotiator, that that treaty was then agreed by August of that very year. So record time. The U.K. also joined in those negotiations. But one thing that's very interesting, the Limited Test Ban was the first, I would say also, environmental arms control treaty. It was inspired by the fact that countries around the world and publics around the world were recognizing that testing in the atmosphere was producing a lot of strontium-90 and other radioactive pollutants that were getting into the food supply. Again, I remember from that period my own mother saying, “We've got to be worried about the milk we're drinking because it's got strontium-90 in it from testing in the atmosphere.” So even then, there were some environmental pushes that led to, I think, in part the quick negotiation of the Limited Test Ban Treaty. After that, we went to the step of controlling tests also under the sea and underground, starting with the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, that did not enter into force until the early 1990s. It was a long negotiation, but it was negotiated through that period of the 1960s into the 1970s. We also negotiated what has been the foundational document of the nonproliferation regime: the [Nuclear] Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). That was negotiated through the late 1960s and entered into force in 1972. It did basically designate five nuclear weapon states. These days they are U.S., U.K., France, China, and Russia. But at that time, those nuclear weapon states were the only states that would be permitted to possess nuclear weapons. All other states around the world would give up their right to nuclear weapons. But there was a grand bargain there. The nuclear weapon states agreed to proceed with total nuclear disarmament, under Article 6 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and in return for which the non-nuclear weapon states under the NPT would, again, not build their own weapons. They would prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons. And everyone would work to promote peaceful uses of the atom, whether in nuclear energy, or agriculture, manufacturing, mining industry, et cetera, promoting—or medical uses as well—promoting peaceful uses of the atom. So those are what are called the three pillars of the NPT: disarmament, nonproliferation, and peaceful uses. So that was agreed in 1972. And working in that multilateral way was important, but there was also an impetus given in this commitment to disarmament for the United States and the Soviet Union to get together and to begin to negotiate bilaterally the two together on limiting their nuclear weapons. We built up a tremendous nuclear arsenal during the Cold War years. At the time that we were beginning to talk to the Soviets about limiting nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon delivery systems, missiles and bombers, submarines—at that time, in the late 1960s, we had about 32,000 nuclear warheads, if you can imagine that. And the Soviets built up their stockpile to be about 40,000 nuclear warheads. So there were tremendous numbers of nuclear weapons being held in storage, but there were also tremendous numbers that were deployed. So we worked steadily from that period, the 1970s into the 1980s, to try to limit nuclear weapons. Didn't work so well. There are various reasons why. Most specifically, I think, we were just driving harder and harder with more effective missiles to deploy more warheads on those missiles. And so, by the time we got into the 1980s, we had about 12,000 warheads deployed on missiles and deployed or designated for deployment on bombers. The Soviets the same, about 12,000. Now, remember those numbers I gave you, 32,000 total, 40,000 total in the USSR. We held a lot of weapons in storage, not on top of missiles, not on top of delivery vehicles, as we called them. They were just held in storage. But we also then had 12,000 deployed on missiles and pointed at each other in a very high-readiness state. So we had got through the 1970s and 1980s not blowing each other up, but we also didn't have much success limiting those systems because there was this technological jump ahead, being able to put more warheads on individual missile systems. So, that's when Reagan and Gorbachev entered the scene. In the mid-1980s they got together. Reagan had not been very easy on the USSR when he came into office. He declared the USSR the “evil empire.” And he drove hard military modernization that included some nuclear modernization as well. The sclerotic Soviet leadership at that time, they were dying off one by one. First it was Brezhnev, then it was Andropov, then there was a third fellow. They all went very, very quickly. And Gorbachev took over in the mid-1980s. And he and Reagan actually then got together and began to talk about how they might reduce—not try to limit, because limit wasn't good enough. The technology was always pushing ahead. But how could we actually begin to reduce nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, and the missiles we put them on? So that was the negotiations that began in the 1980s for the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and also the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which finally entered into force in 1994. And that treaty, once again, took the number of deployed warheads on both sides down from 12,000 deployed warheads on each side to 6,000 deployed warheads on each side. If you think about one of these warheads, a single warhead is enough to destroy a city. It's nothing like what we're seeing in Ukraine today. Sadly, such horrible destruction and the really barbaric attacks on civilian targets like this maternity hospital yesterday. I'm just heartbroken about this, as I'm sure many of you are. But that was a big bomb that was really directed at a single facility and was very destructive. But if you can imagine a nuclear weapon, that could really pulverize—pulverize—the center of a city. And that's what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, when the United States was the only country to use nuclear weapons in wartime. And that is what has led to this nuclear taboo that has been pretty clear, because it was recognized these are weapons of mass destruction. They completely pulverize, and many, many lives lost. And those who are left living, as it was said at the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would envy the dead because of the severity of their injuries. So, people were recognizing that we had too many deployed warheads. We had 12,000 pointed at each other on a high state of alert. So getting them down to 6,000 on each side was important. That was the goal of the START treaty. Then in the early 2000s, in 2002, President Bush and President—believe it or not—Putin at that time decided in the Moscow Treaty on a further reduction. That took us down to 2,200 deployed warheads on both sides. And then the treaty that I worked on negotiating, the New START treaty in 2009 and 2010, took us down to 1,550 deployed warheads on both the U.S. and Russian sides. So 12,000 down to 1,550. That's a pretty good disarmament record. And it all sprang from that short, sharp shock of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Now, sixty years later, it's a tragedy, but we seem to be facing another crisis on par with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Vladimir Putin has been rattling the nuclear saber. We are very concerned, not necessarily about a big nuclear exchange between the United States and the Russian Federation, but about some smaller strike, perhaps use of a nuclear weapon on Ukrainian territory, perhaps a so-called demonstration strike, where Russia would launch a nuclear explosion over the Black Sea, for example, just to prove that they're willing to do it. And so, at the moment, we are facing these nuclear threats out of the Kremlin with a lot of concern, but also very serious attitude about how we sustain and maintain nuclear deterrence at this moment of supreme crisis in Ukraine, and ensure that we continue to deter Russia from taking these disastrous actions with weapons of mass destruction. But also think about ways—how can we go forward from here to preserve what we have achieved in these sixty years since the Cuban Missile Crisis. This great foundation of big nuclear international regimes that we have been able to put in place—such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, that means the only country that has tested nuclear weapons in this century is North Korea. There is a taboo against nuclear testing that is strongly held, the taboo against nuclear use has held since Hiroshima and Nagasaki over seventy-five years ago. And now, we are looking at ensuring that we sustain and maintain the Nonproliferation Treaty regime so that we do not see a lot of new nuclear weapon states emerging across the globe. Just one thing I forgot to mention—President Kennedy spoke quite a bit about these things. I think the Cuban Missile Crisis really for him personally was a big shock, and really provoked his thinking quite a bit—but he said, “We need this Nonproliferation Treaty because otherwise we're going to end up with twenty, twenty-five nuclear weapon states around the world. And that will be hugely destabilizing.” So the Nonproliferation Treaty regime, although we pay attention to the rogue states, the DPRKs [Democratic People's Republic of Koreas], the Irans, of course. It looks like we may be now returning to the Iran nuclear deal. I certainly hope so. We also need Iranian oil at this moment, which is another matter. But we have a couple of nuclear rogues out there. But, in general, we have prevented the proliferation of nuclear weapons, thanks to the Nonproliferation Treaty regime. We need to do everything we can at this moment to preserve and protect these important big regimes. And that goes not only for nuclear, but also the so-called other weapons of mass destruction. The Chemical Weapons Convention bans the use of chemicals in wartime. Not only chemical weapons, that is chemical designed to be used as weapons, but also what we've been seeing in Syria, the use of chlorine gas in wartime. That is forbidden by the Chemical Weapons Convention as well. So we need these big regimes to continue—the Biological Weapons Convention, the same. So I really wanted to stress this point as we get to our discussion period, because it's going to take a lot of attention and effort if Russia is now turning its back on playing a responsible role in the international community. If Russia is turning into a very big pariah state, as I argued yesterday in a piece in Foreign Affairs, we need to figure out what we are going to do, losing Russia as a partner. Because Russia has actually been a great player in negotiating all these treaties and agreements. But if Russia is turning its back on a responsible role in the international community, then the United States has to look for other partners. I would argue that we should be really approaching Beijing. They are, after all, a nuclear weapon state under the Nonproliferation Treaty. And historically they have been a rather responsible nuclear weapon state under the Nonproliferation Treaty, joining in efforts to advance the goals of nuclear disarmament. So it's hard, because at the moment, as you know, Beijing and Washington have been at great odds over any number of issues—Taiwan, trade and investment, human rights with the Uyghurs. So many issues we've been at odds over. But I think the moment has come where we need to think about how we are going to preserve these weapons of mass destruction regimes, the nuclear regimes, the testing—the ban against nuclear testing. How are we going to preserve it in the face of Russia as a pariah state? And that means, I think, we must partner with China. So those are my remarks to begin with. I see we have a few questions already. And I'm really looking forward to our discussion. Irina, back over to you. FASKIANOS: Rose, thank you very much. So let's start with a raised hand from Babak Salimitari. And please state your institution and unmute yourself. Q: Good morning. My name is Babak Salimitari. I'm a third-year economics major at University of California, Irvine. And my question really pertains with NATO as a force for international security. I was looking at the list of countries that were not paying the 2 percent of their necessary GDP for defense. And these are some rich countries, like Norway, and the Netherlands, and Germany. These aren't poor, third-world countries. I don't understand why they don't pay their fair share. So when you were in NATO, what did you tell these people? GOTTEMOELLER: That's a very good question, Babak. And, honestly, it's been great for me to watch now with this otherwise terrible crisis in Ukraine—it's been great for me to watch that countries who were very resistant of paying their 2 percent of GDP are now stepping forward and saying they are ready to do so. And Germany is the prime example. President Trump was very insistent on this matter, and very much threatening dire action by the United States, including that the United States would fail to honor its so-called Article 5 commitments to NATO, which that is—under the founding document of NATO, the so-called Washington Treaty of 1949, Article 5 states that if a single country in the NATO alliance is attacked, then all countries must—and it asks for help, there's that important point too—if it asks for help then other NATO countries are obliged to come to its assistance in defending it. So President Trump was threatening that the United States would not fulfill its Article 5 commitments. He was very tough on this matter. I was the deputy secretary-general at NATO during the years of the Trump presidency. My boss and I, Jens Stoltenberg and I, always welcomed President Trump's pressure on these matters, because every single U.S. president, again, since Jack Kennedy—I'll go back to him. There's a great—now in the public domain—a great report of a National Security Council meeting where John Kennedy says, “I am tired of these NATO European freeloaders. We spend all the money on defense; they take our defenses and don't build up their own. And they're freeloading, they're freeriding on us.” So every single U.S. president has raised this issue with the allies. But it was Donald Trump who got them to really sit up and take notice in the first instance. So President—I'm sorry—Secretary-General Stoltenberg and I always supported his efforts, although we were not supportive of his drawing any question about U.S. obligations with regard to Article 5. But we supported his efforts to push the allies on paying 2 percent of GDP. A number of them did step up during the Trump years, and so more were paying 2 percent of GDP now with this crisis. Unfortunately, again, it's taken a dire crisis in Ukraine. But we see even Germany stepping up. Just one final word on Germany. At the time, when I was DSG, they kept saying, well 2 percent of our GDP, we are the most enormous economy in Europe. And if we spend 2 percent of GDP, then other countries are going to start worrying about casting back to the past and remembering Nazi Germany, and thinking about the big military buildup in the 1930s. So we don't want that to happen. So that was very deeply ingrained in the political elites in Berlin. But now, we're seeing that 180-degree switch just in the last ten days. I think it's remarkable. But I welcome it, for one, that they are now willing to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense. FASKIANOS: Great. I'm going to take the next question, a written question, from Caleb Kahila, undergraduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. One issue that I don't hear much about is the actions of individuals involved in nuclear weapons. An example is Abdul Qadeer Khan, who leads the Pakistani nuclear program but is also believed to have given nuclear information to Iran, North Korea, among others. With examples like Khan, should the international community take the issue of individual nuclear proliferation more seriously? GOTTEMOELLER: That is a great question. And indeed, certain individuals have had a profoundly malignant effect on nuclear nonproliferation. It is worthwhile to note that the Nonproliferation Treaty—the membership is very wide, but there are a few outliers. And India and Pakistan are both outliers. And I think for some weird reason, Khan felt justified in being an outlier to share nuclear weapons information with a number of countries, including also Libya, as I understand. So there was this notion I think that he had, almost an ideological notion—he's dead now—but an ideological notion of producing an Islamic bomb to counter both the Indians, their mortal enemies, but also to ensure that the rest of the world did not mess with Pakistan, and also did not mess with the rest of the Muslim world, the Islamic world. So it was, I think, very clear that this one malignant individual had an enormous deleterious effect on the nonproliferation regime. We have been able to, I think, place constraints and dial back in many ways from some of his export activities, including when the Libyans were willing to give up their weapons of mass destruction programs. But you're absolutely right that it necessary to pay attention to individuals—powerful individuals, they have to be—who have that kind of access. And luckily, they are fairly rare. But we have to pay attention to the individuals who could make a very big problem for the nonproliferation regime. I do worry nowadays about the North Koreans, about the DPRK. The trouble is, they are themselves bent on acquiring nuclear bombs. And if they give away their fissile material, for example. One of the big barriers to getting a bomb is you need a significant amount of either highly enriched uranium or plutonium. And it's rather difficult to acquire. So if the DPRK were going to get into this business of giving away their expertise, the next question would be, well, how about some fissile material to back that up? And I dare say, they'd rather keep all their fissile material for themselves. But that's a very good question, Caleb. Thank you for that. FASKIANOS: I'm going to go next Mojúbàolú Olúfúnké Okome at Brooklyn College. Q: Thank you very much. Mojúbàolú Olúfúnké Okome. And I teach political science at Brooklyn College. And I have two issues that are kind of bothering me. One is, what are the chances that Russia will turn its back on the NPT in totality, and on other weapons regimes in this war? And then, besides an alliance with China, what are the other options for the U.S.? The second thing is, would Russia have been so bold to invade Ukraine if Ukraine hadn't destroyed its weapons—it's nuclear weapons and joined the NPT? I remember a Mearsheimer article in Foreign Affairs, I think, where he was giving a very unpopular view at that time that nuclear—destroying nuclear weapons in the Ukraine was a bad idea, because there was a need to kind of have a defense against Russia's potential invasion of the Ukraine. This was in the 1990s. And now it seems like he was right. So I'm just wondering what you think of these two issues. GOTTEMOELLER: Very good questions, Dr. Okome. And very difficult ones. But let me start on your first question. I argued yesterday in my Foreign Affairs article that I don't think it's so much that Russia would actually leave the regimes. I don't believe that they would turn their backs on the regimes by leaving them. What I believe, though, is that they will just prove to be not the good partner they have been historically. Historically they have really been, as I put it in the article, a giant of the nonproliferation regime, always looking for solutions for problems. Helping to drive forward top priorities, not only in the Nonproliferation Treaty but in what I call the wider regime, which includes these other treaties and agreements, including our bilateral treaties, the New START treaty is currently still in force, thank God. So I do worry that now they would instead turn to a more negative role, perhaps a wrecker role, in trying to stymie decision making in the regime implementation bodies, and trying to be mischievous in the way they interact with the rest of the regime members. And for that reason, I think we will need to have strong leadership. And the United States will need allies. And so that is why I have been emphasizing looking to China as a possible ally in what will be a very difficult, very difficult time going forward. But I do feel very sure that we must have as a top objective, a top priority preserving these regimes and agreements. Your second question, let me say a few words about the so-called Budapest Memorandum. I was involved in negotiating it. I worked for President Clinton in the 1990s. I was convinced at the time, I remain convinced, that what the Budapest Memorandum bought Ukraine was thirty years of peace and stability to build itself up as an independent and sovereign nation. We, in the Clinton administration, argued to Ukraine at the time that if they tried to hang on to the nuclear weapons that were left on their territory after the breakup of the Soviet Union, that they would end up in an immediate conflict with Russia that would be destabilizing and would not allow their fragile, young democracy to take root. And I still believe that very strongly. For those of you who don't remember those years, when the Soviet Union broke apart, over a thousand warheads were left on Ukrainian territory, over a thousand warheads were left on Kazakh territory, Kazakhstan, and approximately a hundred warheads were left in Belarus. So there—and there were strategic delivery vehicles. There were intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) deployed in all three countries, and there were bombers deployed in Ukraine. So there were weapon systems that needed to be destroyed and eliminated. And in this case, we got the Ukrainians to agree to join the Nonproliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state. Their warheads were returned to Russia for down-blending to low-enriched uranium, which was then used in—(laughs)—it's ironic—but it was used for power plant fuel for the nuclear power plants in Ukraine. I do want to stress that at that time there was a very cooperative negotiation going on. And our assumption working—it was with the Russians and the Ukrainians and the Americans together. We were all working on this problem together in good faith. And it was a very, very positive effort overall. I still believe that Ukraine would have been caught immediately in the maelstrom of conflict with Russia if they had tried somehow to hang onto those weapons. And technically, it would not have been easy, because the command and control of all those missiles was in Moscow. It was not in Ukraine. They would have had to try to guillotine themselves from the command-and-control system in Moscow and build up a command-and-control system in Ukraine for these nuclear weapon systems. And it was our judgment, it remains my judgment, that it would have been very destructive for the young Ukrainian state, the young Ukrainian democracy to try to hang on to them. And I do think that they have taken shape as an independent power, not entirely healthy economically but, before this terrible crisis, their economy was growing. And so I do think that what we are seeing today, with the brave—very brave defense of Ukraine by the Ukrainian public, and its armed forces, and first and foremost its president—that was all born out of the thirty years that the Ukrainians got to build up their country as an independent and sovereign state. And, again, they would not have had that if they had insisted in the 1990s on holding onto nuclear weapons. FASKIANOS: Great. I'm going to take a written question from Michael Strmiska, who is associate professor of world history at Orange County Community College in New York State. I'm going to shorten it. In essence, the Biden administration has said they will not impose a no-fly zone, as have other nations. And then we recently saw the Polish fighter jets via the U.S. to Ukraine. They have declined on that. So at what point do you think—there's been a lot of talk that either one of those will trigger a nuclear war. And in his question he says: Putin says “nuke” and we run and hide. If the death toll in Ukraine approaches the levels of the Holocaust, do you think the calculus will change? And do you think that this—that would trigger nuclear war? GOTTEMOELLER: Well, it's a complex question, Dr. Strmiska. Let me—let me try to give you my point of view on it. I'll just say, first of all, that I don't think we're running and hiding at all. We have sustained—and when I say “we” I'm still talking as if I'm NATO DSG. (Laughs.) But what I mean is the United States and its NATO allies have been providing a steady stream of military assistance to Ukraine, and a steady stream of humanitarian assistance to Ukraine, and also to the countries bordering Ukraine—Moldova, Hungary, Poland—that are—that are sheltering refugees from Ukraine. So we are really, I think, continuing to support them in, so far, pretty amazing ways. I have been talking to some military experts this morning, retired military officers here in the United States. And they think Putin and the Russians may be running out of ammo. We'll see to it that the Ukrainians do not run out of ammo. And so we are doing a lot to help them. And in terms of the deterrence messaging that's gone on, I've actually been rather admiring of the way that the administration has been clear about, and firm, about the dangers of rattling the nuclear saber, but also has been very clear that we are not taking steps ourselves to up the readiness of our nuclear forces, nor will we do so. They, the White House and the Department of Defense (DOD), basically postponed an ICBM test this week to ensure that there was no hint of a message that we, ourselves, are escalating. But we've been very firm and clear that nuclear use of any kind would be crossing, for us, a redline that is significant. So now let me get to your question about the no-fly zone, because I think this is—this is a complex question. It's turned into this kind of cause célèbre in the media, the press. You're watching the twenty-four-hour news cycle. All of us are, like, glued to our televisions right now, it's so horrible what is unfolding before us in Ukraine. So everybody's saying, no-fly zone, no-fly zone, no-fly zone. But when you look at it, the Russians aren't actually flying aircraft very much in Ukraine. These missiles are being delivered from Russian territory, from Belarusian territory, from ships in the Black Sea, and some now from Ukrainian territory in Donetsk and Luhansk in the eastern part of the country. But the vast majority—yesterday, the count was over 670 missiles. The vast majority of them have come from Russia. The Ukrainians don't need a no-fly zone right now. They need missile defenses. And so some of the actions that have been taken, for example, by the—by the U.K. government, for example, to get into their hands some handheld capability—now, these are not going to go after those big missiles, like the terrible explosion at the maternity hospital yesterday. That was caused by a very big missile. But some—they can be useful to defend their skies against some smaller—some smaller projectiles. And I think that's going to be important, those kinds of steps. I wish there were a way to get the Ukrainians the Israeli Iron Dome system. That's the best missile defense system around for short- to medium-range missiles. But I have my doubts that—(laughs)—the Israelis are going to want to get involved in this thing. But that's the point. This is not an air superiority problem at the moment. It is a problem of missile attacks. And so we need to do, I think, what we can to, again, get some help to the—to the Ukrainians. But we've got to be clear in our own mind what kind of help they really need. We'll see. This could change. And the Russians are upping their activity, so it may turn into more of an air battle than it has been up to this point. But I think it's really good to think harder about what the actual threat to Ukraine is today, rather than just being so fixated on a no-fly zone. FASKIANOS: Thank you. That's an important clarification. Let's go now to Kazi Sazid, who has raised his hand. Q: Hello. So I'm a political science student at CUNY Hunter College, just right next to CFR, actually. So my question is, we've seen in the past in how geopolitics and geopolitical biases obscures if not manipulates the reality of certain threats to international security and cooperation. One example is Nixon destabilizing the Allende government because there's a fear that socialism triumphed the narrative that socialism can only happen through dictatorships basically falls flat. So my question is, what avenues and mechanisms are available to ensure that security situations are not sensationalized to the point where people believe it is a bigger threat than it truly is? Sorry if that's a loaded question. GOTTEMOELLER: Well, it's a good question because it points to the information/misinformation space. And I think we've all been thinking about that a lot right now. And the United States and its NATO allies I think in the run up to the invasion actually were doing a pretty good job controlling the information space by, for example, undoing these false-flag operations that the Russians were trying to launch in the run-up to the invasion. They were actually apparently on the cusp of trying to replace the Zelenskyy government with their own puppet government. All of this was outed by some very astute use of intelligence by, again, the U.S. and the U.K., and getting it out into the information space. So in the run-up to the invasion, we were actually winning the misinformation war. Nowadays, I'm a little concerned about a couple of things. First, I'm concerned—well, there's so much to talk about here, but let me—let me just give it a shot, Kazi. We have to be concerned about the fact that Vladimir Putin is closed up in his bubble with his small cohort and is not getting sources of information that may cause him to think twice about what he's doing. And that is of concern when you're trying to deter the man, when you're trying to ensure that he knows that there will be a firm response. I don't think he had any idea—and maybe even today doesn't have any idea—at the strong pushback and the very capable pushback he's getting from the Ukrainian armed forces. They are defending their country well. And the Ukrainian public is joining in on that effort. Putin, in his bubble, just did not realize that. And now I'm not sure he's getting the information that would really help him to understand the situation that his armed forces are in right now. If, as my military experts conveyed this morning, they're beginning to run low on missiles, they're beginning to run low on ammunition, it's going to be a problem. They're going to start doing worse, rather than being able to pick up the pace, as we were talking about a moment ago, and as many people expect. So that's number one problem, is how is that deterrence messaging thing working with the Kremlin right now? The second thing I'd point to, though, is how do we reach the Russian people? Everybody takes note of the fact that all the—the internet backbone is closing down now in Ukraine. Harder and harder for Russians who are interested to get independent news that is not the product of state TV and state radio, state propaganda outlets. So how to get that message across is one that is really, really important. But I note at the same time, there was a poll that came out yesterday that was so interesting to me. It said, 58 percent of Russians support the war. And they say, well, that's pretty good. 58 percent of Russians support the war? But then when you think about it, there were a lot of “I don't knows” in that—in that poll as well. And when people don't want to say publicly what they really think they may say “I don't know,” or “I don't have an opinion on this matter.” Fifty-eight percent, when you juxtapose it against the support for the invasion of Crimea in 2014, is extraordinarily low. There was over 90 percent support for the invasion of Crimea in 2014. And now we're looking at 58 percent against the war—no, I'm sorry—it's 58 percent support the war. Sorry about that. And then a bunch of “I don't knows” in there, or “I don't want to comment” in there. So I think that there is an issue here about trying to talk directly to the Russian people. And the president has discussed that already in public. And I think we need to do better about figuring out how to reach the Russian people, especially now that social media's being shut down, other, I would say, more open forms of internet communications are being—are being shut down. We need to figure out how to message the Russian people as well. And finally, I'm not sure I'm actually answering your question, but I think—I think it's time that we start pivoting. We, the United States and NATO, to a more positive overall message of global leadership. That this is about our values and this is about what we want the world to be like in the years going forward. Let's talk about what we would need to support an independent Ukraine, no matter what. And let's talk about how we see the necessity of democratic principles and the rule of law being reenergized, restrengthened by this terrible crisis. I think we need to get a message out there about how we have a positive agenda, and we will push to pursue it, come what may. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Our next question is from Susie Risk, a first-year economics student at West Virginia University. Do you believe economic sanctions from the West on Russia is a viable way to slow Russia's advance on Ukraine? From my understanding they are mostly affecting civilians in the country, not those attacking Ukraine. And what are the other ways states like the U.S. could affect Russia in a nonviolent way? GOTTEMOELLER: I actually think the coherence of these sanctions across the board have turned them into a powerful instrument to both convey to the Kremlin, to the Russian government, and to the Russian people that they are on the wrong course. The coherence of them—there aren't any workarounds left. And in fact, even in the case of the Europeans, for example, saying that they can only cut back partially on their purchases of Russian oil because they cannot—they can't do without Russian oil and gas at the moment, but they say they're going to cut by 65 percent by the end of the year. OK, that's great, but what I'm hearing is, again, this status of the Russian Federation now as being the invader, being the country that has taken these wrong steps and is so deserving of these coherent sanctions across the board, that it is leading—like, the insurance industry—to think twice about insuring tankers that are picking up Russian oil. And so it's leading to ports messaging that they will not offload Russian oil. So despite the fact that they are still selling oil, the overall behavior of the Russian Federation and the way it is now wrapped in this coherent sanctions regime, is leading, I think, to a situation where, yeah, sure, they're going to continue to put some oil through—gas and oil through the pipelines into Europe. And they, I think, may be more likely to continue pushing that, rather than trying to turn the tap on and off, as they've done historically to try to pressure the Europeans. I think they'll be wanting to sell their gas and oil. But I think increasingly, on the stock market and in other settings, they are going to have a harder and harder time pushing oil sales, gas and oil sales. So you see this coherent sanctions regime as having knock-on effects that I think will have an even greater effect on the Russian economy, even on the Russian oil economy. FASKIANOS: It's been pretty amazing to watch the sanctions both from governments and from private—as you said—private companies and social media companies pulling out. Starbucks, Coca-Cola, and all of that, to try to—and the ruble has devalued. I think it is pretty much devalued to the very bottom. GOTTEMOELLER: Well, that's a great—that's a great point too, Irina. And particularly mentioning the sanctions against the central bank have had a profound effect. Russian rating has gone to junk—it's gone below junk bond status now, and so they're not rated anymore by the big rating companies. So it's had a profound effect on the Russian economy overall. And so, I'm wondering about—they've got very good technocrats running their banking system. That was always, I think, one of the things Putin was very proud about in coming out of the 2014 invasion of Crimea with a lot of sanctions slapped on him. He basically turned his country inward and said we are going to be more self-sufficient now and you, the bankers, you do what you can to ensure that we have lots of reserves, a rainy-day fund, that we are protected from shocks in future. Well, what happened in sanctioning the central bank is 70 percent of that rainy-day fund is held in Western financial institutions, and those now have placed blocks on the Russians getting their hands on their—on their financial reserves. So I think those steps have been coherent and very strong and have led to this really tanking of the Russian economy. FASKIANOS: Right. And with the sanctions now affecting the oligarchs and the well-to-do in Russia, that also could bring pressure on Putin—assuming they can get close enough to him—because, as you said, he is very much in a bubble that probably has been exacerbated by the two-year pandemic that we all have been living through. I'm going to go next to Nancy Gallagher, with a raised hand. Nancy, over to you. There we go. Q: I'd love to go back to the history that you started with briefly as a way of thinking about the future. And you've spent your entire career, basically, thinking about what mix of toughness and cooperation is appropriate for our relations with Russia or the Soviet Union at any given time. And even during the worst periods that you talked about, there was still some tacit cooperation that was going on to make sure—or to try to reduce the risks of a nuclear war that neither side really wanted. So it's never been 100 percent confrontation. And I'm just wondering, as you think about our relationship with Russia now, whether you've essentially written Russia off for the indefinite future or if you think that we should be continuing to think about ways of simultaneously being as tough as we need to right now, but also not completely closing the door on cooperation either to keep the risks of escalation under control now or to improve the prospects for reengagement with Russia in the future. GOTTEMOELLER: Thank you for that question, Nancy, and thank you so much for joining this call. The other half of my Foreign Affairs piece yesterday talked about this and really stressed, as strongly as I could, that we need to do everything we can to keep Russia at the nuclear, both arms control and also nonproliferation regime tables, that we need to do everything—for one thing, Russia, as I mentioned, has been a giant of these regimes. They are really very good diplomats and negotiators who work these issues, and they can help to find solutions. They have helped to find solutions throughout the fifty years since we began seriously negotiating bilaterally in the Strategic Arms Limitation agreement of the 1970s, agreed in 1972. From that time forward to the present day, fifty years we've had this great relationship at the negotiating table. We haven't agreed by any means at every step of the way, and sometimes we've been in negative territory, but we've always slowly and steadily driven forward on nuclear disarmament objectives. So I think we need to do everything we can to preserve that, and I am hopeful that we can do so. Even in the depths of this horrendous crisis, the Russians have been continuing—although with some issues coming up in recent days over sanctions—but they've been continuing to try to resuscitate the Iran nuclear deal. And I've got my fingers and toes crossed that, in fact, we will resuscitate the Iran nuclear deal. Now, the Russians maybe were reluctant at the moment because I think the United States is seeing the potential for Iranian oil to start to flow again, which would help with this cutoff that we've embraced of our purchases of Russian oil and gas. So there's a whole bunch of issues there. But the point I wanted to make is, despite this severe disagreement and a really dire crisis over Ukraine, in this particular case we've been able to continue to work together more or less positively, and that has been the history of this. Nuclear weapons are an existential threat to our survival and to the survival of Russia, clearly, but also to humankind. If we suddenly have a massive nuclear exchange, the effect on humankind overall is going to be dire. So for that reason, that existential threat has continued to place us together at the negotiating table to try to find solutions here. So I do hope that we can work our way through this and find ourselves back at the table with the Russians before too long to negotiate a replacement for the New START Treaty, which goes out of force in 2026, and to work on other issues, such as a replacement for the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which we withdrew from after Russian violations in 2019. But I think there are actually some good proposals on the table about how we return to constraints on intermediate-range ground-launched missiles. The Russians initiated some of those. Again, they are good diplomats and they are good policymakers in this realm, so I would hate to do without them. But what spurred my concern in the first place and what led to the article was this message that Dmitry Medvedev put out two weeks ago when he said, well, maybe we ought to, just withdraw from the New START Treaty and maybe we ought to just kick the embassies out of Moscow and hang—kick all the diplomats out and hang big padlocks on the embassies. Maybe we don't need the world was his message, and that's what alarmed me, so that's why I was talking about the worst case. But I do hope we can keep the Russians at the table. FASKIANOS: And just to pick up, Doru Tsaganea, an associate professor at the Metropolitan College of New York, has a question about China. And there have been reports that Xi asked Putin to hold off the invasion until after the Olympics in Beijing. There seems to be alliance between China and Russia, and now some—maybe China coming back can be—I mean, the way to bring—to give Putin an off ramp is via China. You just wrote this article in Foreign Affairs about—and you've mentioned how we can leverage—really get China in the mix to help give Putin an off ramp. Can you talk a little bit more about that dynamic? GOTTEMOELLER: Yes. Again, I started thinking about this—well, I was thinking about it during their appearance together at the Olympics—at the Olympics opening ceremony. Doesn't that seem like twenty years ago now? February 4, it was. FASKIANOS: It does. (Laughs.) GOTTEMOELLER: But, clearly, they have a joint agenda. They'll be working together on some things. But I was actually—at the time, I was actually quite positively impressed that what they did talk about—the one thing they talked about in the arms-control realm was beginning to put in place constraints on ground-launched intermediate-range missiles not only in Europe, but also in Asia. And I thought, wow, now that's interesting. If there's going to be, you know, generally Eurasian constraints on ground-launched intermediate range missiles, that's a really interesting development. And so I came away from February 4, rather positively impressed that we might be able to do something with both Russia and China in that regard. But fast forward to the 24 of February and the invasion of Ukraine, and here in—just a few days after that terrible day, the foreign minister of Ukraine, Mr. Kuleba, phoned his counterpart in Beijing and asked for facilitation again of diplomacy with Russia. And at least from the readouts of that meeting, slightly less forward-leaning on the Chinese side but not contradicting anything Kuleba said, the Chinese seemed to indicate a willingness to facilitate diplomacy. It does—I don't know what's going on behind the scenes. In diplomacy, it's always better if you don't know what's going on behind the scenes—(laughs)—if it is quiet diplomacy, if it's not out in public, if it's not this—one of the reasons why I was pretty—well, we all hoped against hope regarding no invasion. But, the Russians seemed to be in bad faith from December on because they kept playing at megaphone diplomacy—putting out their proposals to the public and the press, and even leaking U.S. answers in some cases. So they were clearly not playing a proper diplomatic game, which is quiet diplomacy behind the scenes trying to make quiet progress. So I hope that this Chinese facilitation has begun. I have no hint of it at the moment, but I certainly think that it could be—it could be a productive way to begin to develop some new off ramp. We've tried a lot off ramps with Putin and it hasn't worked, but maybe the Chinese can help us develop another way of approaching this matter. Finally, I will just take note of the fact that there are other facilitators in the game. For example, President Erdoğan of Turkey has been very active, and today there is a meeting between the foreign ministers of—again, Kuleba, foreign minister of Ukraine, and Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia in Turkey. I, for one, I haven't seen any reports of it. You may have seen reports of the outcome, Irina, but I think that that—that kind of facilitation is important, and I hope it will continue. We all want to see diplomacy taking precedence over the bombing of innocent civilians in Ukraine. FASKIANOS: Right. There are a lot more questions, and I—we can't get to them. I apologize. But I don't want to—and we are at the end of our time, but I just want to give you an opportunity and give the students to hear your thoughts on public service. You've devoted your—mostly your entire career to it. You're now teaching. You have a lecturer spot at Stanford, so you're clearly working with students. And what you would say about public service. GOTTEMOELLER: I was so privileged to have the opportunity to serve both President Clinton and President Obama. I think if you can in your career do a stint of public service it will be absolutely a wonderful experience for you. Now, sometimes bureaucracies can be pretty frustrating, but it's worth—it's worth the price of admission, I would say, to begin to operate inside that system, to begin to figure out how to make progress, and it is the way you put ideas into action. You know, from the outside I can write all the op-eds I want to, and, yeah, some of them may get picked up by somebody inside the government. But when you're working inside the government, you can really put ideas into action from the lowest levels, even if you have a chance to be an intern at the State Department or in one of the other agencies of government, you can begin to get a flavor for this. But you might be surprised that they're asking for your opinion because you all at the, I would say, less-old—(laughs)—end of the spectrum have a lot of good new ideas about how the world should work going forward. And particularly I think this problem I talked about, how to communicate now directly with the Russian people, for example, you've got the skills and savvy to help people inside government to understand how to—how to do that effectively. So you've got some special skills, I think, that are much needed at the present time. So I would not shy away from some time in government. People often ask me, well, won't I get trapped there? I think your generation will not get trapped there just because you already think about the world of work differently. You're not going to be a lifer in any organization. You don't want to start in the State Department and work there for forty years. You'll be working, in—maybe in Silicon Valley; and then you go work for Capitol Hill, the Congress; then you may go into government for a little while, the executive branch; and then back to—back to the corporate world. So I know that you'll be thinking quite differently about how to build your careers, but don't shy away from public service. It's a very good experience and it's where you can make a difference. FASKIANOS: Well, with that, Rose Gottemoeller, thank you very much for being with us today and for sharing your expertise and analysis. We really appreciate it. And giving us a historical context, which is so valuable to understanding where we are today. You can follow Rose on Twitter at @gottemoeller. Our next Academic Webinar will be on Wednesday, March 23, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Jody Freeman at Harvard University will talk about global climate policy. We will send out the link to this discussion—the video, transcript—as well as the link to Rose's Foreign Affairs article so you can read it if you didn't have a chance. It was in yesterday's background. And I encourage you to follow us on Twitter at @CFR_academic, and go to CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. So thank you all again and thank you, Rose. GOTTEMOELLER: Thank you. Thanks for a great discussion. (END)

Éra amerického prezidenta Donalda Trumpa přinesla v oblasti mezinárodních dohod zaměřených na kontrolu zbraní významné milníky. Mezi ně patří například odstoupení Spojených států od dohody o otevřeném nebi (Open Skies Treaty) nebo od íránské jaderné dohody (Joint Comprehension Plan of Action), jejichž budoucí existence a podoba zůstávají nejasné. Mezi dohody se spornou budoucností se řadí i vzájemná dohoda o snižování počtu jaderných zbraní, tzv. START Treaty, uzavřená mezi Spojenými státy a Ruskou federací. Platnost této dohody je navzdory plánované expiraci v únoru 2021 stále aktuální do roku 2026 a její novější verze tzv. New START Treaty je zatím v nedohlednu. Jaká je současná situace v mezinárodní kontrole zbraní po nástupu amerického prezidenta Joea Bidena? Co je to New START Treaty a proč byla namísto ní na poslední chvíli prodloužená platnost původní verze dohody? Kde vidí jaderné velmoci největší sporné body během rokování o nové podobě smlouvy? Může Evropská unie ovlivnit budoucí podobu New START dohody, a jaké konsekvence pro Unii z nově vznikající smlouvy vyplývají? Na tyto otázky bude odpovídat Juraj Sýkora, junior expert, Slovenská společnosť pro zahraničnou politiku

As the U.S. chief negotiator of the New START treaty, Rose Gottemoeller's new book is an invaluable insider's account of the negotiations between the U.S. and Russian delegations in Geneva in 2009 and 2010 and the crucial discussions between President Barack Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev. In this fascinating talk with Senior Fellows Tatiana Serafin and Nikolas Gvosdev, Gottemoeller reflects on her career, the importance of arms control, and what it was like being the first female deputy secretary general of NATO. For more, please go to carnegiecouncil.org. 

London-based Sahil Shah, a policy fellow at the European Leadership Network, discusses with Michelle Dover all things nuclear coming from a transatlantic perspective. They cover the recent US-Russian dialogue, what that means for the New START Treaty and the prospects for the JCPOA and Europe's role in those discussions. On Early Warning: Sina Toossi of the National Iranian American Council discusses with Tom Collina how Iranians have been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, and how the Biden administration can help with a pledge to vaccinate people in Iran and around the world.

Rose Gottemoeller, former Deputy Secretary General of NATO, joins Press the Button, describes her experience negotiating the New START Treaty during the Obama administration, and what the recent summit between President Joe Biden and President Vladimir Putin means for the future of arms control. Gottemoeller's new book, Negotiating the New START Treaty, is available now. Early Warning features co-host Tom Collina and Sharon K. Weiner of American University discussing their testimonies during last week's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on US nuclear policy.

One of President Biden's first acts in office was to extend the New START Treaty with Russia. Concluded in 2010, the treaty cut the strategic nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia in half. It was set to expire on February 5, 2021, and is now in force for another five years. That treaty—which is holding back a new nuclear arms race between the United States and Russia—was negotiated by Rose Gottemoeller, former U.S. under secretary of state and former deputy secretary general of NATO. But now, what comes next—in arms control and in dealing with Russia? Fueled by petro-rubles, a stronger economy has enabled the Russians to fund a decade of investments in high-tech nuclear and conventional weapons, including cybermeasures targeting the internal information systems of the United States and other countries. How should the United States respond to those threats, and to possible new opportunities for cooperation with Russia? What dangers, and opportunities, are presented by flash-points like the recent Russian military presence on the Ukrainian border? What was it like to negotiate a major nuclear arms control treaty with the Russians, to get Presidents Obama and Medvedev to agree to it, and then negotiate its ratification through the U.S. Senate, at one of the most deeply partisan times in American history? Importantly, how did Republicans and Democrats come together to ratify a treaty to safeguard the future of all Americans? Please join our CEO, Dr. Gloria Duffy, for a conversation with Rose Gottemoeller, on the eve of the first summit meeting between Presidents Biden and Putin. Deputy Secretary General Gottemoeller and Dr. Duffy have worked together on a number of occasions, including on dismantling weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet countries during the Clinton administration. SPEAKERS Rose Gottemoeller Distinguished Lecturer, Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute; Research Fellow, Hoover Institution; Former Deputy Secretary General, NATO; Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control; Author, Negotiating the New START Treaty In Conversation with Dr. Gloria Duffy President and CEO, The Commonwealth Club; Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Clinton In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we are currently hosting all of our live programming via YouTube live stream. This program was recorded via video conference on June 1st, 2021 by the Commonwealth Club of California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

One of President Biden's first acts in office was to extend the New START Treaty with Russia. Concluded in 2010, the treaty cut the strategic nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia in half. It was set to expire on February 5, 2021, and is now in force for another five years. That treaty—which is holding back a new nuclear arms race between the United States and Russia—was negotiated by Rose Gottemoeller, former U.S. under secretary of state and former deputy secretary general of NATO. But now, what comes next—in arms control and in dealing with Russia? Fueled by petro-rubles, a stronger economy has enabled the Russians to fund a decade of investments in high-tech nuclear and conventional weapons, including cybermeasures targeting the internal information systems of the United States and other countries. How should the United States respond to those threats, and to possible new opportunities for cooperation with Russia? What dangers, and opportunities, are presented by flash-points like the recent Russian military presence on the Ukrainian border? What was it like to negotiate a major nuclear arms control treaty with the Russians, to get Presidents Obama and Medvedev to agree to it, and then negotiate its ratification through the U.S. Senate, at one of the most deeply partisan times in American history? Importantly, how did Republicans and Democrats come together to ratify a treaty to safeguard the future of all Americans? Please join our CEO, Dr. Gloria Duffy, for a conversation with Rose Gottemoeller, on the eve of the first summit meeting between Presidents Biden and Putin. Deputy Secretary General Gottemoeller and Dr. Duffy have worked together on a number of occasions, including on dismantling weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet countries during the Clinton administration. SPEAKERS Rose Gottemoeller Distinguished Lecturer, Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute; Research Fellow, Hoover Institution; Former Deputy Secretary General, NATO; Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control; Author, Negotiating the New START Treaty In Conversation with Dr. Gloria Duffy President and CEO, The Commonwealth Club; Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Clinton In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we are currently hosting all of our live programming via YouTube live stream. This program was recorded via video conference on June 1st, 2021 by the Commonwealth Club of California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What does the recent extension of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (or New START) with Russia mean, now and for the future of strategic arms control with our near-peer competitors like Russia and China?  Join Aerospace's Sam Wilson as he talks about this and more with Rose Gottemoeller, former Deputy Secretary General of NATO and chief US negotiator of the treaty and Dr Michael Gleason, senior policy analyst at The Center for Space Policy & Strategy.

One of President Joe Biden’s first actions after taking office in January was to agree with Russian President Vladimir Putin on extending the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Better known as New START, it is the last remaining nuclear arms control agreement between Washington and Moscow, verifiably limiting each country to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed delivery systems. The renewal of New START was widely welcomed by experts, given its important role in limiting the number of deployed nuclear weapons in the world. In a phone call this week, Biden and Putin discussed their intent to pursue further arms control talks, “building on the extension of the New START Treaty,” according to the White House’s readout. But it remains unclear how much further progress is possible, given the broader tensions in the U.S.-Russia relationship.  This week on Trend Lines, WPR’s Elliot Waldman is joined by Sarah Bidgood, the director of the Eurasia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, California. They discuss how the U.S. and Russia might be able to draw on the experiences of Cold War-era policymakers and negotiators to make progress on nuclear arms reduction, as well as Biden’s arms control and nonproliferation agenda more broadly. If you like what you hear on Trend Lines and what you’ve read on WPR, you can sign up for our free newsletter to get our uncompromising analysis delivered straight to your inbox. The newsletter offers a free preview article every day of the week, plus three more complimentary articles in our weekly roundup every Friday. Sign up here. Then subscribe. Relevant Articles on WPR: Can Biden Restore the Arms Control Treaties That Trump Tore Up? The New Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty Will Be an Early Trial for Biden Russia’s New Nuclear Doctrine: Don’t Mess With Us—But Let’s Talk Trump’s Withdrawal From the Open Skies Treaty Is Reckless and Self-Defeating Trend Lines is produced and edited by Peter Dörrie, a freelance journalist and analyst focusing on security and resource politics in Africa. You can follow him on Twitter at @peterdoerrie. To send feedback or questions, email us at podcast@worldpoliticsreview.com.

International Women's Day @ The Hoover Institution | A Focus On Women In National Security   Monday, March 8, 2021 Hoover Institution, Stanford University   To celebrate International Women’s Day, the Director of the Hoover Institution and the 66th Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, hosted a conversation with four of our leading female national security and foreign policy scholars: Elizabeth Economy, Rose Gottemoeller, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Amy Zegart on March 8 from 2:15 - 3:30PM PT. Each of these esteemed Hoover Fellows is releasing a book this year addressing the vital issues of our day. Through the lens of their own experiences, Secretary Rice and these scholars will discuss women's leadership, diversity, talent, and accomplishments in national security, as well as the challenges and rewards of working in this environment.   We honor the contributions of women at every level and in every facet of national security. Our Hoover Fellows’ commitment to continued research increasingly shapes the narratives, priorities, rules, and assessments of policy making.  ABOUT THE BOOKS The World According to China, by Elizabeth Economy The World According to China explores China's ambitions to transform the international system by reclaiming contested territories, reshaping the geostrategic landscape, and reforming the system of global governance to reflect Chinese norms and values. It argues that China's well-defined and highly-coordinated foreign policy playbook has contributed to significant progress in realizing the country's strategic objectives, while at the same time creating the conditions that are likely to undermine its future success. Negotiating the New START Treaty, by Rose Gottemoeller An invaluable insider’s account of the New START treaty negotiations between the US and Russian delegations in Geneva in 2009 and 2010. It examines the crucially important discussions about the treaty between President Barack Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev, and it describes the tough negotiations needed to gain the support of the Senate for the treaty. And importantly, at a time when the US Congress stands deeply divided, it tells the story of how, in a previous time of partisan division, Republicans and Democrats came together to ratify a treaty to safeguard the future of all Americans. >> Book Details Prey: Immigration, Islam, and the Erosion of Women's Rights, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali Deeply researched and featuring fresh and often shocking revelations, Prey uncovers a sexual assault and harassment crisis in Europe that is turning the clock on women’s rights much further back than the #MeToo movement is advancing it. No one in a position of power wants to admit that the eruption of sexual violence and harassment in Europe’s cities is linked to the arrival of several million migrants—most of them young men—from Muslim-majority countries. Pretending the problem doesn’t exist is the surest way to empower not only the far right but also the Islamists, whose solution entails even greater restrictions on female freedom. >> Book Details Spies, Lies, and Algorithms: The History and Future of American Intelligence, by Amy Zegart America’s spy agencies face a moment of reckoning. Although espionage has always been part of great power conflict, emerging technologies like AI, commercial satellites, and social media are empowering new enemies and opportunities, generating crushing volumes of data and tools to understand it, putting information at everyone’s fingertips, and creating powerful new decision-makers outside of governments. Spies, Lies, and Algorithms: The History and Future of American Intelligence is designed to be a fun read with a serious purpose: examining the history of the CIA and America’s 16 other intelligence agencies and assessing the challenges they confront in the digital age. MODERATED BY Condoleezza Rice is the Tad and Dianne Taube Director of the Hoover Institution and the Thomas and Barbara Stephenson Senior Fellow on Public Policy. In addition, she is a founding partner of Rice, Hadley, Gates & Manuel LLC, an international strategic consulting firm. Rice served as the sixty-sixth secretary of state of the United States (2005-2009) and as President George W. Bush’s national security adviser (2001 to 2005).

Save Meduza!https://support.meduza.io/enVladimir Putin and Joe Biden recently had their first presidential phone call — a conversation that paved the way for a renewal of the New START Treaty (the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty reached in April 2010 between presidents Obama and Medvedev). But most other arms control agreements between Moscow and Washington have expired or collapsed in years past, so what's the future of these diplomatic efforts going forward? For answers, “The Naked Pravda” turns to two experts in this field: Olga Oliker, the Director of the International Crisis Group's Europe and Central Asia Program, and Pavel Podvig, an independent analyst based in Geneva, where he runs his research project, “Russian Nuclear Forces,” and works as a senior research fellow at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research and as a researcher with the Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton University. “The Naked Pravda” comes out on Saturdays (or sometimes Fridays). Catch every new episode by subscribing at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, or other platforms. If you have a question or comment about the show, please write to Kevin Rothrock at kevin@meduza.io with the subject line: “The Naked Pravda.”

On February 3rd, 2021 President Joe Biden extended the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Vladamir Putin. This treaty is better known as New START, and it is one of the few treaties left that deals with the arms reduction of nuclear weapons between the United States and the Russian Federation. It was first put into effect in 2011 and now is extended until February 2026. This, for now, gives both the United States and Russia more time to stabilize nuclear tensions and shift focus elsewhere in international relations and other regions where nuclear stability is at risk. Do you think it was best for the United States to renew the New START treaty? Was it in our best interests for national security, despite the risk of potential violation and defection from Russia? Do you agree that we need to add modernized weapons systems under the treaty? --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/derek-gutierrez7/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/derek-gutierrez7/support

On COI #68, cohosts Will Porter and Kyle Anazlone break down Biden's first foreign policy speech as president. Biden's speech had little policy and most focused on slogans like "America is back" and "America is a country that does big things." On Russia, Biden celebrated that he was able to extend the New Start Treaty with Russia. However, the rest of his comments on Russia were misleading and aggressive. Biden's rhetoric on China nearly match the hawkishness of his predecessor. Biden said the US would be ending support for Saudi's offensive operations in Yemen. While this sounds like a positive step, Biden left a big enough loophole for the entire War Against Yemen to continue. The US will be stopping the sale of some bombs to Saudi Arabia and will remove the Houthi from the Foreign Terrorist Group list. However, this is similar to the US policy in late 2016, when Biden was VP, and Yemen was still the worst crisis in the world. The most important part of Biden's short speech was what he left out. While leading with "diplomacy is back," Biden failed to address the two most pressing diplomatic issues, the Iran Nuclear Deal and Taliban Peace Agreement. Biden needs to remove sanctions on Iran so the deal can be restored, but Biden now saying Iran must return first and end all enrichment. Biden's position will likely lead to the death of the JCPOA.   LBRY Donate LBRY Credits bTTEiLoteVdMbLS7YqDVSZyjEY1eMgW7CP Donate Bitcoin 36PP4kT28jjUZcL44dXDonFwrVVDHntsrk Donate BitcoinCash qp6gznu4xm97cj7j9vqepqxcfuctq2exvvqu7aamz6 Subscribe Star – Conflicts of Interest  YouTube – Conflicts of Interest Facebook – Conflicts of Interest Twitter – Conflicts of Interest Apple Podcast – Conflicts of Interest Support Our Sponsor Visit Paloma Verde and use code PEACE for 25% off our CBD

Featured interview: Implications of the extension of new START treaty between the US and Russia and prospects for global nuclear armament reduction -미국과 러시아 간 신전략무기감축협정 연장 합의가 국제핵무기감축에 갖는 의미 Guest: Professor Katarzyna Kaczmarska, Department of Politics and International Relations, The University of Edinburgh

In this episode of Russian Roulette, Heather sits down Rebecca Hersman, Director of the Project on Nuclear Issues (or PONI), and Senior Adviser, International Security Program at CSIS, and Dmitry Stefanovich, Research Fellow at the Center for International Security, Primakov Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO RAS) in Moscow.    They discuss the reasons why the Biden and Putin administrations are extending the last remaining U.S.-Russian arms control agreement, the New START treaty; the treaty’s importance; and the prospects for addressing new weapon systems and capabilities in a future agreement. The New START Treaty is also discussed as a pillar of a future, global and multilateral arms control and nuclear nonproliferation negotiating framework.    You can find Rebecca’s bio here: https://www.csis.org/people/rebecca-hersman and follow her on Twitter: @rebeccahersman    Dmitry’s bio: https://www.imemo.ru/en/about/persons/department/full?id=2228 and Twitter handle: @KomissarWhipla    Stay safe and healthy. 

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.

On COI #61, Kyle Anzalone covers Biden's foreign policy. Kyle breaks down the confirmation hearing for DNI Avril Haines and Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Haines was confirmed after reaffirming to Congress she will not investigate the torture program. In good news, Biden's Press Secretary said he will look to extend the New Start Treaty with Russia. However, Biden will take several other aggressive positions against Russia. While leaving wiggle-room, Blinken said the US would end US military support for Saudi's war in Yemen. The confirmation hearings contained mostly bad news. Blinken praised Trump's China policy. He also committed to keeping Trump's failed regime change effort in Venezuela and Trump's deep support for Israel. Both Blinken and Haines said the US was a long way from returning to the Iran Nuclear Deal. LBRY Subscribe Star – Conflicts of Interest  YouTube – Conflicts of Interest Facebook – Conflicts of Interest Twitter – Conflicts of Interest Apple Podcast – Conflicts of Interest Support Our Sponsor Visit Paloma Verde and use code PEACE for 25% off our CBD.

On the 3rd episode of the season, we returned to Blaze Radio as John was away. Gideon takes a look at Arizona Governor Doug Ducey's education plan in the 2021 budget, Ethan breaks down nuclear arms control as the New START Treaty expires, Kirsten explains the controversy of the Netflix documentary Night Stalker and a bit about the story behind it, Alejandro talks about what has brought him joy during quarantine with the panel and Haley discusses the Arizona Interscholastic Association's (AIA) choices on whether to have a winter sports season. This episode was recorded on January 15th. The intro music is "Dedicated to the Press" by Betty Davis and the outro is "We Are Heading to the East" by springtide. Don't forget to follow us on Twitter and Instagram for updates on the show, announcements about our future and more, both are @review_squared. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/thereviewsquared/message

On COI #49, I discuss how the fictional Russiagate narrative created a real hysterical that is killing off nuclear treaties between the US and Russia. The last remaining agreement is the New Start Treaty. The treaty is set to expire on February 5th. Joe Biden has claimed that he wants to extend the key agreement. However, he is now planning a cyber-attack or new round of sanctions on Russia for when he takes office. Biden is planning the attack based on the evidence-free claim that Russia was behind a recent hack into the US Treasury Department. If Biden opens his term by launching cyber or economic warfare against Russia, it could seal the fate of the agreement that caps US and Russian nuclear stockpiles. Afghan Death Squads  YouTube – Conflicts of Interest Facebook – Conflicts of Interest Twitter – Conflicts of Interest Apple Podcast – Conflicts of Interest Support Our Sponsor Visit Paloma Verde and use code PEACE for 25% off our CBD

On COI #48, Kyle discusses what major pardons Trump could handout before leaving office. While it is unlikely, Julian Assange, Ross Ulbrich, and Edward Snowden have had their names floated as potential receivers of pardons. However, even if Trump decides to pardon any of these men, he will likely be talked out of it by the establishment figures in his administration. Russia has offered the US the chance to extend the New Start Treaty for one year. It is unclear if the US will accept the offer to save the one remaining nuclear arms control agreement. While Biden seems more interested in saving the treaty than Trump does, Biden has also committed himself to an aggressive diplomatic/sanctions policy against Russia that could make extending the treaty difficult. Links YouTube – Conflicts of Interest Facebook – Conflicts of Interest Twitter – Conflicts of Interest Apple Podcast – Conflicts of Interest Support Our Sponsor Visit Paloma Verde and use code PEACE for 25% off our CBD!

Political language can have a significant impact on how we understand one another and on how we react to other countries.  I think this week is an opportunity to take time to focus on political language.  We will take an abstract view of its use and influence in our social world.  Thank you for subscribing, and if you enjoy reading this, please forward the newsletter to your friends.  ~ Kevin One of my favorite country songwriting teams is Eric Church, Jeff Hyde, and Luke Dick.   A few years ago, they came out with a song called “Kill a Word”.  It is very clever and well written.  It explores the role language plays in our social world and argues for killing words like “hate”.  I have described it to friends as a mix of ideas with a spin on outlaw country killing.  It is interesting to think about.  The influence of language is something I go back and forth on and, to be honest, I have not resolved everything in my mind, though I enjoy thinking about it.  Nothing sparked my interest in this area more than my time at FIU, which is home to the study of language in international politics.  For example, Nicholas Onuf emphasizes the role of language in social interaction, including establishing rule and rules.  The rules are simply the laws and social norms and the rule is the power that reinforces or forms the rules. We are distinct individuals who interact with each other in various ways and a major part of that interaction is through language.  We relate, convey important things, joke, signal, direct, accept, and a whole range of things through the language we use.  Sometimes it takes just one word.  However, we know what we say is heard by others who may, but likely may not, hear or think the same way as the person speaking.  This can lead to regular misperception and misunderstanding that can be magnified when one of the parties wants to be misunderstood.  However, suspending intent, understanding is challenging.  Take for example the meaning of the word “literal”.  Depending on the context, and sometimes the age of the speaker, it can mean something specific or general. Possibly because it is frequently used in sarcasm, the meaning of literal has evolved to mean the opposite of what it used to mean.  The point of this illustration is that language is dynamic, and the meaning of words can change in many ways.  However, contrary to what I think my Constructivist friends would like to hear, it does not change as frequently as we notice and assume.  We see language in politics as both a medium of interaction and a way to influence other interaction.  Interestingly we pay attention to some forms of speech in different ways.  The medium of interaction in speeches and committee hearings is consequential in the formulation of policy.  We can call that the legal rule area. However, we focus considerable energy on the interaction from the way others influence and use language.  This is what we can call the norm rule area.  This involves protesting and constant bickering online.  As a society, we focus a lot more attention on the norm rule, bickering form of language. I suspect this is because some language elicits more of an emotional response. I think this is another area where our emotions, and those who stoke them, can distract us from one form of rules. I expect that more people fall asleep while watching C-SPAN congressional hearings than seeing a debate on cable news. In fact, there are norms in both areas that have little temperament for one type of behavior in another area. Who wants to hear a committee report read to them at a political rally? Regarding international political speech, one of the areas I am most interested in is how countries define each other and the degree of threat perception. Some of this is related to capabilities and history but there is also an important role of perception that is heard, interpreted, and shared through language. These definitions both mobilize and constrain relations among countries. For example, in pockets of the U.S., the perception of Russia distinctively shifted over the last four years, in ways that had not existed for over two decades. Will that perception of Russia significantly constrain the Biden administration in its policy choices in balancing against a rising China? I do not know the answer to that question but, perhaps with time, that perception may change. In fact, it may occur in parallel to the negotiations updating the New START Treaty. To me, this question illustrates how perceptions formed by language can be both static and dynamic. When looking at the constant social and political interactions of language there are plenty of opportunities to be confused and frustrated. I have collected a few thoughts that may help navigate the subject. Hopefully, this can provide an opportunity to help reflect on language and its unique role in our relationships and politics. Some general observations on language: Language reflects individuals and groups; it also influences them Those who speak things you agree or disagree with have about as much causal influence as others Expect higher standards for rule makers and what they say, but be more patient with others around you “It is not enough to show how clever we are by showing how obscure everything is." ― J.L. Austin “Language disguises thought.”― Ludwig Wittgenstein "Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who misunderstand you."— Karl Popper You can’t kill a word News: I look forward to exploring language in politics in more detail and, as situations arise, the opportunity to apply these ideas. I am enjoying the chance to share these newsletters with you in the form of the new podcasts and appreciate your continued feedback. You can reply to this email or leave your comments below.  I sincerely enjoy chatting and learning what folks think. Thank you ~ Kevin Get on the email list at modlinglobal.substack.com

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.

In this segment Sean and Jacquie are joined by joined by Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste Watchdog at Beyond Nuclear to discuss the US and Russia governments negotiating the New START nuclear treaty, how fragile nuclear peace is at the moment and how past US presidents like Barack Obama have harmed the nuclear peace process.

Signed by President Barack Obama and former Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in 2010, the New START Treaty caps the number of strategic missiles and heavy bombers that the U.S. and Russia can possess. The nuclear arms control treaty is set to expire in February 2021 unless an agreement is signed in the coming months. Rose Gottemoeller, the chief negotiator of New START, joins World Class to discuss what it’s like to negotiate with the Russians and the path ahead for extending the New START Treaty.

Signed by President Barack Obama and former Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in 2010, the New START Treaty caps the number of strategic missiles and heavy bombers that the U.S. and Russia can possess. The nuclear arms control treaty is set to expire in February 2021 unless an agreement is signed in the coming months. Rose Gottemoeller, the chief negotiator of New START, joins World Class to discuss what it’s like to negotiate with the Russians and the path ahead for extending the New START Treaty.

Rose Gottemoeller, former Deputy Secretary General of NATO, joins Press the Button for a discussion on the fate of the New START Treaty, the last remaining arms control agreement between the US and Russia which is set to expire in February 2021. Early Warning features Bunmi Akinnusotu, deputy director of the Rangel Fellowship at Howard University and Ploughshares Fund deputy director of policy Mary Kaszynski discussing what Senator Kamala Harris could bring to US foreign policy as vice president under a potential Joe Biden administration.

From authors William J. Perry, Secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration and Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering in the Carter administration, and Tom Z. Collina, the Director of Policy at Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation in Washington, DC, The Buttonrecounts the terrifying history of nuclear launch authority, from the faulty 46-cent microchip that nearly caused World War III to President Trump’s tweet about his “much bigger & more powerful” button. Perry and Collina share their firsthand experience on the front lines of the nation’s nuclear history and provide illuminating interviews with former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, Congressman Adam Smith, Nobel Peace Prize winner Beatrice Fihn, senior Obama administration officials, and many others. Shermer, Perry and Collina also discuss: even if Trump loses the 2020 election and we have President Biden, real risks of nuclear catastrophe exist because of the system, not the person, why the Iran deal was a good one to keep that country from developing nukes, how to deal with North Korea and Perry’s experience with the Kim dynasty, why the Russians are rational actors who do not want nuclear war, terrorists and the possibility of them getting a nuke, why we must eliminate Launch on Warning and First Strikepolicies, what is in “the football” seen held by men constantly trailing the President? Stanislav Petrov: the man who saved the world, and what this story tells us about the precariousness of our current system, game theory, the logic of deterrence, and how to get around it, why nuclear weapons were not inevitable, and changing the taboo from not using nuclear weapons to not owning them. William J. Perry served as Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering in the Carter administration, and then as Secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration, and has advised presidents all through the Obama administration. He oversaw the development of major nuclear weapons systems, such as the MX missile, the Trident submarine and the Stealth Bomber. His new “offset strategy” ushered in the age of stealth, smart weapons, GPS, and technologies that changed the face of modern warfare. His vision now, as founder of the William J. Perry Project, is a world free from nuclear weapons. Tom Z. Collina is the Director of Policy at Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation in Washington, DC. He has 30 years of nuclear weapons policy experience and has testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and was closely involved with successful efforts to end U.S. nuclear testing in 1992, extend the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1995, ratify the New START Treaty in 2010, and enact the Iran nuclear deal in 2015. Collina has published hundreds of articles, op-eds, and reports and appears frequently in major media. Listen to Science Salon via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Play Music, Stitcher, iHeartRadio, and TuneIn.

The United States and Russia have about 91% of the world's nuclear warheads. And the arms control pact — the New START Treaty — between the two nations expires next year. The US wants to broaden its main nuclear arms control agreement with Russia to include all their atomic weapons, a US envoy said on Tuesday after talks with Moscow on a new accord.US Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control Marshall Billingslea also said Washington would keep pressing China to join the talks on replacing the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) which expires in February.Washington wants Beijing involved because it says China is secretly racing to increase the size and reach of its nuclear arsenal, but Moscow favors a multilateral accord, possibly including France and Britain, Billingslea said."We, the United States, intend and believe ... that the next arms control agreement must cover all nuclear weapons, not just so-called strategic nuclear weapons," he told a news conference in Vienna that followed the talks there on Monday.Matthew Bunn is a professor of the practice of energy, national security and foreign policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School. He spoke with The World's Marco Werman about the implications of the New START Treaty.Marco Werman: What are the main points of the current agreement — the New START Treaty, or Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty — and would you say it’s been effective?Matthew Bunn: The New START Treaty has been highly effective. Both sides agree that the other is complying with its key provisions. It limits the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons on each side. We don't face as many Russian nuclear weapons as we otherwise would. And it provides for an extensive set of monitoring and verification. So, we have more predictability and more understanding of what's going on.Related: China rebukes US envoy for photo stunt at nuclear talks with RussiaWhat's at stake with this week's negotiations? Where have the US and Russia settled at this point?Well, it appears they made some progress. They agreed to set up some working groups on particular topics and to meet again, possibly in July. So that's the good news. They have not yet agreed to any extension of New START. That's the bad news. The further bad news is that the United States is still insisting on China taking part. And China has no interest in doing so. China has less than a tenth as many nuclear weapons as either Russia or the United States. Related: US pulls out of Open Skies Treaty, Trump's latest treaty withdrawal So we've got a presidential election in November. What signs are you going to be looking for that New START is on track and there will be limits on nuclear arms?Well, I think we'll have to watch these negotiations very carefully. I doubt the United States will actually withdraw. But I think that letting the agreement expire — about two weeks into the next president's term, by the way — is a real danger. My guess is that the Trump administration will not agree to extend New START until the last minute. And so it may be a scramble if Biden is elected, for him to get it extended in the two weeks after he takes office. And I think that scrambling, in general, is not the right way to manage nuclear weapons policy. But I think it's not just a matter of arms control. It's a matter of the broader set of measures designed to reduce the danger of nuclear war. Right now, we have the most hostile and dangerous US-Russian relations in decades. We have technologies that are evolving that blur — the line between peace and war — and make it more difficult to prevent escalation from conventional to nuclear war. So there's a big agenda of steps that have to be taken to reduce nuclear dangers. Ultimately, it's the governments that have to take action.This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. Reuters contributed reporting. 

In this episode of the Essential Geopolitics podcast from Stratfor, A RANE company, Emily Donahue speaks with Sim Tack, Senior Global analyst for Stratfor. The topic: The US has announced talks with Russia on the New START nuclear arms control treaty in Vienna on June 22. Russia had long been asking for talks to extend the treaty but the US had refused to do so --- unless a new treaty included China. What's changed? Sim Tack writes for RANE's premiere geopolitical publication, Stratfor Worldview, where you can access thousands of articles on geopolitics and security. Podcast listeners get a discounted subscription rate. Go to stratfor.com/podcast offer to sign up for full access to all our podcasts, content and videos.

On FPF #427, I explain how the shooting at the US base in Flordia was a part of the war the US is fighting in the Middle East. The shooter was a Saudi officer who was training at the base. Before the shooting, the Saudi posted about American crimes against Muslims being the motivation for his attack. While in the US, this will be presented as an act of terror only preventable by killing more Muslims in the Middle East, the reality is more war in the Middle East will only create more terror attacks in the US.  Links The charges against journalist Max Blumenthal have been dropped. He was accused of simple assault while trying to deliver food to the Venezuelan embassy in DC. No evidence has been produced of the assault and what evidence that may have existed appears to have been deleted. Five months after delivering food to the embassy, Max was arrested and held for two days at the end of October. [Link] Jeff Bezos is pushing other tech companies to work with the Pentagon saying, “we are the good guys.” [Link] CBP reverses a plan that would have required all US citizens to be photographed leaving and entering the US. [Link] The US House votes in favor of a resolution that condemns Israel’s annexation of the West Bank. [Link]  Mexican Cartels  Trump says he will not designate Mexican cartels as terror groups. [Link] The Mexican President meets with AG Barr and says he will work with the US to prevent the flow of weapons into Mexico, but would not permit another operation like fast and furious. [Link] Shootings A US sailor killed two civilians Department of Defense employees before killing himself at the Pearl Harbor Shipyard. [Link] A Saudi air force officer training in the US shot and killed three people in a US base. Post by the Saudi suggests he carried out the attack in response to US foreign policy. [Link] NATO Turkey says it expects NATO members' support in Syria after it dropped its objection to NATO’s Baltic defense plan. [Link] Trump and Canada’s leader clash at the NATO conference. Trump called Trudeau two-faced and complained Canada is not meeting the 2% defense spending target. [Link] Trump suggests he could sanction Germany for not meeting NATO’s 2% defense spending target. [Link] Hungary says it will block Ukraine’s NATO membership over Ukraine’s language law. [Link] Putin says Russia will extend the New Start Treaty without any preconditions or discussions. [Link] Ukraine Ukraine’s president says he will look to swap the rest of the POWs from the Ukrainian Civil War in talks with Russia next week. [Link] Trump’s 2020 budget requests $250 million in lethal aid to Ukraine. [Link] North Korea North Korea says it carried out a test at a long-range missile facility. The facility was partially deconstructed when the US and North Korea were making diplomatic progress. [Link] In response to the missile test Trump says North Korea risks losing everything and calls on Kim Jong-un to denuclearize. Trump also warned North Korea against interfering in the 2020 elections. [Link] A North Korean official says denuclearization is off the table in talks with the US. [Link] GCC Qatar confirms that it is in talks with Saudi Arabia to resolve the GCC dispute. [Link] Iran Trump is considering a plan that would send an additional 14,000 troops to the Middle East. [Link] Japan will deploy 270 sailors to the Middle East to protest its ships. [Link] A senior Pentagon official says Iran could act aggressively. [Link] Iran says protesters have been killed in recent weeks but far less than the claimed 200 claimed by Amnesty International. [Link] Iran’s president calls on all unarmed protesters to be released. [Link] The Navy claims to capture a ship carrying advanced missile parts from Iran. [Link] The US and Iran exchanged prisoners. The US released an Iranian scientist who was held for violating sanctions. Iran released and American-Chinese student who was accused of espionage with little evidence. [Link] Iraq Masked armed men in Iraq killed at least 23 protesters. The home of influential cleric Sadr was targeted by a mortar fired from a drone. [Link] A US official says Iran may have been behind an attack that hit an Iraqi airbase that houses US soldiers. He did not provide evidence and admitted he was still waiting for evidence to come in. [Link] Syria Secretary of Defense Esper says the repositioning of American troops in Syria is complete, and troop levels in Syria will fluctuate around 600. [Link] Yemen The Sudanese leader says his country only has 5,000 troops in Yemen, down from 15,000. [Link]  

On FPF #425, I explain why NATO should be dissolved. NATO leaders are meeting in London and there are plenty of issues among the members. Turkey is recently purchased Russian made air defense systems and is refusing to sign off on defense plans unless other countries label the Syrian Kurdish militia as a terror group. France is accusing Turkey of using terror proxy groups against the Kurds in Syria. The French president recently called NATO brain dead, identifying the alliance lacks an enemy. Trump said he would not be surprised if Franch leaves NATO and is threatening sanctions on Franch. Trump is also frustrated that many member states are making no progress in meeting the NATO target of spending 2% on defense.  Links Texas is seeking the death penalty against a man who killed someone breaking into the window of his home. The intruder was a SWAT team member in a no-knock raid. The police only found a glass pipe and grinder. [Link] Jordan Smith explains fingerprint analysis can be a complex and subjective science. The so called experts who testify in criminal trials have dubious qualifications. [Link] Trump is using the PATRIOT Act to indefinitely detain a non-US citizen in the US. Trump is the first president to use this power. [Link] The Trump administration is considering adding a regulation that would require all US citizens to be photographed entering and leaving the country. [Link] General Dynamics will get a $20 billion contract to build Virginia class submarines. [Link] The Navy awards General Dynamics with a three-quarters of a million-dollar contract to supply the ground systems for the Navy’s satellite communications. [Link] Singapore is attempting to enforce its fake news law. It claims a blog posted fake information. Singapore first pushed the author to publish a correction. He refused and is not under investigation. Singapore then asked Facebook to post a correction. Facebook has not responded. [Link] Julian Assange will testify in a Spanish court about a Spanish company spying on him while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy. The Spanish company is accused of illegally spying on Assange’s privileged conversations with lawyers and passed the intelligence to the US. [Link] NATO/New Cold War NATO countries are working on a plan to pay more of NATO’s budget in an attempt to appease Trump. France has said they will not sign on to the plan and already contribute enough to defense. [Link] Russia formally proposes to extend the NEW START Treaty for five years. Russia says it is also open to a shorter extension. [Link] Trump says Russia wants to make an agreement on arms control and nuclear. Trump suggested bringing China into the deal. [Link] A senior State Department official says Russia is in compliance with the NEW START Treaty. [Link] Russia showed US inspectors its hypersonic nuclear missile system under the auspices of the NEW START Treaty. [Link] The Trump administration is 100% duties on $2.4 billion in French champagne, cheese, and other products in response to a French tax on digital products. [Link] Trump says he can see France leaving NATO. [Link] The French president says Turkey is working with ISIS proxies. [Link] US Senators, led by Graham, send the White House a letter calling for sanctions against Turkey for buying S-400 air defense systems from Russia. [Link] NATO awards Boeing a $1 billion contract to upgrade AWACS recognisances planes. [Link] Turkey is refusing to sign off on a NATO defense plan until NATO starts recognize the Syrian Kurdish militia the YPG as a terror group. [Link] Turkey says their newly purchased Russian-made S-400 air defense system will not be integrated into NATO’s air defense. Russia says Turkey is looking to purchase more S-400s. [Link]  Latin America  Pompeo says the US will support Latin American countries trying to suppress riots and unrest. [Link] Trump will place steel and aluminum tariffs on Brazil and Argentia. Trump accuses the countries of currency manipulation that is harming American farmers. [Link] Afghanistan Secretary of State Esper says the US withdrawing troops is not necessarily tied to negotiations with the Taliban. [Link] The US killed a family of six with a drone strike in Afghanistan. [Link] Trump traveled to Afghanistan on Thanksgiving. He said he believes the Taliban would engage in a ceasefire. The Taliban confirmed they have resumed talks with the US. [Link] The top US general says peace talks have a higher chance of working this time. [Link] Fifteen members of an Afghan family were killed by a roadside bomb on the way to a wedding. [Link] Israel A UN report estimates the Israeli occupation of Palestine has cost the Palestinian economy $48 billion from 2000-2017. [Link] Syria The UAE says it hops Syria stabilizes under Assad. [Link] Heavy clashes in Idlib Syria have killed 96 people over two days. [Link] A Syrian airstrike killed ten civilians at a market in Idlib. A Turkish airstrike killed ten civilians in a Kurdish region of Syria. [Link] Two Turkish soldiers were killed by a mortar attack in southern Turkey near the Syrian border. [Link]   Yemen 20 African migrants were killed traveling through Yemen to Saudi Arabia. Reports say they may have been killed by an airstrike. [Link] The Red Cross says 128 Houthi prisoners of war have been released by Saudi Arabia. Saudi claims to have released 200 prisoners. [Link] The Houthi claim to have shot down a Saudi helicopter. [Link] A German court reverses a de facto ban on selling armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia. [Link]

On FPF #423, I break down an Oliver Stone tweet saying the US should develop a more diplomatic relationship with Russia. I look at some of the reasons, so many Americans reflexively oppose the US strengthening ties with our nuclear rival. I take on some establishment lies that created the dangerous situation we are now in with Russia and explain Trump has been more aggressive against Russia than Obama.  Links Russia showed US inspectors its hypersonic nuclear missile system under the auspices of the NEW START Treaty. [Link] The Pope visits Nagasaki to call for an abolition of nuclear weapons. [Link] Turkey is refusing to sign off on a NATO defense plan until NATO starts to recognize the Syrian Kurdish militia the YPG as a terror group. [Link] Erdogan says Turkey will manufacture fighter jets in house. [Link] NATO countries are working on a plan to pay more of NATO’s budget in an attempt to appease Trump. France has said they will not sign on to the plan and already contribute enough to defense. [Link] Turkey says their newly purchased Russian-made S-400 air defense system will not be integrated into NATO’s air defense. Russia says Turkey is looking to purchase more S-400s. [Link]  War Crimes The Navy is pushing back against Trump’s decision to restore the pay and rank of war criminal Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher. [Link] The Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer proposed a secret deal to the White House that would allow Gallager to retire a Navy Seal. Publicly, Spencer pushed to hold a hearing to determine if Gallager would be allowed to retire a Seal. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper asked for Spencer’s resignation in response to the secret proposal. [Link] Bolivia The coup government in Bolivia has passed a new law that annuls the recent election won by Evo Morales and bars him from the coming election. The government made an agreement with protesters to withdraw the military in exchange for the end of protests. [Link] Bolivia’s coup government is investigating the former president for sedition and terrorism. [Link]  UK The UK is refusing to hand control of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. A UN court rules the UK had to return the islands. [Link] China The US accuses China of attempting to influence the Taiwanese election. [Link] The US sailed warships through waters claimed by China in the South China Sea. [Link] Pro-democracy parties win a majority of council seats in an election. [Link] Afghanistan Trump says the US is working on a deal with the Taliban. [Link] An American civilian was killed by a grenade attack on a UN convoy in Afghanistan. [Link] Iraq The State Department has cut or withdrawn almost all personnel in Iraq, overseeing the distribution of $1.16 billion in aid. [Link]  Iraq shuts down 12 tv and four radio stations for supporting the protest movement. [Link]  Libya US officials meet with Libyan strongman Haftar. Haftar controls the majority of the country and is fighting an offensive for Tripoli. The US pushed Haftar to end the offensive. [Link]

On FPF #415, I cover important new dealing with US foreign policy. The House is moving forward with impeaching Trump. I argue that Trump's decision to give military aid to Ukraine is more of a scandal than the alleged quid-pro-quo. A UN investigator said Julian Assange's life is in danger because of the conditions he is being held in. I discuss the importance of getting Assange out of jail; for his own health and the rights of all journalists. The US policy in Syria remains unclear. I update some recent development and the problems with Trump's 'stay for the oil' plan.  Links The House votes for rules in the impeachment hearings. [Link] Steve Beigun has been named the number two at the State Department. Beigun will retain his duties negotiating with North Korea. [Link] Tulsi Gabbard introduced a War Powers bill to remove US troops from Syria. [Link] US veterans are increasingly suffering from cancer. [Link] Russia says it is too late to negotiate a replacement agreement to the New START Treaty. Russia says there is still time to extend New START. [Link] Assange An independent UN investigator into human rights says the UK is putting Julian Assange’s life at risk with arbitrary detention. [Link] Mexico Trump says he will surge to fight violent crime. His new push will include $600 million in military equipment to police forces. [Link] Mike Maharrey explains Trump’s law enforcement surge is unconstitutional. [Link] Thomas Knapp Sanctions The Treasury Department announces sanctions on five Venezuelans. [Link]  The US imposed sanctions on Iran’s construction sector. The US announced it would extend waivers on sanctions for 90 days for work on redesigning Iran’s nuclear facilities. [Link] The US places sanctions against nine Iranians described as being the Ayatollah's inner circle. [Link] Iran announces they will being using Uranium gas in centrifuges at the Fordow nuclear facility. Under the JCPOA, Iran agreed to only use the facility for research. The US broke the JCPOA last year and Iran has been reducing its commitments to the broken deal. [Link] Iran announces installing new advanced centrifuges and developing a new, more advanced centrifuge. [Link] Catalonia  The Spanish high court reissues arrest warrants for three members of the former Catalan government that held an independent vote in 2017. [Link] Afghanistan Nine children were killed by a landmine in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. [Link] Israel A leaked video shows an Israeli police officer shooting a Palestinian man in the back as he walked away from the officer. The officer was released from the police but joined the army. She may face charges. [Link] Iraq At least 13 protests have been killed in Iraq since Monday. [Link] Protesters in Iraq blocked a main port over the weekend. The protesters also attacked an Iranian consulate. [Link] Six more people were killed during protests in Iraq. The protesters are being killed with live fire, rubber bullets, and from being directly hit with tear gas canisters. [Link] Syria Turkey says it will send captured foreign ISIS fighters back to their home countries. [Link] Twelve people were killed by a car bomb in a Turkish controlled area of northeastern Syria. The dead included Turkish backed rebels and civilians. Turkey blames Syrian Kurds for the attack. [Link] Turkey releases 18 captured Syrian soldiers to Russia. [Link] US troops report lacking order and not understanding the mission. [Link] Turkish backed Syrian rebels attacked Syrian Kurdish positions south of the safe zone. [Link] Turkey says the US continues to hold joint patrols with Syrian Kurds in an agree the US agreed it would clear of armed Kurds. [Link]  Iran signs contracts with Syria to rebuild the country’s power grid. [Link] Yemen Saudi Arabia is inflicting a famine on Yemen. [Link] The Houthi claim to down a US-made ScanEagle drone near the Saudi border. [Link] Trump tweeted about Yemen today Niger AFRICOM says the US will begin armed and unarmed air operations in Niger. [Link]

Dr. Zia Mian joins co-host Michelle Dover for an in-depth discussion on the crisis in India and Pakistan, and whether the current nuclear order is worth saving. Dr. Mian is a physicist and co-director of the Program on Science and Global Security in the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University. Early Warning features our Roger L. Hale fellow Akshai Vikram and Esther Im of the National Committee on North Korea discussing recent developments on North Korea, Iran, and the New START Treaty.

Dr. Natasha Bajema interviews Jon Wolfsthal, a renowned nuclear expert with a career spanning several decades. He is the former Special Assistant to the President for National Security and Senior Director for Nonproliferation and Arms Control at the National Security Council. Currently, Jon is a Fellow at Harvard University's Belfer Center and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a Senior Advisor to Global Zero. We talk about what it’s like to work at the highest levels of national security policymaking--the White House and the Pentagon. Then we discuss the push for no-first-use of nuclear weapons and renewing the New Start Treaty with Russia.

In this episode of CNA Talks, Madison Estes joins Vince Manzo to discuss his new report, “Nuclear Arms Control Without a Treaty? Risks and Options after New START.” Vince points out that the New START treaty is set to expire in February 2021 and that many uncertainties and obstacles stand in the way of its renewal or replacement. For example, Russia would like a new treaty to cover missile defense systems, which the U.S. has called a nonstarter. Madison highlights that while the New START Treaty is between Russia and the U.S., the treaty has implications for the entire international system. She calls China the third beneficiary of the treaty‘s transparency requirement, which makes the U.S. and Russia disclose the size of their nuclear forces. Finally, Vince highlights some potential options for nuclear arms control without a treaty that could establish predictability, mutual restraint and transparency.  Go to www.cna.org/CNAtalks to learn more about the participants and listen to more CNA Talks episodes.   Click here to register for CNA's event "An Uncertain Future: Nuclear Arms Control After New START"

From a Catholic perspective, let's first discuss the question of nuclear weapons. (See below a recent statement coming from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.) Then we'll take some time to update efforts by "solidarity minded" candidates for public office in California! USCCBAn ethics and a law based on the threat of mutual destruction – and possibly the destruction of all mankind – are contradictory to the very spirit of the United Nations. We must therefore commit ourselves to a world without nuclear weapons, by fully implementing the Non-Proliferation Treaty, both in letter and spirit. —Pope Francis to UN Conference to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons, March 2017 In 1963 Saint John XXII wrote in Pacem in Terris: “Nuclear weapons must be banned. A general agreement must be reached on a suitable disarmament program, with an effective system of mutual control.” Support for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation has been emphasized by Blessed Paul VI, Saint John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis. The U.S. Bishops have worked for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation for decades. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the cornerstone of global efforts to curb and reverse the spread of nuclear weapons. One-hundred-and-ninety-eight countries have ratified the treaty, including the five acknowledged nuclear powers: United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, and China. Only four nations have not: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. The NPT prohibits non-nuclear states from acquiring nuclear weapons (non-proliferation), requires nuclear states to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons (disarmament), and guarantees access to peaceful nuclear technology (nuclear power). Years ago, President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev called for abolishing all nuclear weapons. Former Secretaries of State and Defense George Shultz, William Perry and Henry Kissinger and Senator Sam Nunn have promoted a nuclear-free world. Past presidents Barack Obama and Russian Dmitry Medvedev committed “our two countries to achieving a nuclear free world.” The Trump administration's plans for the U.S. nuclear stockpile will be articulated in a forthcoming Nuclear Posture Review. The administration will also have the opportunity to pursue an extension of New START beyond its 2021 expiration date, an extension supported by many experts and Russia as “fundamental to global security.” New START Treaty: In 1991, the United States and Soviet Union ratified the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). This treaty limited the number of nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles (missiles and bombers) that each country could deploy. The treaty also incorporated a solid set of verification measures the two nations could use to monitor each other's nuclear arsenals and compliance with the treaty. Today the United States and Russia still hold about 90% of all nuclear weapons, large arsenals left over from the Cold War. START expired in 2009 and with it the verification protocols, but both nations agreed to keep its provisions in effect while they negotiated a START follow-on treaty. Implementation of a New START Treaty was critical because verification ensures transparency and even modest reductions in the number of weapons can set the stage for future reductions. The U.S. and Russia signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) on April 8, 2010, which was ratified by the Senate on a solid bipartisan vote of 71 to 26. The Holy See has “welcome[d] and recognize[d] the ongoing successful implementation of New START.” The New START Treaty: reduces deployed strategic warheads to 1550, 30 percent below the existing ceiling; limits both nations to no more than 700 delivery vehicles; and includes new verification requirements. Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: Despite U.S. involvement in initiating the negotiations, in 1999 the U.S. Senate failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) that would stop nuclear testing. Some Senators who voted “no” expressed concerns about the ability of the United States to maintain its arsenal in the absence of testing and others were concerned about verifying compliance with the treaty. Prominent scientists have argued that the U.S. can safely maintain its nuclear arsenal without testing and that the ability of the international community to verify compliance is amply demonstrated by detections of tests in North Korea. One hundred and fifty-one other nations have ratified the CTBT, including UK, France, and Russia. The United States' failure to ratify the CTBT prevents the treaty's immediate entry into force. The Holy See declared, “There is no reason for procrastination.” It is not known when the CTBT may be submitted to the Senate for ratification. P5+1 Agreement with Iran: In recent years, serious questions were raised regarding Iran's nuclear program. In response, talk of military intervention increased, and crippling international sanctions were instituted to the detriment of Iran's economy and its citizens. Following the election of Iranian President Rouhani, the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China, Germany and France (P5+1) entered into diplomatic negotiations with Iran regarding its nuclear program and international sanctions. In July 2015, after 20 months of concerted collaboration, the P5+1 reached an agreement with Iran that aims to curb Iran's development of nuclear weapons while allowing for the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. In September, a cloture vote in the Senate that would have allowed rejection of the P5+1 deal failed, so the agreement stands. Recent Iranian launches of ballistic missiles, inconsistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2231, but not in violation of the P5+1 Agreement, have raised concerns. In October 2017, President Trump announced he would not certify to Congress that Iran was in compliance, despite U.S. and international evidence that Iran is observing the agreement. To date, Congress has not acted to undermine the agreement. Nuclear Ban Treaty: In a major and encouraging development, a majority of the world's nations supported adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons with the goal of leading towards their total elimination in July 2017. The vote was 122 in favor (including the Holy See), 1 against, and 1 abstention. Unfortunately, 69 nations did not vote, including all nuclear weapon states and all but one NATO member. USCCB POSITION: The United States and other nuclear powers must move away from reliance on nuclear weapons for security. USCCB urges the Administration and Congress to view arms control treaties not as ends in themselves but as steps along the way to achieving a mutual, verifiable global ban on nuclear weapons. A global ban is more than a moral ideal; it should be a policy goal. USCCB advocated for ratification of the P5+1 Agreement with Iran in 2015. The USCCB Committee on International Justice and Peace, reflecting the longstanding position of the Holy See, urged our nation to pursue diplomacy to ensure Iran's compliance with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Church did not weigh-in on the technical details of the agreement, but consulted with many experts on the broad outlines required for a credible and verifiable agreement. Led by Pope Francis, the U.S. bishops and Holy See continue to support the P5+1 Agreement with Iran as a “definitive step toward greater stability and security in the region.” The Holy See notes that the agreement “requires further efforts and commitment by all the parties involved in order for it to bear fruit.” During the negotiations on the Nuclear Ban Treaty, USCCB and the Conference of European Justice and Peace Commissions issued a joint call for a strategy to eliminate nuclear weapons globally USCCB plans to support Senate ratification of the CTBT if and when it is introduced. The Church opposes the use of nuclear weapons, especially against non-nuclear threats. The U.S. should commit to never use nuclear weapons first and to reject use of nuclear weapons to deter non-nuclear threats. The Church urges that nuclear deterrence be replaced with concrete measures of disarmament based on dialogue and multilateral negotiations. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Urge bold and concrete commitments to accelerate verifiable nuclear disarmament, including taking weapons off “launch on warning” status to prevent a catastrophic accident and making deeper cuts in nuclear arsenals. 2. Oppose the investment of hundreds of billions of dollars in modernizing nuclear weapons systems that ultimately we must work to dismantle. 3. Support serious negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty and other prudent measures. 4. If it is introduced, urge Senators to support ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to bring it into force. 5. Encourage Congress and the Administration not to take any actions that could undermine the agreement between the P5+1 and Iran. For further information: visit http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/war-andpeace/nuclear-weapons/index.cfm or contact Stephen Colecchi, Director, Office of International Justice and Peace, USCCB, 202-541-3196 (phone), 202-541-3339 (fax), scolecchi@usccb.org.

-The guys are happy about President Trump announcing his new tax package, which he calls "phenomenal." However, the guys are curious about what exactly "phenomenal" means when it comes to our taxes. Stu says Trump's words and interviews have been “controlled" because, previously, he wasn't being recorded for everything that he was saying.-Stu thinks that former US President Ronald Reagan was the last Republican president who was a truly dynamic speaker. He would like to see a return to such men in charge of the GOP.-Is Trump really speaking English? Stu took French for five years and doesn't remember any of it except the phrase "Can I go to the bathroom?" The guys wonder if Melania knows English better than Donald? Stu thinks that the President is thinking of what to say next instead of speaking the rest of whatever sentence he is in the middle of.-Stu thinks that the Republicans will expand their lead in Congress if there's no major catastrophe within the party over the next two years.-Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch criticized President Trump's tweet that explained his dislike of a "so-called judge." What the tweet really referred to was Donald Trump's thoughts about the judge's bad call when it came to the ban.-Did politics play a part in the judge's decision and does criticizing a judge breach the separate powers in the constitution? The guys say no, unless President Trump decides to step over the Supreme Court anyway.-Stu thinks that Donald Trump doesn't know how to do half of his job when it comes to work versus negotiations and business. The guys think that President Trump should have known more about the New Start Treaty from his briefings. In short, Trump thought that it would allow Russia to build up its nuclear arsenal while the US could not. Newsflash: President Trump automatically thinks that any deal that he didn't write is a bad one.-The guys talk about a private school principal in Manhattan who sent out a letter to the parents of students stating that Donald Trump's presidency is "more troubling" than the Vietnam War, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Watergate, and 9/11 combined. -A woman in Buffalo, New York is angry that her children was taken from her by child protective services, even though she submitted the correct paperwork to allow her children to be home-schooled. Jeff is barely okay with government coming and checking to see if your child is being educated properly, while Pat is not at all okay with such a policy.-A new study of European Anti-Fascist protesters shows that 92% live with Mommy, 84% are male, 72% are aged 18-30, 64% are single, and 36% are unemployed. -Today February 9th is National Pizza Day and the guys wonder WHERE IS THE PIZZA?!?! Listen to Pat & Stu for FREE on TheBlaze Radio Network from 5p-7p ET, Mon. through Fri. www.theblaze.com/radioTwitter: @PatandStuFacebook: PatandStu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

-The guys are happy about President Trump announcing his new tax package, which he calls "phenomenal." However, the guys are curious about what phenomenal means when it comes to our taxes. Stu says Trump's words and interviews have been “controlled" because, previously, he wasn't being recorded for everything that he was saying. -The guys wonder if Melania Trump knows English better than Donald Tump? Stu thinks that Trump is thinking of what to say next instead of speaking the rest of whatever sentence he is in the middle of.-Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch criticized President Trump's tweet that explained his dislike of a "so-called judge." What the tweet really referred to was Donald Trump's thoughts about the judge's bad call when it came to the ban.Did politics play apart in the judge's decision and does criticizing a judge breach the separate powers in the constitution? The guys say no, unless President Trump decides to step over the Supreme Court anyway. -Stu thinks that Donald Trump doesn't know how to do half of his job when it comes to work versus negotiations and business. The guys think that President Trump should have known more about the New Start Treaty from his briefings. The guys talk about a private school principal in Manhattan who sent out a letter to the parents of students stating that Donald Trump's presidency is "more troubling" than the Vietnam War, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Watergate, and 9/11 combined. -A woman in Buffalo New York is angry that her children was taken from her by child protective services, even though she submitted the correct paperwork to allow her children to be home schooled. Jeff is barely okay with Government coming and checking to see if your child is being educated properly, while Pat is not ok with that policy.-A new study of European Anti-Fascist protesters shows that 92% live with Mommy, 84% are male, 72% are aged 18-30, 64% are single, and 36% are unemployed. Jeff asks what we'll do with humans in the future? Do we put them on a spaceship and send them off somewhere? Stu thinks more along the lines of the Matrix.-Today, February 9th is National Pizza Day and the guys wonder...WHERE IS THE PIZZA?!?! -Blaze news writer Tre Goins-Phillips joins the program to tell the story of Christian music artist Audrey Assad, the daughter of a refugee who fled Syria to escape oppression as a Christian. The guys continue to talk about how immigrants have had a huge impact on America's history. Is ISIS the real reason why the US won't accept Syrian refugees? Pat wants to stop all immigration from the Middle East, but is torn with what is going on in the world right now.-Glenn Beck joins the program with 'The Vault' in which he talks about how, during the Civil War, a black sailor lead his crew to escape from the Confederacy and join the Union forces. Robert Smalls was given a commission in the Union army upon turning over a rebel ship to President Abraham Lincoln, and at this moment, his story really begins.The guys talk about Netflix's new series “Dear White People.” The guys are confused about the premise of the show and talk about the dumb costumes that the show claims are okay for white people to dress up in. Known conspiracy theorist Alex Jones is brought up and the guys discuss how his theories fit into a remix of the ‘Ducktales' theme song. Pat asks if "chemtrails" is still a thing? Jeff says yes! Stu talks about how much of a conspiracy theorist Jeff is and apparently he's a pretty big one.Jeff surprises Stu with a cake for his 41st birthday in the latest edition of SPOONS! The trailer for Matt Damon's new movie 'Great Wall' is reviewed and correlations are made between the movie and Trump's presidency. Stu thinks it may be targeted for Chinese audience and not the US.Listen to Pat & Stu for FREE on TheBlaze Radio Network from 5p-7p ET, Mon. through Fri. www.theblaze.com/radioTwitter: @PatandStuFacebook: PatandStu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A look at the funding for foreign militaries that might become law as part of the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that passed the House of Representatives in May. Included is a look at the US funding for Israel's military, the funding for the "drug war" in Columbia, the "new normal" in Africa, the continuation of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the brewing war with Russia. Congress has passed a National Defense Authorization Act for 53 straight years. Money for Israel Congressional Research Service report from April 2014 on U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel. After the holocaust, Jewish survivors who had just been put through Hell on Earth needed a place to go. In 1948, the United Nations decided to give them a country. That’s what Israel is- a country created after World War II for the Jewish people. Now, the fair thing to do would have been to give them some of Germany’s land. After all, Germany was responsible for the Holocaust. But instead, because of their religion, the men in charge gave the Jewish people their Holy land around Jerusalem. There was one huge problem with this course of action: The land they wanted for Israel already had people living there, the Palestinians. In 1948, the land around Jerusalem that had been a British colony was split and Isreal was officially created. In the process, Palestinians were kicked out of their homes. The people who were kicked out - most of them Arab - were pissed about it. They’re still pissed, not only about that original injustice but also because of the continued land grabs that have happened ever since. Over the years, the map of Israel has been redrawn, each time more land going to the Jewish people and less land remaining for the Palestinians. The Palestinians have been pushed into two bubbles - One is a large chuck in the Eastern part of Israel, which borders the Dead Sea and Jordan called the West Bank. The other chunk is a teeny tiny strip of land in the south part of Israel called Gaza. Gaza is surrounded by Israel on two sides, the sea on one side, and Egypt on the other. Inside that little strip are 1.8 million people, 70% of them refugees from the land that now makes up Israel. In 2005, the Palestinians scored a victory in the smaller bubble known as Gaza. Israeli condo builders had to abandon the home’s they built on Palestinian land - described on the TV as “settlements” - and the Israeli military withdrew their troops from the tiny Gaza strip. However, Israel would still control the airspace over Gaza and the sea off Gaza’s shore, meaning Gaza is still surrounded and controlled by Israel on three of it’s borders; Egypt controls the other. In 2007, the Palestinians elected a political group called Hamas to run their government. Hamas is openly anti-Israel - they say so right in their charter - and the Palestinians would be punished by Israel for their electoral decision. Since 2007, Israel has enacted a blockade, allowing very few products into or out of Gaza. Because of the Israeli blockade, Gaza residents can’t export their products, which means they have few opportunities to make money. Israel has also limited what products can come in: They’ve limited food, medicine, access to doctors, drinking water, energy, etc. In addition to blocking products, the people themselves are not allowed to leave. Gaza is often compared to an open air prison; the residents stuck there and their every move monitored by the Israeli government. The Ralph Nader Hour: The situation in Gaza During this latest Israeli-Gaza war, as of this recording, 1,915 Palestinians have been killed with the UN estimating that over 85% of them are civilians. With their intricate knowledge of the layout and personal details of all the Gazan residents, there’s no way that is an accident. The proof that stands out in my head is the UN school - the United Nations was housing Gaza refugees in a school and told Israel the location 17 times. Israel bombed it anyway. Hamas - the political party currently running Gaza- is also behaving immorally. Hamas has been firing rockets into Israel and has said they won’t stop until the economic blockade is lifted.. They've put up their best fight, launching thousands of rockets but have only managed to kill three Israeli civilians along with 64 Israeli soldiers. The law of the United States is that it is our responsibility to make sure that Israel has a “Qualitative Military Edge” over other countries, which means we need to make sure Israel can defeat any military "through the use of superior military means…” As of April 2014, the United States has given Israel $121 billion dollars, almost all of that going towards the military. Money from the United States makes up a quarter of Israel’s military funding. This is sold to the American public by saying that this spending protects Israel - which it certainly does- and on our end, it creates American jobs. But due to a deal made by the Bush administration, Israel is allowed to spend 26.3% of the money we give them on weapons Israel manufactures itself, meaning that none of that money is coming back into the United States. Israel is the only country in the world allowed to do this with our cash. Iron Dome is a missile defense system manufactured by an Israeli weapons manufacturer - Rafael Advanced Defense Systems - paid for with that 26.3% of the money that we give Israel which they’re allowed to use to pay Israeli weapons companies. We’ve paid over $704 million for Iron Dome; not one penny of that came back into the United States. Raytheon will soon get half the Iron Dome money. Even worse, after we give Israel our money, they can - and do - park that cash in interest bearing accounts with the US Federal Reserve, so not only are we giving them cash, we are paying them interest on our own money. Raytheon is also going to benefit from David’s Sling, another missile defense system which is manufactured by the same Israeli weapons company that makes Iron Dome. We also pay for the Arrow, Arrow II, and Arrow III, which are missile defense systems that we’ve paid over $2.3 billion and counting for. These systems are manufactured in part by Boeing and another Israeli weapons manufacture, Israel Aerospace Industries. On top of cash and missile defense systems, Isreal is also in on the excess defense article game. Israel is authorized to have $1.2 billion of United States’s weapons stockpiled to use and call their own. For 2015, the President requested another $3.1 billion plus an additional half billion for missile defense. This is ~55% of the money we give away to foreign militaries. In addition, Section 1258 says “(c) It is the sense of Congress that air refueling tankers and advanced bunker buster munitions should immediately be transferred to Israel…” Bunker Buster Bomb We have a legitimate way to get out of funding Israel’s military. The Arms Export Control Act says that the United States may stop military aid to countries which use it for purposes other than “legitimate self-defense”. Congress did not do that. Before leaving for their August vacation, Congress quickly passed an additional $250 million for Iron Dome. It was so uncontroversial in the the Senate passed it without a recorded vote and the House passed it 395-8. The extra money law was signed by the President on August 4 and the money was on it’s way. Columbia Another thing the 2015 NDAA is probably going to do is extend the latest version of Plan Columbia for it’s 10th year. Plan Columbia is a program for that allows the Department of Defense to partner with Colombia’s government to fight three groups: The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC), the National Liberation Army (ELN), and the United Self-Defense Forces of Columbia (AUC). Plan Columbia started in 1999 and it effectively involved the US providing Columbia’s government with a military in return for new laws, although that’s not what the Columbians thought the deal was at the time. The Columbian president in the 1990’s had asked for US money for a national reconstruction plan. He got a military instead. Documentary: Plan Colombia- Cashing in on the Drug War Failure Since Plan Columbia was originally launched in 1999, it has taken $1.5 billion a year from our pockets and sent it to Columbia for the Columbian military's weapons, training, and infrastructure. 20% of the $1.5 billion we give to Columbia also goes towards planes that kill plants by spraying Monsanto Round-Up Ready poison on Columbian farms. The official story is that we’re killing coca plants to stop the drug trade. Columbia’s cocaine production has gone down but the poison is also working, on farms growing food and animals, who are also being sprayed too with Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready plant killer. Seven years after we started providing war machines and poison to Columbia, the United States and Columbia signed the Columbia Free Trade Agreement. It was negotiated and signed by the Bush Administration in 2006 and it went into effect on May 15, 2012. It expands profits of the multi-national corporations by eliminating taxes the companies have to pay in order to get their products into Columbia. Columbia can no longer tax 80% of the products that come from multi-nationals; ten years from now, they won’t be able to tax any of them. One of the industries that wanted this deal the most was the agriculture industry. Before the trade deal, Columbia protected their agriculture industry. You could bring in food products from other countries, but it was taxed heavily, sometimes over 100% for products including corn, wheat, rice, and soybeans. You know who profits from those exact crops? A little corporation called Monsanto. So, here you have a Monsanto produced poison being dropped on farms all over Columbia, literally killing Columbia’s domestic agriculture industry. Then, a deal is negotiated that allows Monsanto crops to be brought in tax-free to be sold to Columbians who can no longer grow their own food. If the Columbians still want to grow their own food, they’ll have to buy the genetically modified kind from Monsanto that can withstand the RoundUp Ready poison that rains down from the planes in the sky. If your government were working for corporations and didn’t actually give a crap about drugs, this would be brilliant and effective plan to ensure profits in Columbia. And in Columbia, it’s working. In January 2013, after the trade agreement went into effect, the Associated Press reported “Agricultural products giant Monsanto reported Tuesday that its profit nearly tripped in the first fiscal quarter as sales of its biotech corn seeds expanded in Latin America.” The trade agreement doesn’t just help Monsanto. Thanks to the trade agreement, multi-nationals are now allowed to own 100% of a Columbian subsidiary in the construction, telecommunications, and energy sectors. The product we import the most of from Columbia - by far- is oil and gas. Oil and gas account for 61% of the stuff we get from Columbia followed by metals and coal. The stuff we export the most to Columbia are oil and coal products, accounting for 33% of our total exports to that country. Chemicals and agriculture are #2 and #3. In July, the Financial Times reported that Anadardo, Royal Dutch Shell, Statoil, and Repsol are trying to get licenses for offshore oil leases in Columibian waters. International oil companies also want to get their hands on Columibia’s significant deposits of shale oil and gas, tar sands, and coal. There were three targets of the Plan Columbia program specifically listed in the law, and they are telling. FARC is the biggest paramilitary group in Columbia, a large, violent pain in the government’s ass and big time dealers in the drug trade. But the other two groups listed have been attacking oil infrastructure, trying to make life difficult for the foreign companies that are taking Columbia’s natural resources and leaving Columbians out of the proceeds. There’s an entire town devoted to the oil industry - Barrancacabermeja - and the Columbian paramilitaries that fight there are the ELN and AUC, the other two groups that are specifically named as targets in the Plan Columbia program likely being extended by the NDAA. The updated version of Plan Columbia, which is being extended, was created in 2005 by the Bush administration. It gives Columbia’s military 800 soldiers and 600 private contractors. Africa Section 1261 orders a report on the “New Normal” in Africa and expresses Sense of Congress that the US should achieve the “basing” and access agreements needed to support our forces. In addition, it requires an assessment from the Department of Defense on how the US could “employ permanently assigned military forces” to support the mission of the US Africa Command. This report can be classified. Camp Lemonnier is in Djibouti; it's the only US military base we’ve actuality admitted to having. It’s the main operational hub on the African continent and was described by the Washington Post in 2012 as “the busiest Predator drone base outside the Afghan war zone." The US Africa Command, known as AFRICOM, and The East Africa Response Force (EARF) operate from Camp Lemonnier, in Djibouti. The captain of the East Africa Response Force told Stars and Stripes, a military publication, “We’re basically the firemen for AFRICOM (U.S. Africa Command). If something arises and they need troops somewhere, we can be there just like that.” While the task force remains on call to fight anywhere AFRICOM needs them, the rest of the troops guard the bases and train militaries that have partnered with us. In total, we now have at least 5,000 troops operating as part of AFRICOM on the continent of Africa. In 2013, AFRICOM conducted 546 missions, up from 172 during it’s first year, 2008. Missions doing what? I don’t know. Just like in Columbia, we are providing militaries for other countries, apparently all over Africa. Here’s a quote from Vice Adm. Alexander Krongard, deputy commander of the task force based out of Djibouti: “I think the heart of our mission is trying to create militaries that are capable on their own of bringing stability, so you can have peace and security in this region,” One of the biggest propaganda tools being used to justify this military buildup is Benghazi. The reason is that “preventing another Benghazi” has been cited repeatedly to justify sending troops, money, and military equipment to countries all over Africa. The 2008 outrage over Joseph Kony was the excuse to funnel at least $550 million to the Ugandan government - much of it going to their military. Joseph Kony has been around for 30 years but we only got involved after oil was discovered in Uganda in 2006. The outrage over the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram is being used to justify the military buildup in Nigeria, a country we get a lot of oil from. In return for access to their oil, we give the corrupt Nigerian government - which has hundreds of thousands of people locked up and dying in military detention camps - we give them hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. After the kidnapping, more US troops were sent to Nigeria’s next door neighbor Chad to expand the use of spying with Predator drones. The Nigerian government was also forced to accept “international assistance” that it didn’t want. That assistance included welcoming special forces from the US, Canada, UK, France, and Israel. The “assistance” included surveillance drones, intelligence operations, and military training. And it’s not just oil that we’re getting in return for our cash and military- we’re getting IMF reforms too. 75% of the citizens of Nigeria are poor and poverty has increased since 2004 despite the nation’s new found oil wealth. The only benefit the people used to get from oil extraction came from a law that said that 50% of the national oil revenue must go to the local governments of the oil-producting countries in the Niger Delta. In 2011, Nigeria's new President declared a State of Emergency in Nigeria and the next day eliminated all fuel subsidies, an IMF plan which causes the citizens of Nigeria to have to spend $8 billion more a year out of their own pockets for the fossil fuels dug out of their own land. Boko Haram - the same group that kidnapped the girls - then stepped up attacks on the government. Since 2009, the group has killed over 900 people fighting what they say is a corrupt regime. Thing is that the people of Nigeria are angry with the government that keeps them desperately poor and they have supported Boko Haram. Why do we want our military in Nigeria? A big part of it is the 3,720 miles of oil and gas pipelines, 90 oil fields, and 73 flow stations that Shell has in the country, which the Nigerian military is not strong enough to protect from Boko Haram and other groups that want the Nigeria’s oil wealth to benefit the people of Nigeria. And now the media is obsessing over an Ebola in that same region of Africa, and the media convincing us that if we don’t intervene immediately we’re all going to die. Ebola has been around for forty years and this latest outbreak has killed about 1,000 Africans. That is sad but it pales in comparison to the death rate of malaria, which killed an estimated 627,000 people in 2012 alone. The miracle cure discovered out of nowhere by the US military comes from the tobacco plant and prompted the spokesman for Reynold’s American, the giant tobacco company that makes the miracle drug, to say that this could mark a step forward in the company’s goal of transforming the tobacco industry both in terms of remolding its image and meeting emerging market demands. All of these stories are being used to build up our military all over Africa, which is what is described officially in legislation as the “new normal”. Along with the base we’ve actually admitted to having in Djibouti, the US military also has drone bases in Ethiopia, Niger, and the Republic of Seychelles. We have regular military bases in Kenya and Uganda. We have a US spying network operating out of Burkina Faso,Mauritania and Chad. We have confirmed troops on the ground in Congo, Central African Republic, Chad, Djibouti, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Uganda. Just last week, President Obama announced that the US government, World Bank, and corporations will be investing a combined $33 billion in Africa. Corporate America is moving in - and we’re going to pay their entrance fee with money and militaries to shut down any citizen dissent. Afghanistan There are a bunch of provisions in this year’s NDAA to continue the war in Afghanistan. Section 1211: Extends a program that gives $400 million for the war in Afghanistan in 2015. It also says that the Defense Department can accept money from “any person” - and remember, corporations are people now, foreign governments, or international organization” and add it to that $400 million. The permission to use that money won’t ever expire. Section 1212: Extends authority to spend $1.5 billion in 2015 to pay off any country that helps us in Iraq or Afghanistan. Section 1215: If Afghanistan dares to tax the Defense Department or a US contractor, the US will withhold that much money plus 50%. This holds Afghanistan to a deal - “Status of Forces Agreement” - they made with the Bush administration in 2003. Funds withheld by the US taxpayers will go towards paying contractors back for their Afghanistan taxes. Doesn’t expire until Afghanistan signs a new security agreement. Section 1216-7: Confirms that we will be keeping military members in Afghanistan through 2018 and tells the Defense Department to make a plan for it, even though President Obama announced we would be out of Afghanistan by 2016. Iraq Documentary: Why We Did It We're bombing Iraq again to prevent the "bad guys" from getting to Erbil. Erbil is an oil town that houses thousands of Americans who work in the oil industry. Ukraine/Russia Ukraine is really like two different countries. The west side wants to be part of Europe; the east side is more culturally connected to Russia. Ukraine’s elected government was thrown out earlier this year in a coup after the government refused to sign a free trade deal with Europe. Europe wants Ukraine on it’s side instead of Russia’s because Ukraine has some very important gas pipelines that supply gas to Europe and two ginormous natural gas formations have been found under Ukrainians’ feet which the multinationals who benefit from free-trade agreements would love to get their hands on. The law under the old government was that Ukraine’s gas was only allowed to be sold to Ukrainians. The government that was installed quickly signed the trade deal and now Ukraine’s gas is available to be exported. Russia, in response to the coup, took over a part of Ukraine - a dingleberry peninsula hanging off of Ukraine’s coast called Crimea. Russia had a contract with the old democratically elected government for a Russian military base on Crimea and when that government was thrown out, Russia took the land that houses their military base and is full of people who identify as Russian anyway. It really wasn’t that unreasonable a thing to do. This area was literally a part of Russia when my grandparents were born. In response, however, the war mongering psychos controlling our government are escalating this tension with Russia over Crimea to ridiculous heights. And make no mistake- we are central to the Ukraine story. The new government was one hand picked and supported by the United States and Europe. We've given the new government $1 billion, $15 billion in loan guarantees, 300 military advisers, and over $20 million worth of military equipment. The new Ukrainian government has been using our money and weapons to bomb the Russian half of it’s own country and we want Russia to stand down - not that we have any proof that Russia is actually fighting. We appear to be restarting the Cold War. The 2015 NDAA that passed the House, orders the Defense Department to make a plan to defend Europe from Russian attacks on NATO countries and orders a very detailed report on Russia’s military capabilities to be created every year. To punish Russia for taking Crimea, the bill prevents any NATO country from giving Russia excess military articles and prohibits the militaries of the United States and Russia from cooperating on anything as long as Russia is in Ukraine. Furthering the trade war that began with sanctions in the Ukraine Aid bill, the 2015 NDAA is poised to prevent the Defense Department from contracting with Russia’s state weapons company. This may be a problem as the Pentagon has already spent over $1 billion on 88 Russian helicopters for the Afghan military, a contract that may have to be cancelled and the funds shifted to an “American” weapons dealer. The most disturbing clause - prevents implementation of the New Start Treaty which limits the number of nuclear weapons of both counties, until Russia leaves Ukraine. And now Russia is starting to fight back with their own economic attacks. In response to the sanctions which we’ve already placed on Russia, Russia has banned agricultural products from the United States, Europe, Australia, Canada, and Norway for a year, which will cost multinationals from those countries billions of dollars in sales. Music Presented in This Episode Intro and Exit Music: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Bombs Make Terrorists by Dave Gwyther (found on Music Alley by mevio) Honest Gil for Senate in Kentucky

Congress and President Obama worked together to fast-track a new & unexamined NDAA into law. The new law essentially makes NSA data collection legal, cuts military pensions, and spends an enormous amount of money making sure the United States is able to destroy the entire world at a moment's notice. Links to Information in This Episode H.R. 3304: The National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 *The title has been changed to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 since it was signed into law. Previously, it was titled "To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor to Bennie G. Adkins and Donald P. Sloat of the United States Army for acts of valor during the Vietnam Conflict and to authorize the award of the Medal of Honor to certain other veterans who were previously recommended for award of the Medal of Honor" The Cyber-security bill (Sections 932- 942) was added by Senator Jay Rockefeller. Section 1071 creates the "Conflicts Records Research Center" and allows states, foreign governments, and "any source in the private sector" to give money to the Department of Defense. Section 143 prohibits the military from retiring the RQ-4 Block 30 Global Hawk drones, which the Air Force doesn't want. Section 234 gives $15 million taxpayer dollars to "United States" companies so they can set up assembly lines for the Iron Dome missile defense system in Israel. No requirement for profit-sharing with the taxpayers was included. Section 242 says the United Stats shouldn't buy products that don't work unless the purchase is "to mainatin a warm line for the industrial base". Section 811 allows private contractors specializing in science, technology, engineering, math, medical, and cyber-security to be paid up to $625,000/year. The President of the United States makes $400,000/year. Section 813 makes it easier for the Department of Defense to hide their reasons for contracting with suspended or disbarred companies. Section 1011 extends the CIA/military program in Columbia for another year. Section 1013 expands the drug war to Chad, Libya, Mali, and Niger. Section 1033-1039 prevent prisoners from Guantanamo Bay prison from being transferred to prisons in the United States, but allows them to be transferred to their home countries if certain conditions are met. Section 1043 orders a report from the President regarding how he creates his kill lists. Section 1056 only allows the military to "prepare" to comply with the New Start Treaty, not to actually comply with the New Start Treaty. Section 1062 says that upgrading nuclear bombers "must remain a high budget priority." Sections 1701-1753 create new rules governing sexual assault in the military. The Congressional Research Service summary of the 2014 NDAA; note that the "Conference Report" numbers (H.R. 3304 is the conference report) are blank. The NDAA was passed via fast-track, which  means no amendments were allowed. H.R. 1960: The National Defense Authorization Act version that passed the House of Representatives earlier this year; it is officially a dead bill. Congressional Dish episode CD031 highlighted the House's original version of the 2014 NDAA. Section 403 of the Budget Agreement - which has been signed into law - cuts the cost of living adjustments to pensions for military veteran's under age 62 by 1% per year. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's comments on the pension cuts. The NSA has full access to Apple iPhones Music in This Episode Intro and Exit Music: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Somebody's Watching Us by Skybridge (found on Music Alley by mevio)

The ongoing nuclear proliferation issues with Iran and North Korea have put nuclear arms high up on the American foreign policy agenda. These media grabbing developments can sometimes overshadow traditional nuclear arms reduction talks and stockpile maintenance. With that said, President Obama made reducing existing nuclear weapons a foreign policy priority during his first term. Now that Obama has begun his second term with the New START Treaty between the US and Russia signed and in force, should the US consider other nuclear arms control steps to enhance American security? Can there be another major US-Russia treaty and, if so, can the tactical and surplus strategic nuclear warheads that have so far escaped control be brought into such a framework? Ambassador Steven Pifer will discuss the differences between Washington and Moscow over missile defense, the proposal to ban further production of fissile materials and the challenges facing the Obama administration in pursuing this agenda. Speaker: Steven Pifer, Director, Arms Control Initiative, Brookings Institution