Podcasts about yeltsin

No novo episódio do Z2 Talks, tivemos a honra de bater um papo com um verdadeiro monstro das pistas e um gigante do esporte paralímpico: Yeltsin Jacques!Yeltsin nasceu com baixa visão por conta da doença de Leber, mas isso nunca foi um obstáculo pra ele. Muito pelo contrário! Ele transformou os desafios em combustível para correr – e correr muito! O resultado? Duas medalhas de ouro nas Paralimpíadas de Tóquio 2020, recorde mundial nos 1.500m e ainda mais conquistas no Mundial de Paris 2023. O cara simplesmente não para!Falamos sobre sua jornada, assim como o rastro de suor e conquistas que deixou pelo caminho pelo caminho!

Informativo de primera hora de la mañana, en el programa El Remate de La Diez Capital Radio. Vuelve el viento a Canarias: el Gobierno declara prealerta a partir de hoy viernes. La previsión apunta a viento del sureste, con velocidad media entre los 20 y los 40 kilómetros por hora. Hoy hace 2 años: A partir del 1 de enero de 2023, todos los municipios españoles de más de 50.000 habitantes tendrán que aplicar obligatoriamente Zonas de Bajas Emisiones (ZBE) en base a la Ley de Cambio Climático. Y hoy hace 2 años: La vía de entrada a Los Rodeos se vuelve un aparcamiento improvisado. AENA recuerda que está prohibido estacionar en la zona. El Consistorio asegura que carece de competencias al corresponder éstas a la empresa que gestiona el Aeropuerto. Hoy se cumplen 1.044 días del cruel ataque e invasión de Rusia a Ucrania. Hoy es viernes 3 de enero de 2025. Día de las Cerezas cubiertas de chocolate. Si alguna vez has probado las cerezas cubiertas de chocolate, entenderás por qué los americanos le dedican un día especial a esta exquisitez. El 3 de enero se celebra el Día de las Cerezas Cubiertas de Chocolate. Los amantes de esta deliciosa combinación de fruta y chocolate se reúnen cada año para cocinar sus propias creaciones y degustarlas en familia y en compañía de amigos. 1870: En Nueva York, empieza la construcción del Puente de Brooklyn. Tal día como hoy, 3 de enero de 1925, después de su elección como líder italiano en 1922, Benito Mussolini, líder del Partido Fascista Nacional, declara que ha tomado poderes dictatoriales sobre Italia. 1961: Estados Unidos rompe relaciones diplomáticas con Cuba. Estas dos naciones se mantuvieron sin relaciones diplomáticas hasta su reanudación en 2015. 1962: En la Ciudad del Vaticano, el papa Juan XXIII excomulgó al líder cubano Fidel Castro. 1979: Estados Unidos retira el armamento nuclear almacenado en España. 1988: Margaret Thatcher se convierte en la primera ministra más longeva del siglo XX. 1993: George Bush y Borís Yeltsin firman el acuerdo de desarme nuclear START II, para reducir los arsenales nucleares. 2006: Internet alcanzó los 100 millones de usuarios (una de cada setenta personas del planeta tiene acceso a la red). santos Genoveva, Antero, Daniel y Atanasio. Ucrania seguirá apoyando a Siria con ayuda humanitaria, según Zelenski. Los precios europeos del gas se disparan tras el cese del flujo de gas ruso a través de Ucrania. El FBI cree que el autor del atropello actuó solo y descarta la conexión entre Nueva Orleans y la explosión de Las Vegas. Ábalos declaró que Sánchez no le dio "ninguna razón" cuando le cesó y que Santos Cerdán le propuso a Koldo García. El PP reprocha al Gobierno la falta de "respuestas" para la crisis migratoria y Torres les acusa de bloquear los acuerdos. Canarias registró el 73% de las llegadas irregulares en 2024 a España, que roza un año récord con 63.970 migrantes. El máximo histórico se vivió en el año 2018, cuando llegaron a España 64.298 migrantes. Respecto a 2023, cuando llegaron 56.852 personas, las llegadas de forma irregular han crecido un 12,5%. Clavijo no entiende que el PP no dé un paso adelante sobre los menores migrantes “salvo que tenga otros objetivos”. Defiende que ha sido tan duro con el Gobierno central como con el PP, aunque las críticas a este último, su socio de gobierno en las Islas, han sido mucho menos contundentes y numerosas que las dirigidas al Ejecutivo. El nuevo año trae a Canarias la implantación del céntimo forestal de los cabildos. Los isleños también se beneficiarán del aumento de las pensiones y la bajada hipotecaria, aunque necesitarán dos meses más para jubilarse. Desvían una veintena de aviones a varios aeropuertos de Canarias tras quedar inoperativo el de Tenerife sur Un avión privado bloqueó la pista del aeródromo tras su aterrizaje. Los vuelos fueron desviados a Gran Canaria, Fuerteventura y Tenerife Norte. El PSOE de Lanzarote critica el despilfarro en las campanadas de Mediaset: “Fracaso rotundo en audiencia con un coste de 1,5 millones” Según la formación, “fue un proyecto fallido que no cumplió con las expectativas ni justifica el elevado coste que supuso” La emisión especial de la cadena privada apenas logró un 4,8% de cuota de pantalla y una media de 753.000 espectadores, muy lejos de la competencia. Televisión Española llegó a los 5,6 millones de telespectadores. El peor desastre medioambiental de Tenerife: Playa Jardín cumple seis meses cerrada sin perspectivas de solución. La contaminación por vertidos de aguas fecales se mantiene mientras las administraciones buscan soluciones urgentes. Cabildo y Ayuntamiento intentan reparar el emisario y mejorar la red de saneamiento y depuración de la zona. Casi 270 inmigrantes llegan a Canarias en las últimas horas. El 3 de enero de 1969, el nuevo álbum de John Lennon llamado Two Virgins con John Lennon y Yoko Ono desnudos en su portada, es confiscado en el aeropuerto de Newark y no se permite su venta en los EE. UU. En Chicago, una tienda de discos es obligada a cerrar ya que muestra la portada en su escaparate y esta es considerada pornográfica.

Bienvenidos a La Diez Capital Radio! Están a punto de comenzar un nuevo episodio de nuestro Programa de Actualidad, donde la información, la formación y el entretenimiento se encuentran para ofrecerles lo mejor de las noticias y temas relevantes. Este programa, dirigido y presentado por Miguel Ángel González Suárez, es su ventana directa a los acontecimientos más importantes, así como a las historias que capturan la esencia de nuestro tiempo. A través de un enfoque dinámico y cercano, Miguel Ángel conecta con ustedes para proporcionar una experiencia informativa y envolvente. Desde análisis profundos hasta entrevistas exclusivas, cada emisión está diseñada para mantenerles al tanto, ofrecerles nuevos conocimientos y, por supuesto, entretenerles. Para más detalles sobre el programa, visiten nuestra web en www.ladiez.es - Informativo de primera hora de la mañana, en el programa El Remate de La Diez Capital Radio. Vuelve el viento a Canarias: el Gobierno declara prealerta a partir de hoy viernes. La previsión apunta a viento del sureste, con velocidad media entre los 20 y los 40 kilómetros por hora. Hoy hace 2 años: A partir del 1 de enero de 2023, todos los municipios españoles de más de 50.000 habitantes tendrán que aplicar obligatoriamente Zonas de Bajas Emisiones (ZBE) en base a la Ley de Cambio Climático. Y hoy hace 2 años: La vía de entrada a Los Rodeos se vuelve un aparcamiento improvisado. AENA recuerda que está prohibido estacionar en la zona. El Consistorio asegura que carece de competencias al corresponder éstas a la empresa que gestiona el Aeropuerto. Hoy se cumplen 1.044 días del cruel ataque e invasión de Rusia a Ucrania. Hoy es viernes 3 de enero de 2025. Día de las Cerezas cubiertas de chocolate. Si alguna vez has probado las cerezas cubiertas de chocolate, entenderás por qué los americanos le dedican un día especial a esta exquisitez. El 3 de enero se celebra el Día de las Cerezas Cubiertas de Chocolate. Los amantes de esta deliciosa combinación de fruta y chocolate se reúnen cada año para cocinar sus propias creaciones y degustarlas en familia y en compañía de amigos. 1870: En Nueva York, empieza la construcción del Puente de Brooklyn. Tal día como hoy, 3 de enero de 1925, después de su elección como líder italiano en 1922, Benito Mussolini, líder del Partido Fascista Nacional, declara que ha tomado poderes dictatoriales sobre Italia. 1961: Estados Unidos rompe relaciones diplomáticas con Cuba. Estas dos naciones se mantuvieron sin relaciones diplomáticas hasta su reanudación en 2015. 1962: En la Ciudad del Vaticano, el papa Juan XXIII excomulgó al líder cubano Fidel Castro. 1979: Estados Unidos retira el armamento nuclear almacenado en España. 1988: Margaret Thatcher se convierte en la primera ministra más longeva del siglo XX. 1993: George Bush y Borís Yeltsin firman el acuerdo de desarme nuclear START II, para reducir los arsenales nucleares. 2006: Internet alcanzó los 100 millones de usuarios (una de cada setenta personas del planeta tiene acceso a la red). santos Genoveva, Antero, Daniel y Atanasio. Ucrania seguirá apoyando a Siria con ayuda humanitaria, según Zelenski. Los precios europeos del gas se disparan tras el cese del flujo de gas ruso a través de Ucrania. El FBI cree que el autor del atropello actuó solo y descarta la conexión entre Nueva Orleans y la explosión de Las Vegas. Ábalos declaró que Sánchez no le dio "ninguna razón" cuando le cesó y que Santos Cerdán le propuso a Koldo García. El PP reprocha al Gobierno la falta de "respuestas" para la crisis migratoria y Torres les acusa de bloquear los acuerdos. Canarias registró el 73% de las llegadas irregulares en 2024 a España, que roza un año récord con 63.970 migrantes. El máximo histórico se vivió en el año 2018, cuando llegaron a España 64.298 migrantes. Respecto a 2023, cuando llegaron 56.852 personas, las llegadas de forma irregular han crecido un 12,5%. Clavijo no entiende que el PP no dé un paso adelante sobre los menores migrantes “salvo que tenga otros objetivos”. Defiende que ha sido tan duro con el Gobierno central como con el PP, aunque las críticas a este último, su socio de gobierno en las Islas, han sido mucho menos contundentes y numerosas que las dirigidas al Ejecutivo. El nuevo año trae a Canarias la implantación del céntimo forestal de los cabildos. Los isleños también se beneficiarán del aumento de las pensiones y la bajada hipotecaria, aunque necesitarán dos meses más para jubilarse. Desvían una veintena de aviones a varios aeropuertos de Canarias tras quedar inoperativo el de Tenerife sur Un avión privado bloqueó la pista del aeródromo tras su aterrizaje. Los vuelos fueron desviados a Gran Canaria, Fuerteventura y Tenerife Norte. El PSOE de Lanzarote critica el despilfarro en las campanadas de Mediaset: “Fracaso rotundo en audiencia con un coste de 1,5 millones” Según la formación, “fue un proyecto fallido que no cumplió con las expectativas ni justifica el elevado coste que supuso” La emisión especial de la cadena privada apenas logró un 4,8% de cuota de pantalla y una media de 753.000 espectadores, muy lejos de la competencia. Televisión Española llegó a los 5,6 millones de telespectadores. El peor desastre medioambiental de Tenerife: Playa Jardín cumple seis meses cerrada sin perspectivas de solución. La contaminación por vertidos de aguas fecales se mantiene mientras las administraciones buscan soluciones urgentes. Cabildo y Ayuntamiento intentan reparar el emisario y mejorar la red de saneamiento y depuración de la zona. Casi 270 inmigrantes llegan a Canarias en las últimas horas. El 3 de enero de 1969, el nuevo álbum de John Lennon llamado Two Virgins con John Lennon y Yoko Ono desnudos en su portada, es confiscado en el aeropuerto de Newark y no se permite su venta en los EE. UU. En Chicago, una tienda de discos es obligada a cerrar ya que muestra la portada en su escaparate y esta es considerada pornográfica. - Sección de actualidad con mucho sentido de Humor inteligente en el programa El Remate de La Diez Capital radio con el periodista socarrón y palmero, José Juan Pérez Capote, El Nº 1. - Sección informativa en el programa El Remate con el Director de Capital Radio Gran Canaria, Pepe Rodríguez. Hoy entrevistamos al director del Museo Elder de la Ciencia y la Tecnología de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, José Gilberto Moreno. - Entrevista en el programa El Remate de La Diez Capital radio al adjunto del Diputado del Común y Catedrático en Cirugía, Dr. Antonio Alarco. Hablamos de la Hepatitis A, el Ciclotrón, las Universidades y el concepto de mantener y no conseguir más... - En este nuevo Podcast del Programa “El Remate” en La Diez Capital Radio, entrevistamos en directo a José Figueroa García (@josedfigueroa), especialista en tradiciones ancestrales, medicina holística y crecimiento personal. La estación espacial soviética y los ángeles del apocalipsis , y otros fenómenos inexplicables que nos acercan al misterio del fenómeno OVNI a lo largo de la historia . Un episodio que nos obliga a reflexionar sobre el mismísimo tejido de la realidad con José Figueroa García @josedfigueroa -Entrevista en el programa El Remate de La Diez Capital radio con el párroco de la iglesia San Francisco, Miguel Angel Navarro. - Entrevista en el programa EL Remate de La Diez Capital radio a la comunicadora, Rosi Rivero. - Sección en el programa El Remate de La Diez Capital radio con el independentista, Alberto Díaz Jiménez.

Cenários de tirar o fôlego, quebra de recordes, polêmicas e uma animação contagiante e inesperada por parte do público francês. A Olimpíada de Paris foi aclamada como o evento esportivo mais espetacular de todos os tempos. E ficou dentro do orçamento de € 4,5 bilhões, segundo o balanço divulgado pelo presidente do Comitê Organizador, Tony Estanguet.  Maria Paula Carvalho, da RFI em Paris"Foi um grande desafio levantar todo esse dinheiro graças a 84 empresas que financiaram 95% do projeto, além da bilheteria, pois batemos um recorde histórico do número de espectadores, o que permitiu arrecadar muitos recursos e ainda sobrou dinheiro para investir no esporte: cerca de € 27 milhões", disse Estanguet. De acordo com os organizadores, Paris 2024 registrou o recorde histórico de 9,5 milhões de ingressos vendidos, quebrando a marca estabelecida em Atlanta 1996, de 8,3 milhões de ingressos.  A arrecadação da bilheteria alcançou € 1 bilhão 333 milhões, muito mais do que o esperado. Tudo começou com uma façanha: o inédito desfile de delegações no rio Sena, debaixo de chuva. Cerca de 7 mil atletas participaram da primeira cerimônia de abertura fora de um estádio. A bordo de 85 barcos, eles percorreram a capital francesa ao longo de seis quilômetros, diante de 320 mil espectadores. A cerimônia itinerante organizada pelo diretor artístico Thomas Jolly durou quase quatro horas e valorizou o patrimônio francês. O espetáculo foi visto por mais de um bilhão de espectadores que acompanharam pela TV, em todo o mundo, e contou com estrelas do pop mundial, como Lady Gaga e a francesa Aya Nakamura. Do alto da Torre Eiffel, iluminada por milhares de luzes e ostentando os anéis olímpicos, a cantora canadense Céline Dion interpretou O "Hino ao Amor", de Édith Piaf.Pira olímpica sem fogoA pira olímpica de Paris foi acesa nos Jardins das Tuilleries, no centro da capital francesa e virou ponto de visitação. No formato inovador de um balão, a pira de 30 metros de altura permaneceu acesa 24 horas por dia durante os Jogos Olímpicos graças a outra novidade: a chama, na verdade um efeito de luz em contato com vapor d'água. A cada anoitecer, ela subia aos céus de Paris para um “voo" de quatro horas, ao lado do Museu do Louvre.Dar destaque aos monumentos parisienses foi um objetivo alcançado com sucesso. A exemplo da arena, aos pés da Torre Eiffel, cenário perfeito para coroar as brasileiras Duda e Ana Patrícia, campeãs olímpicas do vôlei de praia. "Eu acho que a gente ainda não sabe nem o que a gente está sentindo. É muita coisa ao mesmo tempo, só estamos sentido o peso no pescoço. Eu brinquei com a Duda que é o peso do trabalho que dá para ganhar uma medalha", disse Ana Patrícia, em entrevista à RFI. Já Duda falou sobre a rivalidade com a dupla do Canadá. "Todas as nossas finais importantíssimas foram contra o Canadá e que destino, né? Não sei o que descrever, mas deu certo", comemora.   Também foi diante da torre Eiffel, que o brasileiro Caio Bonfim conquistou a prata inédita para o país na prova da marcha atlética de 20 km. A Esplanada dos Inválidos sediou as disputas de tiro com arco e a chegada da maratona. Outro marco do evento foi a enorme estrutura com diversas arenas montadas no entorno do milenar obelisco de Luxor, que agradou aos milhares de espectadores dos esportes radicais, na praça da Concordia.Foi lá que a maranhense Rayssa Leal, a Fadinha, conquistou a medalha de bronze no skate street feminino. E Augusto Akio, o "Japinha", faturou o bronze no skate park. Enquanto não longe dali, no Campo de Marte, o Brasil fazia história com o ouro na categoria peso pesado do judô para a brasileira Beatriz Souza. "É inexplicável, um sentimento que não têm palavras, eu estou extremamente feliz com tudo o que eu fiz no dia de hoje,  é inexplicável", disse. Heróis francesesNo mesmo dia, na mesma arena, o judoca francês Teddy Riner conquistou o seu terceiro título olímpico individual. Escolhido para acender a pira olímpica em Paris, ao lado da corredora Marrie-José Pérec, Riner foi um dos heróis nacionais desta edição dos Jogos Olímpicos. Além dele, outro nome fez os franceses voltarem a sonhar. O nadador Léon Marchand, apontado como sucessor de Michael Phelps e novo ídolo do esporte nacional, conquistou quatro medalhas de ouro e uma de bronze na piscina da Arena La Defense.Depois de muitas críticas, na fase de preparação, o entusiasmo inesperado dos torcedores franceses com os Jogos Olímpicos surpreendeu atletas e organizadores, ajudando a esquecer o momento político difícil que o país enfrentava, a espera da indicação de um primeiro-ministro, o que só aconteceu depois da "trégua olímpica", imposta pelo presidente. Rebeca, rainhaEm Paris, o Brasil conheceu sua rainha. O time feminino de ginástica artística disputou a prestigiosa final por equipes dos Jogos Olímpicos, conquistando um terceiro lugar inédito por equipe.Mas um nome entraria para a história: Rebeca Andrade, 25 anos, quatro medalhas em Paris, homenageada no pódio por ninguém menos do que a americana multicampeã Simone Billes, que voltou a competir após uma temporada afastada.Biles e sua compatriota Jordan Chiles se curvaram no pódio diante de Rebeca Andrade que, com uma apresentação brilhante, levou o tão esperado ouro no solo. "Eu estou muito feliz e orgulhosa de todas as minhas apresentações, de todos os dias. Eu estou muito feliz de estar voltando para o Brasil com o ouro que os brasileiros mereciam muito e eu queria muito também", disse Rebeca à RFI.Com uma técnica impecável, ela se tornou a atleta que mais conquistou medalhas olímpicas para o Brasil em todos os tempos, somando seis condecorações. "Realmente, o esporte é muito difícil, mas para você ser a melhor você tem que trabalhar muito. Então, que bom que é difícil porque quando você sobe no pódio, não tem alegria maior do que levantar essa medalha e mostrar para todos vocês o orgulho que eu estou sentindo de representar todo o meu país, representar os meus treinadores e me representar também. Foi uma honra gigantesca", conclui Rebeca.Sena banhávelApós um adiamento por nível de poluição acima do limite, as provas de triatlo finalmente foram realizadas no rio Sena. Na maratona aquática, a brasileira Ana Marcela lutou até o fim, terminando em quarto lugar.   Outro destaque foi Isaquias Queiroz, que conquistou sua quinta medalha olímpica ao ficar com a prata na categoria C1 1000m da canoagem de velocidade.Para tornar o rio Sena, que atravessa Paris, e o seu maior afluente, o Marne, banháveis para os Jogos Olímpicos, e posteriormente, para o público, os governos francês e da região Île-de-France investiram o equivalente a R$ 8,4 bilhões. Mais um legado para a capital francesa. Ao longo do evento, os jornais destacaram os sucessos alcançados, principalmente a segurança durante os dias de competições e o funcionamento dos transportes públicos, que estavam entre os maiores temores dos franceses antes das Olimpíadas começarem.  No quadro de medalhas, o Brasil ficou em 20° lugar, com 20 medalhas conquistadas: três ouros, sete pratas e dez bronzes. Os Estados Unidos lideraram o placar, com 126 medalhas, seguidos por China e Japão.  Jogos ParalímpicosApós um intervalo de duas semanas, os Agitos, posicionados no Arco do Triunfo, simbolizavam o início dos Jogos Paralímpicos de Paris 2024, uma oportunidade para pôr em evidência a falta de acessibilidade da capital francesa, como a falta de elevadores nas antigas estações de metrô. A cerimônia de abertura aconteceu na Praça da Concórdia, com desfile de 164 delegações e mais de 4 mil atletas, em um espetáculo sobre a inclusão. A começar pelos artistas convidados, como o francês Lucky Love, nascido sem o braço esquerdo. O Brasil teve representantes em quase todas as modalidades, com a maior delegação desde a Rio 2016. Gabrielzinho foi destaque brasileiroGabriel Araújo, o Gabrielzinho da natação, foi um dos porta-bandeiras e desde a sua chegada a Paris conquistou muitos admiradores. Com 1,21 m de altura, mas um gigante na raia, ele foi um dos principais destaques da competição, conquistando três ouros, e fazendo o hino brasileiro ser ouvido na piscina. O mineiro, que nasceu com má formação nos braços e pernas foi destaque da imprensa internacional. Em entrevista à RFI, ele celebrou esse momento.  "Muito tranquilo, muito feliz sempre, sorriso no rosto, levando alegria onde passa, e aqui na França eu vi que estou no caminho certo, que é transmitir alegria para todo mundo, que contagiou toda essa galera. Então, fico muito feliz e é uma honra para mim toda essa energia positiva", disse. Dobradinha no atletismoO Brasil também brilhou no atletismo, conquistando, logo na estreia, uma dobradinha no pódio dos 5000 m masculino na categoria T 11, para atletas com deficiência visual no Stade de France, em Saint-Denis, subúrbio norte de Paris.O mato-grossense Yeltsin Jacques, um dos favoritos na modalidade, ficou com o bronze e o paulista Júlio César Agripino quebrou o recorde mundial da prova. "Para mim foi sensacional. Eu fiquei muito agradecido a toda a minha equipe porque foi um título inédito, foi um recorde sensacional que a gente precisava e a gente trabalhou muito", disse à RFI Brasil.   Quatro dias depois, Júlio César Agripino e Yeltsin Jacques disputaram novamente juntos os 1500m da classe T11 para deficientes visuais e alcançaram mais uma vitória, só que desta vez trocaram de lugar no pódio. Agripino levou o bronze e Yeltsin ficou com o ouro, batendo o próprio recorde mundial. "Levar um pedacinho da torre Eiffel para o Brasil, levar um pedacinho da torre para a gente. Estou muito feliz de estar levando esta medalha e levar esse orgulho para o Brasil", disse.  A equipe brasileira de goalball bem que tentou. O ouro não veio, mas a equipe ficou com o bronze em Paris, neste esporte paralímpico baseado na percepção tátil e auditiva, em que os jogadores utilizam uma venda nos olhos. Outro ponto alto dos Jogos Paralímpicos para o Brasil foi o ouro da paulista Alana Maldonado, na final para mulheres até 70 kg do judô. "Só gratidão, primeiramente a Deus, é muita emoção estar vivendo isso novamente, muito obrigada a todos os envolvidos, é um time muito grande por trás disso e essa medalha não é só minha", disse em entrevista à RFI. O Brasil obteve 25 ouros, 26 pratas e 38 bronzes, em um total de 89 pódios nos Jogos Paralímpicos de Paris, o melhor desempenho na história da competição. Foi a primeira vez que o país ficou no Top-5 no quadro de medalhas, atrás apenas da China, Estados Unidos, Reino Unido e da Holanda. Além de lembranças memoráveis, as competições deixaram várias lições entre os torcedores, que saíram transformados dessa experiência.  "Me impressiona o fato de eles terem algumas deficiências e não se deixarem levar por isso, sempre buscarem a excelência, um esforço a mais, coisa que a gente, às vezes no dia a dia, não faz. Eu tiro o chapéu e saio daqui com uma lição aprendida. Eles me deram uma lição importante para a vida", disse um torcedor.   Encontro marcado, então, daqui há quatro anos em Los Angeles. 

Send us a textIn this episode, we look at three major stories that all happened in the early summer of 1992. 1. H. Ross Perot decides to enter the race for President after getting over 200,000 signatures to get him on the ballot in Texas. When he decides to enter the race he is polling in first place ahead of both President George Bush and the Democratic presumptive nominee Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. It is a story that shakes the political class to its core as it heads into the Convention season2.  Boris Yeltsin comes to Washington D.C. and meets with President Bush and they begin negotiating an Arms reduction deal that would see the Nuclear arsenal of both countries not cut by a third but to a third of what they had at that moment just after the Cold War had ended. It was a major achievement for George Bush that is lost often in the retelling of the 1992 election. Plus this segment  will also give you a feel for a State Dinner if you have never witnessed one. 3. Senator Al Gore of Tennessee is selected by Bill Clinton to be his Vice Presidential running mate. It would be a ticket made up of youth and it will signal a sea change in the generational leadership of the country. Both men are in their mid forties, Gore 44, and Clinton 45, and both men are from the South and that will help undercut President Bush in what had been his strongest geographical base of support  in the country. It is a big moment in the 1992 campaign, just as we head into the conventions for the two major political parties in America.  Questions or comments at , Randalrgw1@aol.com , https://twitter.com/randal_wallace , and http://www.randalwallace.com/Please Leave us a review at wherever you get your podcastsThanks for listening!!

Welcome to the twenty-fourth edition n of our Russian-language podcast Then & Now with me, Teresa Cherfas. There is a well-known saying from the late Soviet period: “Russia is a country with an unpredictable past”. It resonates anew, this time in Putin's Russia. My guest today is Irina Shcherbakova, a historian, who has been associated with the Russian grass-roots organisation “Memorial” since its foundation in 1988. After graduating from the Faculty of Philology at Moscow State University in the 1970s, she worked in the field of oral history, collecting the testimonies of victims of Stalinism. Through her work, Irina Shcherbakova has gained a deep understanding of how first the Soviet and later the Federation of Russia's regimes' interpretation of Russian history has changed over the years. From glasnost in the Gorbachev era, when Memorial was founded, to the present day, the past in Russia has indeed been “unpredictable”. It is about this and other more personal matters that I hope to talk to our guest today. This podcast was recorded on 10 October 2024.My questions:Tell us a little about yourself. Who were your parents? What moral guidelines or role models did you take with you from your childhood?Back in the 1970s, you began collecting the testimonies of victims of Stalinism. How did you find people who were willing to talk back then? What was the most important thing for you personally that you learned in the course of your research? How easy was it to do this work in Soviet times before glasnost and when the memory of the Stalinist era was still very fresh?How did it happen that you became one of the founders of “Memorial”? What were the goals that you and your co-founders hoped to achieve in setting up the organisation?At what point, in addition to researching Stalinist repressions, did “Memorial” become actively engaged in contemporary events? Was this during the Yeltsin era? What is your attitude to lustration? Should it have been carried out in the early 1990s in your opinion?On the theme of what more could have been done after the collapse of the Soviet Union, people often talk about the need to give a ‘legal assessment' of historical events or to hold a tribunal to judge Stalin's crimes. What do you think about this, and is such a process possible in the future?

Send us a textIn over a thousand years of Russian history only one man can lay claim as having been elected directly from the people. His name was Boris Yeltsin. He is the man who pushed the Soviet Union over the cliff and then became the leader of the fledgling Russian Federation. He stood on a tank in defiance of a coup that was trying to seize control of the nation from the President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev, and while that coup failed to topple Gorbachev, it in effect, stripped all the power away from the USSR President and all the real bonds of the republics that held it together. By the end of 1991, the various republics of the old Soviet Union had declared themselves independent and Yeltsin got together with their leaders of those republics to form a new Federation, leaving Gorbachev and the Soviet Congress with no real country to rule. The Politburo would meet one last time to debate the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This all occurred as one man rose to power in the Russia and it would be him who would lead Russia up until the start of the 21st century . In this episode we look back at him, Boris Yeltsin, and how he rose to the position of President and how he did as the new nations leader.  Questions or comments at , Randalrgw1@aol.com , https://twitter.com/randal_wallace , and http://www.randalwallace.com/Please Leave us a review at wherever you get your podcastsThanks for listening!!

Mark Galeotti is a historian, an essayist, a podcaster, and the author of many books including "A Short History of Russia: How the World's Largest Country Invented Itself, from the Pagans to Putin."------------Book Dan to do an interview or a meeting------------Keep Talking SubstackSpotifyApple PodcastsSocial media and all episodes------------Support via VenmoSupport on SubstackSupport on Patreon------------(00:00) Intro(01:00) Czarist Russia at the beginning of the 20th century(03:50) The Russian Revolution(08:00) World War I and The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk(11:52) Lenin and Stalin(17:00) The Great Terror(21:02) Russia during World War II(28:15) How close were the Nazis to taking over the Soviet Union?(29:50) Russia and The Cold War(37:05) Why Soviets no longer believed in Marxism(39:35) The life and rise of Vladimir Putin(45:35) Putin, Yeltsin, and the turn of the century(51:56) How do we misunderstand the modern Russian government?(55:05) Alexei Navalny(59:20) The war with Ukraine

Teasing the release of his forthcoming book Provoked, Scott Horton returns to the show to talk about the disastrous role of the US in Russia's transition from communism to capitalism. He also discusses the open American interference in Yeltsin's 1996 reelection.Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:The YouTube version of this interview.The Libertarian Institute. Scott's archives.Scott's previous BMS appearance on Waco.Details for the 2024 ExPat Money Summit.Help support the Bob Murphy Show.

Send us a textOn the third day the Coup collapses. This is that story. From the moment the three people perish the coup becomes a trainwreck. At one point they go back to work out a deal with Gorbachev and nothing works. By the end of this day, Yeltsin has emerged as the man who saved the Soviet Union, for the moment anyway, and Gorbachev is on his way back to Moscow, but it is clear to the world that everything has changed. As the Coup collapsed, the many different Republics declared themselves independent and by the end of the week it appears the Soviet Union is on the verge of collapse itself, which will occur later in 1991.  Questions or comments at , Randalrgw1@aol.com , https://twitter.com/randal_wallace , and http://www.randalwallace.com/Please Leave us a review at wherever you get your podcastsThanks for listening!!

Kicks off with listener mail about refinancing given the recent interest rate reduction. Doogles covers a post about universities being debt factories. Skippy is loving the anniversary of Boris Yeltsin's visit to a Texas grocery store. Doogles walks through Marty Zweig's rules of investing. The episode wraps with Nike getting a new CEO and Microstrategy's continuing Bitcoin escapades.Join the Skippy and Doogles fan club. You can also get more details about the show at skippydoogles.com, show notes on our Substack, and send comments or questions to skippydoogles@gmail.com.

About the Lecture: The National Security Archive, based at George Washington University, has pioneered the use of the Freedom of Information Act to open classified U.S. files, and then to match those American primary sources with newly opened (and often now closed) archives in the former Soviet Union and countries of the Warsaw Pact. This presentation will draw on materials from the Archive to shed light on major events of recent history, such as the last “superpower summits” (between Gorbachev and Reagan, and later Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush), the miraculous revolutions of 1989 in Eastern Europe, Yeltsin's turn to authoritarianism in Russia in the 1990s together with the “market bolshevism” (Peter Reddaway's phrase) of economic reform, what Gorbachev and Yeltsin heard from Americans and Europeans about NATO expansion, nuclear follies from Semipalatinsk to Pervomaysk, and the existential threats to humanity (nuclear and climate) that make the U.S. and Russia “doomed to cooperate” (in Sig Hecker's phrase). About the Speakers: Tom Blanton is the director since 1992 of the independent non-governmental National Security Archive at George Washington University (www.nsarchive.org). His books have been awarded the 2011 Link-Kuehl Prize from the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations, selection by Choice magazine as “Outstanding Academic Title 2017,” and the American Library Association's James Madison Award Citation in 1996, among other honors. The National Freedom of Information Act Hall of Fame elected him a member in 2006, and Tufts University presented him the Dr. Jean Mayer Global Citizenship Award in 2011 for “decades of demystifying and exposing the underworld of global diplomacy.” His articles have appeared in Diplomatic History, Foreign Policy, The New York Times, and the Washington Post, among many other journals; and he is series co-editor for the National Security Archive's online and book publications of more than a million pages of declassified U.S. government documents obtained through the Archive's more than 60,000 Freedom of Information Act requests. Dr. Svetlana Savranskaya is director of Russia programs (since 2001) at the National Security Archive, George Washington University. She earned her Ph.D. in political science and international affairs in 1998 from Emory University. She is the author, with Thomas Blanton, of the book The Last Superpower Summits: Gorbachev, Reagan and Bush, (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2016), and editor of the book by the late Sergo Mikoyan, The Soviet Cuban Missile Crisis: Castro, Mikoyan, Kennedy, Khrushchev and the Missiles of November (Stanford: Stanford University Press/Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2012). Dr. Savranskaya won the Link-Kuehl Prize in 2011 from the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations, recognizing the best documentary publication over the previous two years, for her book (with Thomas Blanton and Vladislav Zubok) “Masterpieces of History”: The Peaceful End of the Cold War in Europe 1989 (Budapest/New York: Central European University Press, 2010). She is author and co-author of several publications on Gorbachev's foreign policy and nuclear learning and the end of the Cold War, and numerous electronic briefing books on these subjects. She serves as an adjunct professor teaching U.S.-Russian relations at the American University School of International Service in Washington D.C. (since 2001).

A economia brasileira cresceu acima do esperado. Indústria, serviços, consumo das famílias e do governo puxaram a alta. O investimento também aumentou e sinalizou um avanço sustentável. O fogo consome a Floresta Nacional de Brasília. A poluição provocou a suspensão das aulas em Rio Branco. Belo Horizonte amanheceu encoberta por uma nuvem de fumaça. Na Venezuela, o ex-candidato Edmundo González voltou a cobrar as atas eleitorais, um dia depois de receber ordem de prisão. O assessor especial Celso Amorim afirmou que o Brasil não aceita prisões políticas. A empresa Starlink recuou e disse que cumprirá a ordem de bloquear a rede X no Brasil. O atletismo brasileiro ganhou sete medalhas nas Paralimpíadas - e Yeltsin Jacques bateu um recorde mundial.

Ambassador Robert Gosende served as a diplomat in the US Foreign Service from the early 1960s to the end of the 1990s.From his childhood in Massachusetts to the highest levels of diplomacy, his life story is filled with adventures and challenges - and historic moments. His career intersected with some of the most important places, people and events in the second half of the twentieth century, including Libya just before Qaddafi, Poland during the Cold War, Somalia during Blackhawk Down, South Africa during Apartheid, and Russia during Yeltsin's rule, plus positions in Washington and terms as diplomat-in-residence at Harvard and Georgetown.To mark the 100th anniversary of the Foreign Service, Ambassador Gosende is in conversation in several episodes on The Roundtable with Jim Ketterer, regular Roundtable Panelist and Senior Fellow at the Bard Center for Civic Engagement.

Ambassador Robert Gosende served as a diplomat in the US Foreign Service from the early 1960s to the end of the 1990s.From his childhood in Massachusetts to the highest levels of diplomacy, his life story is filled with adventures and challenges - and historic moments. His career intersected with some of the most important places, people and events in the second half of the twentieth century, including Libya just before Qaddafi, Poland during the Cold War, Somalia during Blackhawk Down, South Africa during Apartheid, and Russia during Yeltsin's rule, plus positions in Washington and terms as diplomat-in-residence at Harvard and Georgetown.To mark the 100th anniversary of the Foreign Service, Ambassador Gosende is in conversation in several episodes on The Roundtable with Jim Ketterer, regular Roundtable Panelist and Senior Fellow at the Bard Center for Civic Engagement.

Ambassador Robert Gosende served as a diplomat in the US Foreign Service from the early 1960s to the end of the 1990s.From his childhood in Massachusetts to the highest levels of diplomacy, his life story is filled with adventures and challenges - and historic moments. His career intersected with some of the most important places, people and events in the second half of the twentieth century, including Libya just before Qaddafi, Poland during the Cold War, Somalia during Blackhawk Down, South Africa during Apartheid, and Russia during Yeltsin's rule, plus positions in Washington and terms as diplomat-in-residence at Harvard and Georgetown.To mark the 100th anniversary of the Foreign Service, Ambassador Gosende is in conversation in several episodes on The Roundtable with Jim Ketterer, regular Roundtable Panelist and Senior Fellow at the Bard Center for Civic Engagement.

Ambassador Robert Gosende served as a diplomat in the US Foreign Service from the early 1960s to the end of the 1990s.From his childhood in Massachusetts to the highest levels of diplomacy, his life story is filled with adventures and challenges - and historic moments. His career intersected with some of the most important places, people and events in the second half of the twentieth century, including Libya just before Qaddafi, Poland during the Cold War, Somalia during Blackhawk Down, South Africa during Apartheid, and Russia during Yeltsin's rule, plus positions in Washington and terms as diplomat-in-residence at Harvard and Georgetown.To mark the 100th anniversary of the Foreign Service, Ambassador Gosende is in conversation in several episodes on The Roundtable with Jim Ketterer, regular Roundtable Panelist and Senior Fellow at the Bard Center for Civic Engagement.

Ambassador Robert Gosende served as a diplomat in the US Foreign Service from the early 1960s to the end of the 1990s.From his childhood in Massachusetts to the highest levels of diplomacy, his life story is filled with adventures and challenges - and historic moments. His career intersected with some of the most important places, people and events in the second half of the twentieth century, including Libya just before Qaddafi, Poland during the Cold War, Somalia during Blackhawk Down, South Africa during Apartheid, and Russia during Yeltsin's rule, plus positions in Washington and terms as diplomat-in-residence at Harvard and Georgetown.To mark the 100th anniversary of the Foreign Service, Ambassador Gosende is in conversation in several episodes on The Roundtable with Jim Ketterer, regular Roundtable Panelist and Senior Fellow at the Bard Center for Civic Engagement.

Ambassador Robert Gosende served as a diplomat in the US Foreign Service from the early 1960s to the end of the 1990s.From his childhood in Massachusetts to the highest levels of diplomacy, his life story is filled with adventures and challenges - and historic moments. His career intersected with some of the most important places, people and events in the second half of the twentieth century, including Libya just before Qaddafi, Poland during the Cold War, Somalia during Blackhawk Down, South Africa during Apartheid, and Russia during Yeltsin's rule, plus positions in Washington and terms as diplomat-in-residence at Harvard and Georgetown.To mark the 100th anniversary of the Foreign Service, Ambassador Gosende is in conversation in several episodes on The Roundtable with Jim Ketterer, regular Roundtable Panelist and Senior Fellow at the Bard Center for Civic Engagement.

On the late Dmitri Furman's account of post-Soviet Russia. Patreon Exclusive: for the Reading Club, join for $12/mo and get access to ALL Bungacast content, incl. 4 exclusive, original episodes a month We continue our discussions along this year's themes (rise and fall of nations; Russia past and present) by tackling Imitation Democracy: The Development of Russia's Post-Soviet Political System. Why has there been a revival in interest in the late Soviet and early post-Soviet period? And in the global 1990s in general? What does it really mean to be without-alternative? Why didn't democracy take hold in Russia? And why did it become an "imitation democracy" and not something else? How was Yeltsin a disaster? And what was Putin's appeal? Does 'Putinism' actually exist? Is it interesting or novel in any way? What happened after Furman's death and Russia's turn to "violent parody of the West"? Readings: Imitation Democracy: The Development of Russia's Post-Soviet Political System, Dmitri Furman, Verso Imitation Democracies: The Post-Soviet Penumbra, Dmitri Furman, New Left Review (pdf) Imitation Democracy: Perry Anderson writes about Dmitri Furman's analysis of Russia's post-communism, Perry Anderson, London Review of Books Listening Links: /114/ Reading Club: The Light That Failed - on the end of the "Age of Imitation" /270/ Russia vs the West ft. Richard Sakwa - on the endgame to war in Ukraine; and /271/ Russia vs the West (2) ft. Richard Sakwa - on the post-Soviet landscape /410/ Reading Club: Deutscher's Stalin - On Isaac Deutscher's classic Stalin: A Political Biography /421/ Who Are the Wrong Ukrainians? ft. Volodymyr Ishchenko - on post-Soviet Ukraine, from Maidan to war   Music: Éva Csepregi, "O.K. Gorbacsov", Hungaroton , WEA, High Fashion Music, Dureco

When the President of Russia abruptly decided to quit and transfer power to an unknown former KGB agent, it surprised everyone including the United States.  What event was making headlines all over the world that when the leader of a nuclear superpower suddenly resigned, it WASN'T the top story?  Find out on this episode of Top Fold.  Top Fold is dedicated to, "All the news that would have been". What does that mean? That means that on 9/11, or when the Hindenburg exploded, or Elvis Presley died, headlines were replaced and stories fell below the fold. What event happened that was huge but wasn't talked about because something else monumental took the headlines? The name of the podcast comes from a combination of "TOP Story" and "Above the FOLD"-TOP FOLD.Original music by David "Beezer" Wagler.Sources for Season 4 Ep6https://www.cbsnews.com/news/yeltsin-resigns/ https://www.history.com/news/soviet-union-leaders-orderhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Yeltsinhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_KoNZkf-2k KGBT 4 Archives - Valley Residents Prepare For Y2K (December 28, 1999) Albersons Grocery Store)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2000_problem https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/Y2K-bug/ https://time.com/5752129/y2k-bug-history/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/features/y2k071899.htm 

Welcome to the Instant Trivia podcast episode 1207, where we ask the best trivia on the Internet. Round 1. Category: 1990--25 Years Ago 1: This city, capital of the same-named country, was overrun by Iraqi forces. Kuwait. 2: After 11 years in the job, this U.K. prime minister resigned. (Margaret) Thatcher. 3: For the first time Pavarotti, Carreras and Domingo performed together as this supergroup. the Three Tenors. 4: Winnie (Churchill) got a ticker-tape parade on March 15, 1946; this Winnie was in one with her husband on June 20, 1990. (Winnie) Mandela. 5: This Brit created the first prototype web pages. (Tim) Berners-Lee. Round 2. Category: Middle G. With G in quotes 1: Hear the howls and clanking chains from this dark underground chamber used to hold prisoners. a dungeon. 2: Merv Griffin used to play this word game with his sister and "Wheel of Fortune" is the result. hangman. 3: Fancy name for a list of movies a particular actor or director has made. a filmography. 4: The largest tree-dwelling mammal in the world, this ape from Sumatra and Borneo can weigh 220 pounds. an orangutan. 5: When vaulting, gymnasts use this flexible device. the springboard. Round 3. Category: Gibson Girls And Guys 1: Cowboy star Edmund Gibson got this nickname as a boy either because he hunted owls or delivered for the Owl Drug Company. Hoot. 2: Tyrese Gibson has appeared as Roman Pearce, known for his banter and his driving, in this action film franchise. The Fast and the Furious. 3: "I need your love like a flame needs a fire", sang this '80s teen queen who also gave us "Only In My Dreams". Debbie Gibson. 4: He pitched for the Cardinals for 17 seasons and even briefly played with the Harlem Globetrotters. Bob Gibson. 5: In 1985 his "Neuromancer" won a Nebula and a Hugo. William Gibson. Round 4. Category: Potent History 1: Sugar cane molasses was distilled into this liquor, a significant part of the "triangular trade" that promoted slavery. rum. 2: In 1729 and 1751 Britain passed acts aimed at curbing the consumption of this alcohol that originated in the Netherlands. gin. 3: Vodka was involved in 1994 as this white-haired Russian leader was found on a D.C. street in his underwear hailing cabs to go get pizza. Yeltsin. 4: The Whiskey Rebellion culminated in 1794 among farmers of the Monongahela Valley in this state. Pennsylvania. 5: In 1923 a beer hall called the Burgerbraukeller in this German city was the starting point of a failed putsch. Munich. Round 5. Category: The 5Th Beatle 1: This Beatles producer started out making comedy records with Peter Sellers. (Sir) George Martin. 2: After being replaced by Ringo Starr in 1962, this man got a job in a bakery and then became a civil servant. Pete Best. 3: In "Backbeat" Stephen Dorff played this alliterative bassist who died of a cerebral hemorrhage in 1962. (Stuart) Sutcliffe. 4: This manager who died in 1967 was referred to as the "Fifth Beatle". Brian Epstein. 5: This keyboardist, who died in 2006, sat in with the Beatles often and also wrote Joe Cocker's hit "You Are So Beautiful". Billy Preston. Thanks for listening! Come back tomorrow for more exciting trivia!Special thanks to https://blog.feedspot.com/trivia_podcasts/ AI Voices used

Putin was a working class outsider who rose through the ranks to the Country's top job. Once at the top, Putin consolidated his position by eiminating opposition and giving Russia a strategic economic advantage. Xi was a Princeling who ended up on the wrong side during Mao's time. But Xi believed in Mao and came back, aspiring to be Mao 2.0

Oana Lungescu groeide op in de ‘gruwelijkste dictatuur van het Oostblok', Roemenië, waar ze gevolgd werd door de geheime dienst. Als BBC-redacteur zag ze de executie van dictator Ceaușescu. Bijna 14 jaar was ze de eerste woordvoerder van de NAVO - die deze week 75 jaar bestaat - en de secretaris-generaal.Jaap Jansen en PG Kroeger praten met Oana Lungescu over haar avontuurlijke leven, de schok van 2021, de oorlog in Oekraïne en de tweede jeugd van het Atlantisch Bondgenootschap: "Als we eensgezind zijn kunnen we elke tegenstander aan." ***Deze aflevering is mede mogelijk gemaakt door de Atlantische Commissie en met donaties van luisteraars. Word ook vriend van de show!Heb je belangstelling om in onze podcast te adverteren of ons te sponsoren? Zend een mailtje naar adverteren@dagennacht.nl en wij zoeken contact.Op sommige podcast-apps kun je niet alles lezen. De complete tekst en een overzicht van al onze eerdere afleveringen vind je hier***This podcast holds a wide ranging dialogue with Oana Lungescu, the longest serving NATO-spokesperson in history. The episode starts and ends in Dutch. The conversation in English starts after three minutes and ends at 1 hour and 15 minutes.At its 75th birthday Lungescu's perspective is quite unique. Oana witnessed at first hand all major summits, meetings, controversies and personalities since many years. And her background as a refugee from the Ceaușescu tyranny in Romania gives her analysis additional historical relevance.We first speak about life in Romania during that dark era. It is a tale of hunger, repression, Securitate persecution and escape to the West. Oana then tells about the fascinating times she witnessed at NATO in the years of upheaval of Obama, Trump, Putin, war in Ukraine and threats to Moldova, the Baltics and all of NATO. Riveting is her story about Yeltsin pleading Clinton to hand Europe over to Russia's geopolitical care, as a logical development from earlier history after the collapse of the Soviet Union.Working very closely with the NATO secretary generals for many years makes the portraits Oana sketches of people like Rasmussen and Stoltenberg, as well as Klaus Iohannis and Mark Rutte very interesting and enlightening. Key to success and leadership are excellent listening qualities and strong cultural empathy.***Oana Lungescu was 31 toen de Muur viel en net enkele jaren ontsnapt aan de tirannie in haar vaderland Roemenië. Het verhaal over armoede, honger, rantsoenen en repressie gedurende heel haar jeugd is huiveringwekkend. Hoe de beruchte Securitate haar stervende vader benutte in een vergeefse poging Oana informant te maken - het geeft de luisteraar koude rillingen.Langer dan wie ook trad zij op als woordvoerder van de NAVO. Politico omschreef haar als ‘een van de invloedrijkste vrouwen in Brussel'. Haar rijke ervaring klinkt door in heel het gesprek.Door haar ervaringen was ze nooit zónder diepe angst voor Rusland, erkent ze. De inval op de Krim werd in haar ogen naïef bekeken. En toch was hóe Vladimir Poetin eind 2021 zijn overval op Oekraïne plande ‘een stomp in mijn maag'. In een adembenemend relaas vertelt ze hoe de Russische president Boris Jeltsin in 1999 aan zijn Amerikaanse collega Bill Clinton voorstelde samen de wereld te verdelen. "Geef mij Europa." Ze werkte 24/7 met de secretarissen-generaal Anders Fogh Rasmussen en Jens Stoltenberg en vertelt aan wat voor eigenschappen een goede sg moet voldoen. Cruciaal is culturele empathie met 32 lidstaten, echt niet alleen met Amerika. Al is het best handig te weten welk dessert Barack Obama lekker vindt. En cruciaal is het vermogen met weinig woorden iets te zeggen dat afschrikt. 'Strategic ambiguity' is het toverwoord. Dat de statisticus Stoltenberg de cijfers rond het halen van de 2 procent van het bruto nationaal product aan defensie-uitgaven zeer precies bijhoudt, is een boeiend detail. Scherp wijst zij erop dat juist een eeuwenoud mercantiel land als het onze de betekenis van Pacta sunt servanda zou moeten begrijpen. "Niet om Joe Biden een plezier te doen. Niet omdat Donald Trump toetert. Maar omdat het in ons aller belang is voor de veiligheid van elk land." Met zoveel ervaring is het des te spannender haar en detail te volgen rond de opvolging van Stoltenberg. Haar portret van Klaus Iohannis – de rivaal van Mark Rutte als kandidaat secretaris-generaal - is zeer informatief. Haar analyse van wat een sg móet kunnen niet minder. "Héél goed kunnen luisteren, heel goed polderen en af en toe voor de toepen uit durven lopen op een cruciaal thema." Het 75 jaar Jubileum in Washington in juli noemt zij bewust geen 'feestelijk gebeuren." De wereldsituatie is meer gespannen dan ooit sinds 1989, ‘dat jaar van genade'. Oana Lungescu drukt ons – Europeanen - op het hart anders te leren kijken en denken. Er is geen specifiek 'Europees politiek en strategisch theater' meer. Zo kijkt Xi niet, zo kijkt Poetin niet en Washington kijkt al heel lang zo niet meer.***Verder luisteren404 - 75 jaar NAVO: in 1949 veranderde de internationale positie van Nederland voorgoed361 - Vilnius, juli 2023: NAVO-top in het oog van de storm348 – Oud-premier Natalia Gavrilița over Moldavië - het kleine, ook bedreigde buurland van Oekraïne339 – De geopolitiek van de 19e eeuw is terug. De eeuw van Bismarck336 - Timothy Garton Ash: Hoe Europa zichzelf voor de derde keer opnieuw uitvindt279 - Jaap de Hoop Scheffer over Poetin, Oekraïne, de NAVO en de toekomst van de EU 272 - Dankzij Poetin: nu écht intensief debat over de toekomst van Europa265 - Toetreding tot de NAVO, de reuzensprong van Finland257 - Het machtige Rusland als mythe: hoe 'speciale militaire operaties' een fiasco werden256 - Na de inval in Oekraïne: 'Nu serieus werk maken van Europese defensiesamenwerking'163 - De ondergang van de Sovjet-Unie: hoe een wereldmacht verdampte31 - Jamie Shea, oud-woordvoerder van de NAVO***Tijdlijn00:00:00 – Deel 100:23:49 – Deel 200:40:37 – Deel 301:24:00 – Einde Zie het privacybeleid op https://art19.com/privacy en de privacyverklaring van Californië op https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Find me and the show on social media @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd   FULL TRANSCRIPT Announcer (00:06): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Wilmer Leon (00:15): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which most events take place. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between current events and the broader historic context in which these events occur. This enables you to better understand and analyze these events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode. The issues before us are, what are the three steps leading to war, and what's the real story behind the so-called Uyghur genocide or oppression in China? My guest today is a peace activist, a writer, a teacher, a political analyst, KJ Noh. KJ, welcome to the show. Speaker 3 (01:22): Thank you. Pleasure to be with you. Wilmer Leon (01:24): So in talking with you yesterday, you had expressed this concept that there are three steps leading to war. You talked about an information war, you talked about shaping of the environment and provocation. As we look at what's transpiring between the United States and Russia, as we look at what's transpiring more specifically between the United States and China over Taiwan, walk us through these steps and how these steps apply to where we are today. Speaker 3 (02:03): Yes, this is exactly what is going on. So the first thing to understand is that before the US goes to war, there is an information campaign, which we can understand as both manufacturing consent and stirring up people's emotions to demonize and to other the opponent. And so we see that very, very clearly in China. That's been ongoing for many years now. But if you look at all the polls, everybody is convinced that China is a threat. So the first step is information warfare, which is the pre kinetic sube dimension of war. The second dimension is shaping the environment. The US never likes to go to war without shaping the environment first. So in order to do that, it wants to weaken the adversary and it wants to bring as much force to bear as possible against its opponents. So we see that right now with the United States. (03:08) It's created a vast set of alliances against China, Aus Jaas, JAAS, the Quad, NATO plus, and then you can see that there is the first island chain, which it has completely militarized, and it is prepositioning supplies, materials, troops, all along it, including troops, right on Gman Island of Taiwan, which is less than three miles from the mainland. So you see the constant shaping of the environment. Also, you will see preparations for war in terms of massive military exercises. You see this in Korea, which spent 200 days out of the past year in constant military exercises. You see the military exercises all over the Pacific, which are essentially nonstop. And then the last step is the provocation. That is you want to provoke the other side to fire the first shot. You want to wrong foot them so that then you can build on all the demonization and the ally building that you've created and then use that as a ally to start the war. (04:25) And we see these provocations happening more and more frequently. We see the provocations by the Philippines against the Chinese overtaking their boats, trying to cut them off and seeing if they'll get rammed. You see the provocations on the Korean peninsula where there's this constant in your face provocation against North Korea, threatening to decapitate, sending the message to Korean troops to shoot first and report later, shoot, first report later. And you see the provocation, as I just mentioned, in Jinman Island where you have US special forces troops parked permanently three miles away from the Chinese mainland. Imagine if the PLA stationed Chinese troops on Key West or Galveston Island or the Farone Island just right up against the nose of right up against the US coast. Would that be considered provocative? I would think so. And so essentially we see all these three steps happening, the information warfare, the hatemongering, the shaping of the environment, the very, very deliberate shaping of the environment for war, and then the constant provocation. So this is why I think that we have to be very, very careful that it will just take one small misstep in this minefield for something to go off, and that will create a chain reaction that will affect the entire Pacific. Wilmer Leon (06:06): So we saw in the seventies, we saw Nixon go to China. Henry Kissinger helped to orchestrate that entire process and a development of a reproach mon with China. And one of the objectives of that was to be sure that China stayed on our side of the equation as the United States was still involved in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. When we got to, I think it was the Obama administration, that's where this whole idea of the pivot towards China started to manifest itself. What, first of all, do I have my history? And then secondly, if so, what is it that or who was in the American foreign policy elite that decided that this pivot needed to take place? Speaker 3 (07:09): Yeah, that's a really, really good question. I have to go back to a little bit of the history. You absolutely are about Nixon. Nixon tried to peel China off away from the Soviet Union as part of their Cold War strategy, and then they engaged with China, and then they dumped Taiwan, which previous to that had been considered the legitimate China, but they were always hedging, so they always kind of had their foot partially on Taiwan because they didn't want to give it up completely. Wilmer Leon (07:43): They who Speaker 3 (07:44): The US establishment didn't want to give it up completely as a US outpost. And so they always kept a little foot in there. And so this is what they call strategic ambiguity. But the official line was the one China policy. The Shanghai communicates essentially there's only one China. The PRC is the legitimate government of China. Taiwan Island is a part of China, and any issues between Taiwan province and China are to be resolved amongst themselves. The US is going to withdraw troops, it's going to withdraw arms, and it's not going to be involved. That was the agreement, and that was the foundation of the relationship between the US and China. All of that is now completely dissolved. It's gone. There is no defacto one China policy anymore. But who started this war? That is the $64,000 question. In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, the NeoCon Mino, Greece, he wrote a document called the Defense Planning Guidance Document, and essentially it was declaration that the United States would be the uni polo global hegemon, regardless, and at any measure, uni polo global hegemon simply means that it would be the boss of the world and it would take any measure, it would go to war, et cetera, as necessary. (09:12) This document, the defense planning guidance document, became the project for a new American century. The project for a new American century was unquote disavowed, but it's simply mutated, and then it was picked up again by a group of people at Center for a New American Security. And those two words, new American, they are not a coincidence. The CNA or Center for New American Security is a kind of a reestablishment of the neocons who started pen A. And so you see this entire chain of ideology continuing from Wolfowitz and the people around him, the neocons around him, the Cheney, Wilmer Leon (09:57): Dick Cheney, Speaker 3 (09:59): Yes, Wilmer Leon (10:00): Richard Pearl, Speaker 3 (10:01): Richard Pearl, all of these neocons, they simply bequeathed their legacy onto a younger group of neocons, the neocons who are associated with the Center for New American Security. Wilmer Leon (10:13): In fact, let me jump in. I'm sorry. Just really quickly on the pen side with Wolfowitz and Pearl, I think Scooter Libby, when George HW Bush was in the White House, that crew came to him and wanted to promote all of this rhetoric. He referred to them as the crazies and said, and this is from Ray McGovern who was in the White House at the time with the CIA said, get these crazies out of here and keep them away from me. And I think it was George HW that by pushing them out, that moved them to Form P NAC and all of that. Speaker 3 (11:02): Absolutely. And remember, these crazies also wanted to go to war against China in the early two thousands. So it was actually, and Wilmer Leon (11:12): They also wanted Bill Clinton to overthrow Saddam Hussein. They sent, and folks, you can go and look on the, you can Google this and you can pull up the letter and see all the signatories to the letter. They sent a letter to Bill Clinton when he was president, asking him to invade Iraq. And he said, no, Speaker 3 (11:35): Exactly. And then nine 11 happened, and the Pen Act document actually said, we need something like a Pearl Harbor in order to be able to trigger our plans. And so then conveniently, nine 11 happened, and then Iraq was invaded. But anyway, these crazies never went away. They went into various think tanks, but one of the key think tanks is CNAs, which is an outcome. It's a kind of an annex of CSIS itself, one of the deep state think tanks. And starting 2008, they drew up a plan for War against China specifically. There's an organization called CSBA, which is, it's a kind of a think tank. It's a procurement and strategy think tank associated with the Pentagon. And it was once again, related to another deep state think tank inside the Pentagon that does long-term strategic planning. And they came up with something called Air Sea Battle, which is the doctrine of war against China. (12:48) So since then with Air Sea Battle, air Sea Battle is actually, it's derived from Air land battle, which was the doctrine of war against the Soviet Union, which is why it has a similar resonance to it. And that itself was derived from the Israeli doctrine of war from the Yom Kippur war where they did massive aggressive strikes deep inside their opponents infrastructure. And that became Airland battle. Airland battle was never used against the Soviet Union, but it was used in Iraq, in Kosovo, et cetera. Colloquially, it's known as shock and awe. And they created a shock and awe version for China called Air Sea Battle. And that was developed in earnest starting around 2009. And then remember 2012, the US declared the pivot to Asia. So this is the Obama administration. They essentially declared in so many terms that we are going to make sure that China does not develop any further. (14:06) We're going to encircle China, we're going to station troops in Australia. It was declared in Adelaide. We're going to encircle the entire, essentially it was a plan to encircle China all along the first island chain from the corals to Japan, to Okinawa to Taiwan Island along the Philippine Archipelago, and then all the way to Indonesia. This very, very deliberate plan to encircle and to escalate to war against China. 2008 and 2009 was really the turning point, because it was the time of the change. It was the global financial crash, and the people who engaged with China, they engaged with China under the conceit that China would essentially be absorbed into the US capitalist system. That is, it would become a tenant farmer on the US capitalist plantation. Wilmer Leon (15:11): That's what they tried to do with the Soviet Union. Speaker 3 (15:13): Exactly, exactly. Wilmer Leon (15:15): Under Gorbachev, Speaker 3 (15:16): Exactly right. Yes. So we would become a tenant under the global US capitalist plantation, or it would collapse. That was what they believed. And then in 2008, the Western Catalyst financial system collapsed on itself, and it turned out that China was not going to collapse. It was actually incredibly strong, incredibly resilient, and they actually had to go hat in hand to China to beg for support, in order to prop up the system and then to do a controlled demolition on the backs of the working class here. And so when that became clear that China was not going to collapse and it was not going to be subordinated, then the DCAS came out and explicit doctrine of war started to be prepared. This is what I referred to as Air Sea baffle. So that doctrine of war was created inside various think tanks, CSBA, and then supported by css, CNAs, et cetera. (16:18) And then when the Obama administration transition, those plans were simply kept alive with CNAS, and some of it was incorporated into Trump's strategy, but Trump had neo mercantile tendencies, so he was not as aggressive as they would like him to be. And then when Biden came back, the pivot to Asia was rebranded as the Indo-Pacific Strategy, and it's gone full tilt since then. So we see this constant escalation, as I said, the information warfare, the shaping, the environment, the exercises, the alliances, the prepositioning, and then we see the constant provocation. So we are well on the way to war. Henry Kissinger said that we were in the foothills of a cold war. No, we are high up in high altitude and very, very close to kinetic war. Wilmer Leon (17:14): I think I said when I made the reference to Russia that that's what they try to do with Gorbachev, but I think it was Yeltsin to Gorbachev is where all of that financial intrigue was taking place. And I think it was Gorbachev who realized the danger on the horizon and shifted the game plan on the United States, which is why one of the reasons why Gorbachev Gorbachev had to go leading us into where we are now with President Putin. But that's another, I hope I have again, that history, right? Yes, (17:50) Absolutely. So with all that you've just laid out, and before we get into some of the specifics about the info war, as all of this is going on, what we also have is the de-industrialization of the United States and the offshoring or outsourcing of American manufacturing to China. So how do you, on the one hand, offshore or outsource your manufacturing, particularly as a capitalist economy, going to China in search of cheaper labor to make more profit, but then at the same time, you're planning to go to war with the people that are manufacturing a whole lot of the stuff that your country consumes? Is that a good question? Speaker 3 (18:53): Yeah, no, it's absolutely valid. I mean, it's a very, very good point. That's the core contradiction. The US has outsourced Wilmer Leon (19:00): Needs, and by the way, the country that you go to buy your bonds so that your economy can stay afloat. Speaker 3 (19:07): Absolutely. Absolutely. Right. So not only has China financed the United States and supported or propped up the US dollar as the global reserve currency, but also the US exported its industrial base to China because it thought that it could simply exploit the hell out of the Chinese worker at the cost of the US worker, Wilmer Leon (19:33): The sick man of Asia mentality, and we can just play these Chinese people for fools. Speaker 3 (19:38): Exactly. Exactly. So exploit the hell out of them, make a killing, and then eventually China would be completely absorbed into the US capitalist system, or it would collapse, right? It was either collapse or be absorbed. This is what Bill Clinton believed. So that was the plan, except that China developed on its own terms, and it showed that not only is it possible to develop that it doesn't have to become subjugated to the west, to the western institutions, that's when the daggers came out. But now there is the contradiction that on the one hand, the US wants to go to war against China. On the other hand, it's significantly, it's so deeply enmeshed with Chinese industry and the Chinese economy that it is not easy. And so it's trying this very delicate operation of what they refer to as de-risking, but it's really decoupling, and they're trying to separate themselves from China as you would try to separate conjoined twins. (20:43) Except the problem is that China has the beating heart, the beating heart of the industry. So if you separate that out, then you're going to give yourself a lot of problems. And so they have not thought this through, but these are people who are not known for their clear thinking. As I said, they're neocons, they're neo neocons, they're crazies. They are drunk with power. They do not want to give up their power and their dominance over the planet, certainly not to China, and they would rather end the planet than see the end of their hegemony, of their dominance. And that's the really dangerous moment that we're in. I've referred to it as a drunk who as the bar is closing and your credit cards are being rejected, you've struck out with everybody. You're just spoiling for a fight, a fight. You're not going to go home without a fight. And that's currently what it looks like right now. Wilmer Leon (21:44): So the first element of the three that you mentioned is the info war. So we're being told that President Xi is an authoritarian. We're being told that China has stolen American manufacturing secrets and has exploited American manufacturing processes. We're being told that China is trying to take over Africa. There are a number of stories that get repeated ATD nauseum, very little if any evidence to support them. But this is the info drumbeat that you keep hearing on M-S-N-B-C and CNN and Fox News. So let's start with the G is a authoritarian, and he's the dictator of China. China is a communist country, and therefore everything is evil that comes from China. Speaker 3 (22:48): Yeah, I mean, this is warmed over Cold War rhetoric. It's essentially a red scare plus yellow peril, right? I mean, we've heard this stuff before. I mean, if you go to China, you realize that there's nothing authoritarian about it. Actually. You feel much freer and much more at liberty to do what you want and to be who you are than you do here. It's not at all an authoritarian state. It's simply the US plasters, the label authoritarian against any country that it doesn't like and where it's usually planning to go to war against. So that is a very, very clear signal. I mean, just from a kind of statistical polling standpoint, the Chinese government is the most popular government on the planet. It ranks in the 90th percentile, and this is Wilmer Leon (23:42): High 90, I think 96 was the last number I saw, Speaker 3 (23:47): Something like that. Yes, certainly in above 90 percentile. And this is from Harvard University, correct? With longitudinal studies. So clearly they have the trust and the full faith of its people. Wilmer Leon (24:01): Repeat that, because most people, when they hear, I know this, when I say that to listeners or if I'm in conversation and I say, well, when you poll the Chinese people, they back their government at around 96%. And of course, the response I get is, well, of course they would, because that's Chinese polling, and that's Xi telling them what to think. And if they don't do what Xi tells them to do, then they wind up missing. Speaker 3 (24:30): No, no, no, that's sorry. Yeah, I mean, it's good. It's what people think, but first it is not Chinese polling. It is US polling, it's Harvard University doing this over a longitudinal study, I think over 10. It's over a decade, maybe 15 years long. And so it's us polling, not Chinese polling. The second thing is that over 150 million Chinese travel abroad every year, they travel all over the world. They go as tourists, they go as students, et cetera, and then almost every single one of them goes back home. You would not get that in an authoritarian state. You think that if you live in a prison or a concentration cab that you go free and then you come back of your own volition? No, that's not possible. It's absurd. So as I said, the Chinese travel all over the world, and then they simply come back because that's where they want to be. (25:34) So this notion that Chinese are authoritarian, that it's an authoritarian state, nobody's allowed to do anything that's completely fault. It does contrast, for example, with the east block where it was very, very difficult to travel abroad, and once when people did travel abroad, they did defect. That much is true. That is certainly not the case with China. As I said, 150 million people travel abroad and then go back home. So that is a lie from top to bottom. I mean, of course you have a few people who defect. I think the defection rate from China is about the same number of people who defect from the United States. So if you want to, oh, really? Wilmer Leon (26:16): Yes. Speaker 3 (26:16): Okay, Wilmer Leon (26:17): I didn't know that. Speaker 3 (26:17): Yes. So it's about the same. So it's a kind of a net zero. So anything that says otherwise is usually an exaggeration or a misconstrue of the actual numbers Wilmer Leon (26:30): To this idea of authoritarian, and I was just thinking about this as you were talking. I think one of the great misnomers is the conflation of a planned economy versus an authoritarian government. I don't think I'm off base to say that China is very, very focused on planning its economy, and that makes it very nimble. That makes it, in my opinion, easier for the government to shift as world economic dynamics shift. Also, because it doesn't have predatory capitalism in China, corporations in China and the Chinese government that owns corporations, they reinvest their money into their economy as opposed to into stock buyback programs and high executive compensation packages. Hence, we wind up with a lot of technological advancements coming out of China, which to a great degree is what is scaring the hell out of the United States government. Yeah, Speaker 3 (27:49): You're absolutely right. Yeah. So the Chinese system is planned, but it's planned in a very rational way. Most of the leaders are unlike the United States, most of the leaders in the US are lawyers or failed business people in China. Most of the leadership are scientists and engineers, and they go through an incredibly complex vetting process where they have to show their capacity and show their ability over and over again before they even reach to the level of becoming a city or a province governor. And then from there, it just gets harder and harder. So you really make sure that the top people are leading. And then there's a system where there's a constant process of feedback and consultation with the people. So the government makes sure that it's doing what the people wants. And so it's planned Wilmer Leon (28:42): In political science. That's the Easton model, I think James Easton model of the feedback loop, how effective governments are supposed to function. They implement policy, they get feedback from the populace on how that policy is being implemented. They then translate that into better policy. That's the eastern model of called the policy feedback loop. Speaker 3 (29:18): Yes, exactly. There's this policy feedback loop, and once again, as I said, the Chinese leadership are scientists, so they do this thing called a trial spot. What is when they have a policy, they try it out in one city or one area, and if it works, then they scale it up and they try it again in a larger province on a larger scale. And if it works, they scale it up even further, et cetera. So it's a very kind of scientific method that they use called trial spots where they're essentially using the scientific method and a vast system of feedback and consultation in order to see if something works or not. That's why they're, for example, creating sustainable cities, sustainable energy generation, mass transit, et cetera, all sorts of public goods. But the problem with this is that the Western concede is that if it's not liberal capitalists, that is if you don't let the capitalists do whatever they want to, this is an infringement on freedom, and that's the framing that they use. (30:23) If you don't let the predatory capitalists do anything and everything, they want to, you have infringed upon their freedom. And so that's where this authoritarian trope comes from. The thing to notice once again is as you do this extensive planning, what you get to do is you build out the foundations, and those foundations are in public health and in public housing and infrastructure and transportation and education. Once you build out all of those foundations, then you can build up real human capacity, and then you build up a real powerful economy. And so for example, if you look at the 20 largest corporations on the planet, the majority of them are Chinese. But the other thing about those large corporations is the majority of them are state owned corporations. That is to say they're owned by the people. For example, the largest banks in the world are Chinese banks. (31:25) How much do the leaders of these banks make? Well, they make probably they wouldn't make enough to rent an apartment in San Francisco, maybe two times, three times max, what their average income of their average worker is, as opposed to Jamie Diamond, who makes 18,000 times what his lowest workers make. And so it's a very, very different system where you bring up the highest most qualified people. At the same time, you do not reward them for greed. You do not reward them for, with exorbitant pay, essentially, you give them a decent salary, not an exorbitant salary, but a salary, which is good enough for a decent level of standard of living in China. You may give them an apartment and you may give them, there may be a canteen where they can get discount meals, but that's about it. But it's understood that you are going to really work to improve your country, serve the people, serve your countrymen, and then make a better society. (32:39) And you see this real kind of whole society effort to improve the country, which is why over the last 30, 40 years, wages have flatlined in the United States, but wages in China have gone up anywhere five to 10 to 15 times for your average worker, for your average blue collar worker. I mean, they see their lives improving, and also you see the bottom being lifted up where they essentially ended poverty. You go to China, you will not see any slums. I mean, it's kind of astonishing. You go to almost any city in the world, you will see homeless. Or if you don't see homeless, you will see slums in China, you will see neither. And in the past few decades, they brought 850 million people out of poverty. 850 million people were brought out of poverty. This is the world's greatest economic accomplishment in the history of the world. (33:43) And essentially, they show that poverty is a policy choice. You don't have to have poor people. The Bible says the poor will always be with us. No, it's not true. It's an ideological choice, and you can end poverty in a country, and for all of these reasons, by showing that a planned economy where there's reasonable and systematic feedback can have deliver better results. This is why this example is why the western liberal elite class feels the need to destroy China because it cannot have that example, cannot have an example, which puts the lie to the massive exploitation and mystification and deceit that this system is built on. The suffering that we undergo on a daily basis is not necessary. Wilmer Leon (34:45): I want to go back to the point. China has brought 800 million people out of abject poverty over about what? The last 10 to 15 years Speaker 3 (35:03): Over the last, I would say over the past 40 years. Okay, 40 years ago, China was poorer per capita than Haiti. Wilmer Leon (35:14): That's poor. Speaker 3 (35:15): And now there's no comparison, right? Wilmer Leon (35:17): The United States has on the upper end, in terms of what the government numbers are, not 800 million unhoused, 800,000, Speaker 3 (35:32): Yeah. Somewhere in that range. Wilmer Leon (35:34): And so me being from Sacramento, California, you go to north side of Sacramento near the American River near the Sacramento River, people living under bridges, you go to Oakland, people living under overpasses, you go to San Francisco, people living under overpasses, people can't even afford the middle class in San Francisco, can't even afford to rent an apartment that people that work in San Francisco can't afford to live in San Francisco. Okay, pick a city, Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia. Pick one. You see people standing in the medians of intersections with signs and cups begging for money. 800,000 people homeless in the United States. We can't fix it, but China brings 800 million people out of poverty. Folks do the math. Speaker 3 (36:37): Yeah, I mean, it's pretty astounding. I mean, the 800,000 homeless is probably an under count because it's hard to count. Wilmer Leon (36:44): Sure. That's why I said it's a government number. Speaker 3 (36:47): Yes, it's a government number. But even without looking at the homeless, think about the fact that 60% of the people in the United States do not have $500 to their name. That means if they get a flat tire, if they need to change their tires, fix their car, or get a parking ticket, they are in real trouble, right? I mean, there's just no margins. And so the vast majority of working people in the United States are struggling, and they see no light at the end of the tunnel at the same time that they expect their children to have even worse conditions. No longer housing is no longer, nobody can think of housing anymore. Now its cars are no longer affordable. Right? When I taught in community college, I was told that 80% of the students were housing insecure. When I taught, most of the students would come to class and they couldn't focus because they were hungry. (37:52) I mean, you have adjunct professors living out of cars. So this is the level of ridiculous, absurd maldistribution of wealth that you can do everything right, work your rear off, and still end up with nothing, just barely be treading water if even that. And on the other hand, you have a country like China where if you work, you will see your life constantly improving from year to year. On average, your worker has been seeing their wages increase 8% every year for the past 20, 30, 40 years. I mean, that's astounding. Wilma, have you had an 8% increase in your salary for the past 30 years? Wilmer Leon (38:45): Can't say that I have. Speaker 3 (38:48): You must be doing something wrong then. Wilmer Leon (38:50): I can't say that I have. Let's move to element number two, shaping the environment. What are the techniques and what are some of the tangible elements that we can point to in terms of shaping the environment? Speaker 3 (39:05): Okay, the first thing about shaping the environment is creating alliances. So the US is creating multiple alliances. That's alliance between the United States, Korea, and Japan. I refer to it as jackass or jackass. You see the alliance between Australia, the United States, uk, to prepare for war, nuclear war against China, Aus. You see the Japan, Philippines, US Alliance, and the South China Sea jaas, which is once again unthinkable as it is with Korea, that the colonial dominator, Japan would be creating a military alliance with the colonized. But all of this is mediated and midwife by the United States. And then you see NATO coming into Asia. So already when the US does military exercise in the Pacific, you see the LFA flying over. You see NATO exercises. You see that Korea is linking up to the NATO intelligence system, B-I-C-E-S, bcs. And that Taiwan is getting the link 16 tactical data link, which allows the US to create a common tactical and operational picture of the Warfield in order to create what they refer to as a transnational kill chain. (40:29) That is, you're using all of these countries for combined joint all domain command and control. It's simply one large military machine, all of these different countries together. So that's one part of shaping the environment. Another part of shaping the environment is pre-positioning troops, pre-positioning material, and also doing these constant military exercises and escalating to industrial war footing, which is what they are talking about. They're saying the US has to shift immediately to an industrial war footing. Certainly South Korea and Japan are already expected to do this. The plans to use shipyards in Korea for to repair us battle damage, and then the constant escalation into what I refer to as the third offset. The third offset is that China has the capacity to respond. If the US and the US has over 300, probably close to 400 bases right around China, China has the capacity to fire missiles and keep the United States at bay. (41:50) It has the Don Feng missiles that are very, very precise. And the US offset to that has been to disperse its troops all around the first island chain, prepare for island hopping, prepare for Ace agile deployment, and essentially to attack China through diffused, distributed, dispersed warfare. All of this is preparation. And then the other way, which is traditionally the environment is shaped, is through information warfare and economic warfare, trade warfare, tech warfare. The idea is that you are going to try and try to create as much disruption inside China itself, create as much descent inside China itself, and also try and degrade its economy before you go into war. Ideally, you want to level sanctions on it before you go in, but in the case of Russia, for example, they will level sanctions after the war starts. But the idea is to degrade the economy and the will to fight, and the capacity to fight as much as possible so that you enter into the battle with an unfair advantage, an overmatch. (43:12) The analogy that I sometimes think of is that when a matador goes into the ring to fight a bull, what they've done is they've drug the bull, they've starved it, they've beaten it, they've dehydrated it, et cetera. And then you go to war, and then you have this theatrical presentation of how you've dominated the bull. In the bull fight, usually the US tries to do this kind of degrading before it enters into war. So for example, it sanctioned Iraq for a decade before it blew it up into smithereens, et cetera. So you see all of these things happening in terms of the hybrid war, the preparations, the alliances, the exercises, the prepositioning and the military preparation. Wilmer Leon (43:58): In fact, the sanctions regime that you've just talked about as it relates to Iraq is exactly what the United States has been trying to do with Russia, has been trying to do with Iran has tried to do with China. And what the reality that the United States now finds itself dealing with is that sanctions regime has forced those sanctioned countries to establish relationships amongst themselves and relationships amongst themselves. So they've entered into trade agreements. They've entered into the bricks, for example, the Chinese development Bank. There are a number of elements now where China and Russia have developed trade agreements, have developed defense cooperation agreements. So really what the United States has done through this sanctions regime is really shot itself in the foot because what it thought it could do with economic pressure and other types of sanctions has actually created a much bigger problem than the United States ever could have imagined. Speaker 3 (45:15): Well, I mean, the US has sanctioned what something close to one third of the countries on the planet or something approaching that. I mean, the idea is that it's simple. A sanction is like a siege. It's like you're building a wall around a country. The problem is if you build a wall around a country, you're also building a wall around yourself, and eventually you're walling yourself in, which is what the United States is doing here. And so with the financial sanctions, with the trade sanctions and economic sanctions, essentially it's strengthening China, Russia, Iran, and the countries of the global south, and it's weakening itself. And so that is the contradiction there. But they don't understand that, and they think that they're still capable of destroying, for example, Russia. I mean, they still believe that they almost brought Russia to its knees, and it's just a matter of applying a little bit more pressure. They're not reading the situation directly. But yes, this is what they want to do, and they consider this to be part of shaping the environment. Wilmer Leon (46:24): And one quick example of that is the whole chip sanction where the United States figured that it could cripple the Chinese economy from a technology side by prohibiting China's access to high processing chips. What did China do? They figured it out. They make their own and better than the ones that they were getting from Taiwan. And an example of that is the Huawei made 60 telephone. A lot of people in the West think that the iPhone is the greatest phone on the planet. No folks, it's a phone that we can't get in the United States. It's the Huawei mate, 60 plus, which not only is a cell phone, but is a satellite phone as well. Speaker 3 (47:15): Yes, it's an extraordinary piece of technology, incredible engineering, and it just goes to show that when the US tries to sanction China or even a single Chinese company by putting it in a choke hold, and its CFO, China just responds with even greater strength and better technology. So it's not happening. It's not happening to an individual corporation, and it's not going to happen to China in general, which is why the US wants to pull the trigger on war. I think there's a part of the NeoCon elite that are so desperate, they see that kinetic war is the only thing that it's the only Trump card that they have left. Wilmer Leon (48:00): And I've been saying for a while to Jake Sullivan and to the Secretary of State, to the President, be careful what you pray for because you might get it even with the hypersonic missile technology. I want to say that, what was it last year or about a year and a half ago, the United States War gamed against China 25 times and lost 25 times. Speaker 3 (48:38): Yes, each time it lost and it lost faster, and then eventually they had to deposit all kinds of hypotheticals that didn't exist in order to give themselves some kind of pretext of winning. Clearly, if they do the math and if they do the simulations, it's not going to work out for them. But the really dangerous thing here, and I'll be very, very honest here, the dangers is that because the US no longer has overmatch and none of these offsets work, it's going to go back to the final first offset, which is mass a bigger bomb, which is to say that they're going to go nuclear on this war and going nuclear against another nuclear power is a very, very bad idea. The US is doctrine of counterforce, which essentially argues that in order for us to prevail, we have to strike first with nuclear weapons. (49:30) That's the idea. It's not counter value. Counterforce. We strike with nuclear weapons first. We knock out as many nuclear targets as possible, and that way we come out ahead and we can shoot down anything that's left. This is the US nuclear position, the nuclear posture. And this is very, very dangerous because it's clearly an act of madness. But as I said before, the ruling, ruling elite, the imperial elite believes that they signal that they would rather see the end of the world than the less than the end of their power, than the end of their domination. Because for them, the end of their domination is the end of their world, not the end of their world, but the end of their world, and they're very happy to bring down the rest of the world with them. Wilmer Leon (50:21): Provocation is the third. We've talked about the info war. We've talked about shaping the environment. And now the third element is the provocation. And we are seeing this play itself out damn near daily, right before our very eyes. And thank God that President Rai in Iran, that President Xi, that Kim Jong-un in North Korea and President Putin, thank God that these are sensible, sensible people that are not reactionary and engage in knee jerk responses to provocation. Because if they weren't as thoughtful as they are, we'd be in a much, much different world circumstance than we are right now. Speaker 3 (51:12): I agree with you. I mean, I think it's the sober sanity of US opponents, which is keeping the world from exploding into war. Just as during the Cold War, it was Russian officers who understood US culture and for example, understood that when there were signals of a nuclear attack being launched, they also understood that the World Series was happening at the same time, and they thought it was unlikely the US would launch a nuclear attack during the World Series. But this is predicated on the idea that you have cultured intelligent, calm people who are able to make clear distinctions. And we see that in RACI and President Xi and President Putin, who are very, very measured in their responses. And they're not seeking war. They're seeking diplomacy and peace. And you can see that there is a constant attempt to provoke them and to demonize them and to trigger war, but they understand that time is on their side, and these are the mad thrashings of a dying empire, and their approach is not to engage. (52:34) The problem is that the provocations become even more extreme, more and more extreme as they become more and more desperate. And there's another piece of the information war that I didn't touch on, but I think it's worthwhile touching on, is one of the key tropes of information warfare is that the other country is a threat to the people of your country. Not simply a threat, but an existential threat, A WMD type of threat, a genocidal threat. We saw that WMD type of language when it was alleged that Covid was a Chinese bio weapon, which somehow was being paid for by the United States. So that doesn't make any sense that research was being funded by the United States. So how is the US funding that research for China to attack us? Nobody seems to be able to explain that piece, but so they're WMD type allegations, and then the China is genocidal in intent, and this is most commonly demonstrated by the allegations of a genocide happening in Xinjiang. Now, just to go over the facts, there Wilmer Leon (53:51): Is, wait, wait a minute. Before we get to that, I want to touch on one thing you mentioned not firing the missile. And I want to say that that was a Russian technician, Vasili arch, about what, 65 years ago, who was looking at his radar screen, saw what most would've perceived to be an incoming nuclear missile from the United States on his screen. And the protocol was you got to push the button. And he, to your point, said, wait a minute. This doesn't make sense right now. This might be a mistake, and thank God he was right. It was a mistake. I wanted to make that point because you kind of glossed over that point. But it's very important for people to understand how perilous the circumstances are that we're in today. Speaker 3 (54:55): Absolutely. I mean, there were so many close shaves during the Cold War, and they're even more now, and the world owes a debt of gratitude to vestly ov. I think he's one of the unsung heroes of world history, but we can't rely on the fact that there will always be a vasili arch of a patient measured, well-informed, educated person on the other side who exercises prudent caution. There's no guarantee of that. And everything that we are doing on our side is simply escalating the danger that that will not happen and that this could end in a nuclear conflagration. Wilmer Leon (55:41): Final point on that, then we'll go to the Uyghur issue. And that is, that's one of the points that President Putin was making about NATO and why his perception was a uk, a Ukraine in NATO means NATO missiles in Ukraine, which means his response time to a message of incoming would be cut more than in half. And he was saying, we can't do that. You can't put these missiles on my border and cut my response time from 16 or 17 minutes down to seven minutes. That means if my system say incoming, I got a button to push. I don't have a phone to pick up. I don't have questions to ask. I got a fire on receipt. Speaker 3 (56:37): Absolutely, yes. Launch on warning, Wilmer Leon (56:39): Launch on warning. Speaker 3 (56:41): Yes. And that's exactly the danger. And this is why this was so important that by bringing NATO right up into Ukraine, the Soviet Union, well, Russia lost all of its strategic debt that it had no cushion with which to make a rational decision. And that is a very, very dangerous thing to do against a nuclear superpower that you have designated as an official enemy. So yes, it's absolutely correct, and this is both the danger and what we are seeing replicated in against China. Once again, the US used to have nuclear weapons in Taiwan Island. Right now, they're probably preparing more nuclear weapons, certainly the tomahawks that are being prepared for Japan or nuclear capable, they can carry nuclear warheads. And if you take US troops and place them right three miles from China's mainland, I mean, you've essentially said that you either have to preempt the attack or you are going to be annihilated. So that is the danger here. Wilmer Leon (57:58): The other great myth, one of the other great myths is the genocide of the Uyghurs and the oppression of the Uyghurs who are a group of Chinese Muslims in a region of China. And also if they're not being genocided, then they're being put into reeducation and concentration camps. Where did this myth come from? Speaker 3 (58:28): It was started by a guy called Adrian Zant, working for the victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which is extreme far right organization, fascists, Nazis, anti-communist, who essentially have it on their banner head to destroy communism. Adrian ZZ himself believes that it is God's mission, his mission from God to destroy Chinese communism. And he essentially pulled those figures and those facts out of, pardon my French, his rear end. And so initially, so Wilmer Leon (59:07): Actually French kg would be ass, he pulled those data, excuse my French, out of his ass. Speaker 3 (59:14): I think the French word is true or football. Wilmer Leon (59:20): But Speaker 3 (59:21): Yes, the BBC asked him to do the research. He said, I can't do it. And then they offered him more money, and then suddenly all of a sudden he was pulling numbers out of his rear end. Apparently there were perhaps a few dozen people that were interviewed. A small percentage of them said that certain things happened to us, and then they extrapolated that, and all of a sudden we have 1 million, 2 million, 3 million, 5 million, 7 million uighurs either in concentration camps or being genocided. Okay, Wilmer Leon (01:00:00): So how does that jive with the population of Xinjiang, which I think is the western part of China, which is where these folks are supposed to be. Speaker 3 (01:00:09): There are about 12 million Uyghurs. And so if you had even a million that had been disappeared or in concentration camps, you wouldn't have a functioning society. You would have almost every adult male in prison. And that's certainly not the case. 200, 250 million people visited Xinjiang last year, and it was fine. The people in Xinjiang were doing fine. It's a vibrant, multicultural society that is thriving and happy, and anybody can go there. You and I could go there. Anybody listening to this podcast could go there tomorrow. You don't even have to. A visa. China allows Americans to go to China without a visa now for a short period of time, and you could go immediately to Xinjiang and see for yourself. But essentially the fact is there is no Chinese genocide happening in Xinjiang because there's not a single shred of credible evidence. Let me emphasize that. Not a single shred of credible evidence. This is the only genocide in history that one has no deaths. Nobody can point to a body, no refugees. Wilmer Leon (01:01:24): Well, that's, they've been disappeared. They've been taken up by the mothership, and I guess they're floating around in the nuclear. I mean the, what do you call this? The nebula Speaker 3 (01:01:38): In the fifth? Wilmer Leon (01:01:39): Yeah, they're in the nebula somewhere, Speaker 3 (01:01:41): Right? Right in the fifth space, time war somewhere. But look, there are five Muslim majority countries. China has borders with 14 countries, and Xinjiang itself has borders with five Muslim majority countries, very porous borders. If there were any credible oppression, you would see massive refugees going to all these countries right next to it. But it's not. Instead, what you see is preferential treatment of the Uyghurs. For example, they were exempt from the one child policy. They had two, three, sometimes more children. They received preferential treatment in school, admissions and employment. The population has increased sixfold since the start of the PRC, and the life expectancy has increased 150%, and you can look high and low and you will see no hate speech and no tolerance of hate speech against Muslims, and no messages or rhetoric targeting the group whatsoever. In fact, the organization of Islamic Corporation, which represents the rights of 2 billion Muslims in 56 countries, commended China for its exemplary treatment of Muslim minorities. (01:03:00) So this is completely and totally fraudulent. There are 24,000 mosques in the region. People live their own lives, they speak their own language. And then here's the contrast, or here's the test case, because when you want to make a proposition, you also want to make a test group against that. Okay? In Gaza, there is a real genocide happening, either sheer unspeakable, barity and atrocity, the daily massacre of men, women, children, infants, starved to death, unimaginable privation and starvation and suffering, and compare that. And nobody can get into Gaza, right? Nobody can get into Gaza. Anybody can get into Xinjiang any day of the day or night. So really this fraud about Xinjiang being some kind of genocide, this is as much a signal of the dying empire as the real genocide in Palestine, it's foundationally mating, and it's a foundationally violent lie, but it's the other side of the same coin that is you are enabling and covering up a real genocide while you were fraudulently concocting a non-existent one. But the thing we have to understand is the invention of a false genocide cannot cover up a real one. Those of us on the right side of history, we know what to believe and we know how to act, and we know who's responsible, who's covering up what and why they're doing it. Wilmer Leon (01:04:53): And the United States is also trying to foment another genocide in Haiti. So there's a false one in Xinjiang. There's a real one in Gaza, and there's another one on the horizon in Haiti, and thank you United States because it's our tax dollars that are fanning the flames and funding all three kj. No, my brother. Thank you, man. I really, really, really appreciate the time that you gave this evening and for you coming on connecting the dots, because as always, kj, you connected the dots, man. Thank you for joining me today. Speaker 3 (01:05:39): Thank you. Always a pleasure and an honor to be with you. Wilmer Leon (01:05:43): And folks, I want to thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wiler Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe, leave a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You can find all the links below. Go to Patreon. Please contribute. Please, please contribute because this is not an inexpensive venture to engage in. And remember, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge, talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Woman Leon. Have a great one, peace and blessings to y'all. Announcer (01:06:40): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

The Bureau of History is back! In this episode, Gary, Chloe, and Daisy discuss the 2024 Russian Presidential Elections. We discuss Russia's history with its presidents: Yeltsin, Medvedev, and Putin, and predict the outcome of this election. We also share thoughts on Russia's democratization. 

Find me and the show on social media @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd   TRANSCRIPT: Speaker 2 (00:14): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I'm Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand and to truly appreciate the broader historical context in which most of these events occur. During each episode of this program, my guests and I will have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between current events and the broader historic context in which they occur. This will enable you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode, the questions are why are American neocons hell bent on starting a conflict with Russia? What's going on in Ukraine? Who was Alexi Naval? And is NATO really still relevant? For insight into all of this let's turn to my guest. He's a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. (01:31) His most recent book is entitled Disarmament In the Time of Perestroika, he is Scott Ritter. Scott, welcome. Thanks for joining me and let's connect some dots. Well, thanks for having me. And first of all, I have to say I love the name of your show in the intelligence business, connecting the dots is what we do. You never get the full picture. You get little pieces of information, and the question is, how do you connect them to get a proper narrative? So I like the idea. Well, thank you, Scott. I appreciate that. So the answers to each of these questions I think could be a show of their own, but let's start with in 2024, why are neocons so afraid of Russia? I mean, when we go back to this nauseating ongoing narrative, Hillary Clinton blamed Russia for hacking into the DNC server. No evidence was presented, but the narrative held and continues to hold in spite of scientific empiric evidence. (02:39) To the contrary, the whole Russiagate fiasco, even now, representative Mike Turner from Ohio, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, he warns that Russia may be developing a space-based weapon that can target US satellites, NBC reported on the 19th of this month, alarming new warnings about Russia held zapper erosion. Nuclear power plant may be on the verge of explosion. These are just a few examples and we'll get to the specifics of each of these in a few, but just these are just some overarching examples of example, this Russia phobia. Why? Well, I mean, let's just look at historic examples. At the end of the Second World War, we had built up this economy that was a lot of people forget that before the Second World War happened, we had a thing called the Great Depression, and our economy was not the healthiest in the world, and we used global war as a way to mobilize our economy, to get it up to war footing. (03:48) And there was a recognition that with 12 million guys coming home, we needed jobs. And if we tried to transition back to a civilian economy, we ran the danger of going backwards instead of forward. So we had to keep this military industrial complex up and running. But to do that, you need an enemy, you need a bad guy. Therefore, we have the Iron Curtain, Winston Churchill's, Fulton, Missouri speech in, I think 1946, the creation of nato and then the Red Scare. I mean, Russia has always been communism back then. Not just Russia, but communist China was always the perfect boogeyman to say, Ooh, danger lurks. We therefore now have a justification to militarize our economy and back this up politically by pointing to this threat. Back in the fifties, we had the bomber gap. You remember that? (04:52) Read about it little before my time, but I got you. Yeah, I mean, we weren't around back. We're old Wilber, but we're not that old. But yeah, the idea of, I think the Russians took, had like a dozen bombers, but on a military parade, they just flew them over and over and over again in a circle over Moscow, and the people on the ground looked up and said, oh my goodness, there's a whole bunch of bombers. And so the CIA used this, the Congress used this to justify building more American bombers, even though once we got our satellites up, we went, there's only 12. There's not that many, but we never told the truth. Then there was the missile gap. John F. Kennedy was responsible for that one too. The Russians have missiles. We have to build missiles, missiles, missiles until we found out that they didn't have the missiles. (05:40) But it didn't matter. We continued to build them anyways, and this led to the Cuban missiles crisis, which scared the live and you know what out of everybody and got us on the path of arms control, at least trying to contain, but we still called them the threat. That's all that's happening here. I can guarantee you this Wilmer, the neocons aren't looking for a war with Russia because as politically biased as they are, as fear mongers are, they're not suicidal and they know what the consequences of a war with Russia would be, but what they're doing is they're pushing it right up to the cusp of conflict, especially now when you have an American society that's sort of waking up to the fact that we're spending a lot of money over there when we need to be spending a lot of money back here at home, and people are starting to ask questions. (06:30) So the way that you avoid answering these questions is to create that straw man that threat, the Russian threat. The Russians are evil. You said it perfectly. They interfered with our election. They're doing this, that and the other thing, and therefore we must spend 64 billion in Ukraine even though we can't spend $64 million in Flint, Michigan. I mean, it's this sort of argument that's going on, and this may seem as a somo or a juvenile question, but how dangerous is this? World War? I was to a great degree, started on a fluke. It is in many instances or in many minds attributable to the assassination of Archduke Fran Ferdinand. But that in and of itself isn't what started the war. There were a number of skirmishes and a number of tensions that were going on in Europe, and this was really just the spark that led to World War I. (07:33) If my understanding of history is accurate. So do we find ourselves now, whether it be Russia and Ukraine, China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, I mean the United States, what's going on in Venezuela as the United States is interfering in the Venezuelan elections? There are a number, of course, we've got Gaza in the Middle East, so we've got our hands, we're smoking at the gas station and smoking at a lot of gas stations. I'm going to steal that, by the way. I like that analogy. Just letting everybody know I'm using that from now on. Look, first of all, there's no such thing as a sophomore question. The one thing I learned, and I learned this from guys who are 20 times smarter than me, that the only stupid questions, the one you don't ask, you don't ask, but you're a hundred percent right. Barbara Tuckman wrote a book, the Guns of August, I think it was a PO prize winning book about how we got to World War I. (08:38) And one of the key aspects to that wasn't just the different crises that were taking place, but how people responded to that and the thing that made World War I inevitable, even though everybody, if you read the book, everybody in the summer of 1914, nobody wanted war. Everybody believed it would be avoided, it was just suicidal. But then they got into this cycle of mobilization, mobilizing their societies economically and militarily for conflict because that's just what you did when you had a crisis. But it's okay, we're just mobilizing and we're not really going to war. What scares me about today is there's a recognition on the part of everybody that war would be suicidal, that we don't want this, but look at what we've done. We built up the Ukrainian military from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands and got it equipped, organized, trained to go to war against Russia. (09:44) What do you think we were doing in Ukraine from 2015 to 2022 when we were training a battalion of Ukrainian soldiers every 55 days for the sole purpose of fighting Russians? This helped trigger a conflict. It got Russia to respond. Then we poured more money into Ukraine. What did Russia do? Mobilize People need to put on their hats and go, wait a minute, that's a word we don't want to hear. Russia mobilized not just the 300,000, but the process of mobilization continued to where they trained 450,000 volunteers since January 1st, just for everybody who's wondering what's going on in Ukraine, I know that's going to be later on question. Russia mobilized 53,000 volunteers. This is at a time when Ukraine's thumping people on the head and takes 'em to the front because nobody wants to fight. 53,000 Russians volunteered to go fight in the war since January 1st. (10:42) They're coming in at 1000, 1,500 a day. And let me reiterate, that's not press gangs like they're using in Russia. G roaming the villages taking the men and now women from the streets and putting them into the military. That's not conscription, that's volunteer. And let me make this following point, it's even more interesting than that. It's not a bunch of 22-year-old red meat eating young men who are looking for adventure and romance. The average age of the Russian volunteer going in is about 35 years old. He's married, he has a family, and he has a job. It's the last person in the world that you'd expect to volunteer to go to a war zone. And yet they're doing it because they love their country, because they say we have to do that. What's going on right now is an existential struggle for the survival of Russia against the collective West, which again speaks to the danger of mobilization because Russia is a nation that is mobilizing and has the potential to mobilize even more if necessary. (11:55) And this should scare the heck out of everybody in nato because right now you have nato. What's NATO talking about doing Wilmer mobilizing. They're talking about mobilizing. You have everybody in NATO saying, well, they never say, well, since we kicked this hornets nest and the hornets are now coming out and stinging us, maybe we should stop kicking the hornet's nest. They don't acknowledge the role they played in building the Ukrainian army to trigger this, but what they're saying now is, oh, because Russia now has mobilized and is defeating the proxy army that we built. We have to mobilize in turn. And you have Brits talking about general mobilization, Germans, and what this does. Now, you're a Russian. You're sitting there going, huh? They're talking about mobilizing. Well, if they do that, what do we have to do? I mean, Finland just joined nato. We really don't care until they put on Russia's border, pardon on Russia's border, on Russia's border until they put NATO troops there. (12:50) Now Russia has to say, well, we didn't want to do this. But to give you an example, we keep the determinants mobilized. Wil Russia was compelled to create a new military district, the St. Petersburg military District, because Finland joined nato. There wasn't a St. Petersburg military district. Russia didn't have 70,000 combat troops on the finished border until Finland joined nato. Now, Russia has built mobilized Wilmer. They've put in 70,000 frontline troops divisions ready to march on Helsinki. Not because they wanted to, but because they were compelled to by the mobilization. Bringing Finland and Sweden into NATO is a form of mobilization. What we have here is we are moving in the wrong direction. We are accumulating military power in Europe, and at some point in time you're smoking at the gas station and it's going to go, I'm going to have to use that one, Scott. That's pretty good. (13:51) Feel free. So this time last year, Ukraine was on the front page of every newspaper as of the morning of that we're taping this conversation. I don't see Ukraine referenced. And let me suggest folks, Reid, I don't know if you've read Nikolai Petro and Ted Snyder's piece to end the war in Ukraine expose its core lie. Let me read two quick paragraphs. This is how it opens. The essential argument used to avoid negotiation and continue support for the war in Ukraine is based on a falsehood. That falsehood repeated by President Biden is that when Putin decided to invade, which we can debate that word, he intended to conquer all of Ukraine and annihilated its falsity, has been exposed multiple times by military experts who have pointed out both before and after the invasion, that Russia could not have intended to conquer all of Ukraine because it did not invade with sufficient forces to do so. Scott Ritter, well, look, that was my argument all along. I kept saying they're only going in with around 200,000. Ukraine at the start of the war had around 770,000, and I went, the normal attack defender ratio is supposed to be three to one in favor of the attacker. And Russia's going in with a one to three disadvantage. (15:21) Why? And the answer was because they weren't trying to occupy Ukraine. They were trying to, oh no, it's because Russians can't do math. Well, that too, I mean, I must be Russian because I'm not very good at math either. But my military math was like, this isn't adding up. But Russia's goal is to get 'em to a negotiating table. But I also then when Russia mobilized, because I basically said that Russia's going to have to get 500, 600,000 men to stabilize the frontline just to stabilize the frontline. And they mobilized to do that. And then people said, well, they're going to go on to Odessa. And I went, if they go on to Odessa, they're going to need around 900,000 guys to go on to Odessa and take those things. Russia's got about 900,000 guys there now. So they have enough troops to do that. (16:09) But to go on to Poland, they're going to need about 1.5 million guys. They don't have that. And to go from Poland to Germany, they're going to need around 3 million guys. It's just basic military math. I mean, I could bore you all day about how I come up with these numbers, but it's the logistics of war. It's the scope and scale of the fronts, how to protect flanks, how to sustain offensive operations. The math doesn't lie. I'm pretty good with those numbers and Russia doesn't have it. And here's the thing. We know this. I mean, there's, look, I was a major and I only was a major for a little while. The main part of my military life was spent as a captain. Now, captains are pretty cool, but we're not seniors. We're not the most senior people in the world. So I admit that my perspective was a captain's perspective at senior headquarters. (17:01) I saw the big picture, but I know enough to know what it takes to move troops. I was part of moving 750,000 troops into the Middle East. I know what a tip fiddle is, time phase deployment list, how to surge things in. I planned a core sized operation and had to plan on the logistics sustainability of that. I'm pretty good with the numbers. And so are the people in the Pentagon who are more senior than I am. People who see the bigger picture in more detail. They know what I'm talking about too. And they know no matter how much you talk up somebody, you're only as good as your logistics. I mean, you can have the Lamborghini, but if you ain't got the gasoline, you don't have anything. You have a piece of metal sitting in your driveway, but you got to have the gas and you got to have the gas sustained. (17:53) You got to be able to maintain it, fix it. Lamborghini's brake. You got to have people trained to drive the Lamborghini. We can talk the Russians up all we want to about this, that and the other thing. But the bottom line is they're only human and they can only do that which is physically possible to do. And they don't have the troops to invade NATO to drive on nato. It's a 100% fabrication on the part of these people to justify their own mobilization. But everybody knows that Russia can't. Right now, Russia has sufficient troops to take Odessa to take cargo, to take Nikola, to take nepa, Petros, that's it. They can't do anything more than that. If they want to drive on Kiev, they're going to need another 300,000 troops up in Belarus that they don't have right now. So people just have to put on their thinking caps and think rationally. (18:46) But right now, rational thought isn't in the cards. Apparently, you know a hell of a lot more about this than I do. You speak the language, you listen to the broadcast, I listen to you and other folks, but when I keep hearing statements about what Russia is going to do, the one thing that I never hear following that is evidence to support the position Russia wants to take over Europe. Europe, I've never heard President Putin say that. I've never read anything coming out of Russia that says that. All I hear is Nikki Haley and Joe Biden and Kamala there. There's a litany of folks that'll tell me that, but I haven't seen them present one video of President Putin standing at a podium or taking off his shoe like Stalin and pounding on the podium saying, I'm kicking your, and the other point is, 80% of what I see is defensive, not offensive. Here's another one you might want to use. Don't start nothing, won't be nothing. And it seems as Joe Biden would just shut the up. (20:14) You using my language? I want to be a Marine. Marine. So, okay, you get my point, Scott. Well, here's the thing. If we go back to the January, December, 2021, January 22 timeframe, the US government's running, going, Russia is going to invade, Russia is going to invade. Now, they may have had some intelligence about Russia moving up, logistics and all that stuff, but I said, Russia won't invade right now. They said, why? And I said, because Russia is a nation and the Russian government is ruled by law. Believe it or not. It's their law. It ain't our law, but it's their law. And there are things that have to happen before you can talk about an invasion. I spelled it out. I said, first of all, Russia will not operate in violation of the United Nations charter. So they will have to come up with a cognizable case for invasion. (21:12) And right now, the only one they have is preemptive self-defense. But to get preemptive self-defense, Russia will have to form a security relationship with the Doba, a formal security relationship, which will require the doba to not only declare their independence, but for Russia to recognize that independence. And then once Russia recognizes that independence, then Russia will have to go through, the President will have to go to the Duma, the Duma will have to approve something, go to the Senate, and then the Senate takes it back to the President, who then signs it. And then, and only then can we talk about military intervention. Now, this can take place in a short period of time, but I can promise you guarantee you that Russia ain't crossing the border until that happens. And if we're not seeing that happen, then there will be no military intervention and everybody's like, oh, scout up. Well, everything I said is 100. That's what happened in February. Russia began the process. Now, they did it in a very compact period of time, but every step that I said had to be taken was taken. Why? The rule of law. Putin is not a dictator. Putin is governed by the rule of law. He is not permitted to do things on a whim, and it's the same thing. If he wants to. (22:30) Russian troops cannot operate outside of the border of Russia without the permission of the Duma. He would have to go to them constitutionally, say, Hey, I'd like to send troops to Poland because he can't just send troops to Poland. And then the Duma would say, why are we doing this? What is the threat? And normally, the only reason to justify it is Poland attacked us, so we have to wait for that one. And that's the thing. In order for him to do anything to begin mobilizing, he can't just, why didn't he have 300,000 troops already mobilized to go into Ukraine? Because to justify the mobilization, you need legal justification. He didn't have it, didn't have it, couldn't go to the Duma, couldn't justify it. None of the steps that would be required for Russia to attack Europe are in place. First of all, it's not in Russia's doctrine, their entire approach, and you hit it on the head, their defense. (23:33) Now, the Russians are very good at the counter offensive, so if we attack them, Russian defensive doctors is to receive the attack, to destroy the attack and then to counter attack, and you counter attack to destroy the political center of the beast that attacked you. So yeah, if you want Russian troops in Warsaw, if you want Russian troops in Berlin, attack Russia. But otherwise, don't worry about it because it isn't going to happen. Don't start nothing. It won't be nothing. Won't be nothing. I like it. Alexi Navalny described as, and this is the description, the dominant Western narrative described as Russian President Putin's most formidable domestic opponent fell unconscious and died at polar wolf, Arctic penal colony. Biden described him as a powerful voice for the truth. What has happened to Navali is yet more proof of Putin's brutality. No one should be fooled. Well, the first thing is, if that was true, then what does this say about Biden's unyielding support for genocide in Gaza? What does that say about his brutality looking at the thousands, tens of thousands that people have fought, but that's not the point. If you could quickly unpack the myth of Alexi Navalny and the alleged poisoning and all of that stuff to kind of dispel this myth that Putin has assassinated his most formidable domestic opponent. (25:25) Okay, first of all, we have to understand that the United States government has been in the business of trying to control Russian politics since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The decade of the 1990s was premised on an American policy of promoting democratic reform inside Russia. But what it means by that is by creating institutions that are controlled by the United States and banking and well, money is everything. And what we did in the 1990s is we started using non-governmental organizations. We'd set up these civic societies, these groups for furtherance of democracy, and then we would fund them through various fronts like the National Endowment for Democracy, which in 1983 was created to take over the covert political action functions of the CIA and make it more overt. The US Congress created it, funneled money to it. There's a democratic branch, there's a Republican branch they filter money in. (26:28) The whole idea is again, to create fund, so-called democratic institutions that will lead to the restructuring of a society the way we want it to be restructured. The United States did that in Ukraine in 2014 with the, well, well, we did it before that. If you remember back in the early two thousands, we did a color revolution in Serbia. It was a very successful color revolution, and so we use that as a template that would then repeat it in Georgia, and then we repeated in Ukraine, remember 2004, 2005, the Orange Revolution. What a lot of people don't realize is that we were actively trying to do a color revolution in Russia in 2007, 2008. Why that time period? Again, I don't want to bore people, but this is very important. Vladimir Putin became president end of 1999. He won an election in March of 2000 constitutionally. (27:24) He got to run for two terms, those two terms. It became clear that he was not going to continue the Yeltsin policy of doing whatever the United States wanted to be done, that he was going to try to reform Russia in a Russian image, which we didn't like. So we were pouring money into Russia through these non-governmental organizations for the purpose of carrying out a color revolution in 2007, 2008. The way we were going to do it is in 2007 was the parliamentary elections. The idea of that 2007, 2008 period was that Putin couldn't stand a third term as president, so he was going to do a swap with Dmitri Veev, who at that time was the prime Minister. So Putin was going to become prime minister. Veev would become president, but for this to happen, United Russia, which was Putin's party, had to win the parliamentary election. (28:10) If the opposition could deny United Russia the majority, then Putin couldn't become Prime Minister, and if Putin couldn't become Prime Minister, then vie was vulnerable as president and you could pick him off and suddenly you've swept Putin out of power. This is literally the stated objective of the United States, and we started pouring money into Russia to promote this. One of the guys that got caught up in this was a young lawyer named Alex Navalny. He started working, it's CIA all the way. Look, the CIA trained some people. One of them was this Y Guinea albo. She's a journalist, but she went to Harvard, got groomed by the CIA, whether she knew it or not, but she left the balling, went to Yale. Well, later on, yes, he went to Yale in 2010, but Allach comes in in 2004 and she sets up this political parlor. (29:05) Now she comes from Harvard, she got her PhD. She comes to Russia. The first thing she does is sets up this political parlor funded by British money coming from oligarchs funneled to her through British intelligence. And this parlor attracts these young people, including Navalny, and their job is to create a youth movement that can lead to a color revolution. That's his whole thing. Bottom line is it failed. It failed miserably. But Navalny was identified at that point in time as somebody with potentially started this anti-corruption campaign when mid became the president mid said, I'm against corruption. Naval went good. Let me help you. And he jumped on this thing. He got picked to go to Yale in 2010 where he was groomed by the CIA for what purpose. The next target was, okay, we couldn't stop Putin from doing the swap in 2007, 2008. What we can do now is keep mid in power. (30:01) We can prevent Putin from coming back into office in the 2012 presidential election. Remember Hillary Clinton working the opposition, Michael McFall going in there. It's a big deal. And the volume, he became the front man for this. He went to Yale. He got dipped in, greased by the CIA and he got sent back to Russia. He's a CIA asset, straight up funded by British intelligence trying to overthrow or prevent Putin from coming back in power. Well, what's that thing? If you don't start nothing, there won't be nothing. Don't start nothing. Won't be nothing. Well, Navalny, I mean, before he went to Yale, he spent a summer in Kiro, which is a province about 800 kilometers northeast of Moscow. He got involved in restructuring the timber business, and it looked like he might've done some things that weren't so good. Normally that would be ignored, but he comes back and he immediately starts attacking the interest, the economic interest behind United Russia and Putin. (31:04) And so you started something, okay? So they opened up a criminal case against him, and now you have this situation where Navalny is trying to make himself relevant. And look, he had some traction early on. He ran for Mayor of Moscow and he got 27% of the vote. That ain't bad, but he didn't have any traction outside of Moscow. He couldn't get the kind of numbers necessary to win, but he was a pain in Putin's side. So they started legal, this legal stuff against him, and it ended up in him being convicted of a fraud and embezzlement, some people call it politically motivated. There's no doubt it was politically motivated, but that doesn't mean that the crime didn't take place. He got a suspended sentence. He's on parole. Basically, they did this to keep him from running. They said, because you're convicted, you can't run for office. (31:52) Something needed to happen. And so in 2020, he was poisoned, but he wasn't. Again, I don't want to get too much down the conspiracy track, but let me just put it this way. His medical records clearly show that he wasn't poisoned by Novak. This was a setup to get him out of Russia where he had been effectively neutered over into a safe area, and we know that he landed in Germany, he was flown into Germany, had a miraculous recovery by December. He wait a minute, had a miraculous recovery from Nova Chuck, which from my understanding is one of the most dangerous nerve agents created. I've read. It's so dangerous. It really can't even be used. The story was that he was poisoned at the airport. They poisoned his tea before he got on the plane. No, no. They poisoned his underwear in his hotel room. (32:45) No, no. But wasn't that afterwards, because the story changed. The story changed a couple of times. That's my point that they said that they poisoned his tea in the airport. If I understand it, if you were to put Nova chuck in a cup of tea damn near everybody, at least in that area of the airport would be dead. Then they said, oh, they poisoned his water bottle on the plane. Nobach is so toxic that if they had done that, everybody including the pilot would be dead. Then they poisoned his underwear. The story kept, and this is also interesting to me, is that during all of these changing of the stories, Russia kept saying, send us the toxicology report so that we can investigate this. No toxicology report was ever presented. Yeah, again, I'm not a big conspiracy guy. I don't like it. I am Hamm's razor kind of person. (33:48) But the problem is, CCAM razor points to this because we did get the toxicology, not the ones that the Germans and everybody were saying prove Novare, Wilma, you're a hundred percent right. This is the most deadly substance on the planet, but apparently it can't kill anybody. And by the way, whatever the new name of the kgp is, they're pretty good at assassinating folks as is the ccia. A, if they want you done, cancel your distance and cancel your five bullets. Five bullets in the front of your body tends to do it. You don't have to mess around with Novak. Okay? Yeah. I mean, just look. A Ukrainian pilot, a Russian pilot defected earlier this year to Ukraine and had two of his crew members killed as a result. I mean, he's a murderous traitor in the eyes of the Russians. They just found his body in Spain with five bullets pumped into the front of it. (34:45) That's how the Russians get you. They don't go around doing this Novak stuff. But the point is this Nozek was a manufactured event. It didn't happen. What the German doctors who treated him released the blood work and everything. It showed that Navalny had a whole bunch of different health issues, some serious health issues, and he was also, they found evidence of antidepressants, which is okay. I'm not attacking him, it's not a problem, but it looks like he deliberately overdosed on antidepressants to generate the result that happened so he could be flown out. This was a pre-planned event. I just want everybody to understand that, that Navalny deliberately overdosed on antidepressants to generate a medical crisis that then got him flown out of Russia, because remember, he's on house arrest. He can't leave, but they got him out. What's the first thing that happens after his miraculous recovery? (35:42) They fly him to Germany to a CIA safe house where a film crew comes in and they produce two feature length documentaries in one month, one month, including elaborate computer generated graphics, the whole thing. He claims that he came up with the idea while he was recovering from his and wrote it in a feverish in October, November. Wilmer, I've made a documentary and I'm making one right now. I can guarantee you they didn't get it done in a month. This was prepackaged by the CIA and British intelligence. And then he was, everybody's saying, stay in Germany. And he went, no, I'm going back. Why? Again? In 2021, these election cycles matter. In 2021, Putin was going to change the Constitution so that he could continue to run for office, and he changed the length of the term from four years to six years. He was restructuring the government and everybody who was anybody, including myself, looked at it and went, he's basically guaranteeing that the West will never subvert Russian democracy by doing this. (36:49) He's iron proofing it, bulletproofing it. So the last chance to get rid of Vladimir Putin was to disrupt this effort. Navalny was picked as the guy to do it. Navalny job was to go back to Russia stand trial, and while he's standing trial, they're going to release these documentaries. The first one was called Putin's Palace, which was supposed to expose the corruption of Putin and everything, and the idea that it would generate so much unrest inside Russia that Navalny would be acquitted, put in, become the presidential candidate to oppose Putin. That was the dream. The problem is the people coming up with that didn't understand that Navalny had no support in Russia, never could never get it outside of Moscow. You couldn't get 5%. You might get 12% in Cabo, but that's it. You're not going to win election with 12% support. The numbers I saw for him was about somewhere between two and 5%, more on the 2% side. (37:44) Nationwide, like I said, there's certain bubbles in there where you could get support, but nationwide, he wasn't going anywhere on this. So he goes back and the Russians, what's that? Don't want nothing. Don't start nothing. The Russians know exactly what's going on. I mean, look, Pesco, who's the pre spokesperson in October of 2020, he said, we know what's going on. Navalny is working with the CIA. We know this. We know everything. So they brought him back and they knew what his plan was. They knew what he was supposed to do. So they quickly turned just really quickly because that's what President Putin said to Tucker Carlson when he talked about it's good that you applied to the CIA and that they did not accept you. He was sending a message. I know who you are. I know what you do. Yeah, well, so here's the deal. (38:39) The Russians said, we're not playing this game anymore. We've letting Navali do this stupid stupidity because he's irrelevant. But now you're playing, playing a serious game of messing around with our democracy. So we're just going to end it. The vol, the hammer's coming down, boom, nine years, boom, 30 years, you're in jail for life. Goodbye. Get out of here. Now they did that, and then a lot of people just came out and Bill. Then the Russians turned around and said, okay, we know he's your spy. Do you want him back? We'll trade him for a guy that we want back from Germany. Now, here's the part that gets conspiratorial two days before he died, minute before you get there. Isn't there also footage of Navalny or one of his representatives, but I think it's him talking Tom, I six, about money, about how much money he's going to need to sustain this democracy movement in Russia. (39:38) 2012, Navalny deputy met with a member of MI six in Moscow. Again, how did they get the video? Because the Russians know everything. I mean, when people are sitting there going, Evan Sitz isn't a CIA spy. He couldn't be. I just want to tell you right now, ladies and gentlemen, the Russians have him on film talking about this, about receiving the documents. It's conspiratorial. Putin was very clear about it. He's a CIA spy and Navalny, the Russians know who was paying for him. They know this. So they're sitting there going, we want to give them back. But that's the last thing. The ccia A wants. Why? Because then they have to admit that we're messing around in Russian politics politic. They can't. So this is the part that, this is what I firmly believe, because I believe that Navalny was induced by his handlers to deliberately overdose on depressants in 2020 to get him out, to get involved in the CIA operation to come back in and disrupt the election. (40:37) That is clear. Two days before he died, he was visited by his lawyer. Some people say that his wife was there as well, and they brought medication that's documented. Have you seen Godfather two so many times? I can't tell you how many Freddy five fingers. Freddy. Five fingers. Okay, so Tom goes to talk to Freddie five fingers. You just take a nice warm bath, you slit your words, nice warm bath, open up your veins with the woman. The family will be taken care of, throws the cigar away, shakes his hand, and it's understood. Navalny daughter got a free ride to Stanford courtesy of Michael McFall. Navalny wife now has been appointed. I mean, she was at the Munich Security Conference ready to step in before he died. He died. The script comes in, boom. She's now the new figure of the opposition. She's not tainted by crime. (41:32) She's at Navalny. That's a headline in the Washington Post today. Yeah, she's the new face of the opposition because Navalny had been neutered by the Russians, but as long as he was alive, he was a problem for the CIA. So Freddy five fingers, that's all I'm going to say. He was told Your family will be taken care of. All they have to do is lie in the tub and open up my veins, and it's a quiet, painful day. He overdosed on the drugs they gave him. He went for a walk and he died, didn't come back. His family's taken care of, and that's what I believe happened. I believe that the CIA knocked this guy off in prison. He took a long walk on a very short pier. Yeah. (42:20) So you've got Alexander the Butcher, sarky Ky, the commander of Ukraine's Ground forces. Since the start of the military operation, he is now the new military chief after Emir, Zelensky replaced zany in this leadership shakeup. What does that tell us at this stage of the game? What does that type of move tell us? Are they transitioning now to another phase of this process, recognizing that the war is lost? Again, everything has to have a setup because nothing happens in a vacuum. Ukraine is called the greatest democracy in the world. We know that's not true, but it's called the greatest democracy in the world by America. We overthrew it in 2014. Yes, we would know. But the key aspect of democracies is civil military relations, meaning that the civilian is the commander in chief, and the military always obeys the orders. Let's look at American history. (43:32) George McClellan, Abraham Lincoln McClellan was the commander of the army of the Potomac, and he thought he knew how to win this war, and Abraham Lincoln disagreed and fired him. And McClellan said, sir, yes sir. And he resigned because civil military relations, that's what you do. McClellan went on to challenge Lincoln in the elections and lost, but he didn't launch a coup. That's not what you do. Douglas MacArthur, during the Korean War thought he knew how to win the war, wanted to drop atomic bombs on China. Harry Truman said, Nope, that's not how we're going to do it. And they met in Midway, and Truman fired him, and MacArthur went, sir, yes sir. And he resigned. That's what civil military relations supposed to be in a democracy. Zelensky met with zany, who's the commander of the Ukrainian Armed forces, and he said, I don't like the fact that you're articulating policy that goes against what I want. (44:31) I want to be more aggressive. I have to go out and sell this conflict to the West, and I have to sell it, that we're going to regain all the lost territory. And you, as the general is supposed to say, sir, yes, sir, but you've gone out and given interviews behind my back saying it's a frozen conflict, a stalemate. I can't do that. You're fired and solution. He said, no, I'm not. And Zelensky went. Zany said, not only am I not fired, but here, let me show you this. Here's my picture. Given a medal to a right sector, Nazi from the organization, said, they're going to hang you from the deck, and if you ever go against this, and behind me is a picture of step on Bandera and the right sector flag. Go ahead and fire me now. Zelensky, you're a dead man walking. (45:14) And when Zelensky started calling people up saying Aslu saying no, one of the people he called up was Ky, who said, I just want to tell you right now, Mr. President, myself and the entire Ukrainian general staff support slu, you fire 'em. We come marching, it's over. And now Victoria Newland, and everybody's back there going, can't do this, guys. We're supposed to be giving 64 billion to the world's greatest democracy. We're against coups, and you're getting ready to launch a coup. She flies in panic, and so she cuts a deal. She explains to everybody, if you do this coup, we can't support you. It's over, and then you're all going to die. And the generals realized that, and they went, yeah, we understand that. Zelensky realized that. So zany stepped aside, Zeki took over, but understand what happened. It's a coup. There's one man in charge of Ukraine today, and his name is not Mir Zelinsky. (46:07) His name is Ky. He's the commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and they're calling the shots. How do we know this? Because within days of him coming in, he said, we're going over to the general defensive. He's calling the shots. Zelinsky said, we'll never leave at vca. KY came and said, get 'em out. Pull 'em out, red, destroy the line. We're going to be pulling back the military's in charge. And now you have some interesting things because the coup we didn't want to happen may happen because the nationalists are all upset. And there's talk about driving on Kiev right now. The Nazi nationalists are you're talking about, yeah, the Nazis, the N right sector guys who became Ovv, who now have renamed themselves. They're the third assault brigade, and everybody's going, there's no Nazis in Ukraine because there's nothing called the Azov, except the Nazis are so stupid. (47:03) They say, nah, third of assault brigade we're azo. And they do it right on camera, seeling all this kind of stuff in the West, everywhere. Oh, no, we don't want to see this guy's just calling himself the third assault brigade. But no, the Nazis are there. They're upset. It's a mess right now. But America, I'm just telling everybody's this, right? There was a coup deta in Ukraine. The generals are in charge. Zelinsky is a figurehead right now, but the people calling the shot is the military. Now, that's a new reality. I just want to quickly take a step back and to the point you were making about Navalny, to those that think what you're saying is fanciful and crazy, the United States did a similar action. They didn't kill him, but they did a similar action in Venezuela with Juan Gudo. The United States told the world that Juan Gudo was the president of Venezuela, even though Nicholas Maduro is the democratically elected president. (48:11) And when Gudo failed, now the United States is trying to do the same thing with a woman named Marina Machado, and she has been convicted by the Venezuelan Supreme Court as having worked with, I think it's Peru, against the interests of Venezuela. So the Venezuelan Supreme Court said, because you've gone outside the country and tried to overthrow this government, you are no longer qualified to be a candidate for president. The United States is trying to ignore the, dictate the decision of the Venezuelan Supreme Court and put this woman in place. Anyway, I bring that up just to show that what you have talked about in terms of, now I forgot the guy's name, Naval, Naval, Navalny, the United States is doing this in doing this, a number of places, and Venezuela is the most recent. But yeah. How about President Diem in Vietnam? Well, we can go for people going, well, this is fanciful. (49:19) This is out of a guys. We do it all the time. All the time. When leaders become inconvenient to the Sharan, the Sharan, the Sha Saddam Hussein. I just want to remind people, one of the more interesting, I was involved with a lot of defectors, Iraqi defectors in my time as a UN weapons inspector, and one guy that I interviewed many, many times was Wafi Samara. He was the head of military intelligence for Saddam. He ended up being in London and run by the Brits. So I'd go there and the MI six would take you to a safe house, and Wafi would come in and we'd have long conversations, and I tried to extract information from him that could lead to good inspections. But he just sat there and he talked about how the US intelligence would fly in, because the place I wanted to inspect was a specific office with a specific safe. (50:13) And he said, Hey, when you're in that safe, if you go down to this drawer, boom, you might find some photographs that you recognize. And I said, whatcha talking about? He goes, that's where we kept the American Spy satellite photographs that were given to us by American Intelligence officers who came in and sat in that conference room right next to it. You'll see it when you go in there. I did. And we met there, and they would brief us on the spy satellites, give us the newest signals, intelligence laying out the Iranian ground forces, and they helped us plan the chemical weapons attacks against the Iranians in 1988 and afa. We had this wonderful relationship. He gave me the names of all the guys that he worked with. What I'm trying to say is, ladies and gentlemen, there was a time in 19 88, 19 89, where Saddam was our boy. (50:58) US intelligence was there. Then Saddam became inconvenient. He fired scud missiles at Israel, which is a capital crime, and we ended up going to war removing them and having him hung by the neck until dead because his continued survival would've been inconvenient for America. Let me just make it as clear as this. Navalny had become inconvenient because the Russians were sitting on, the Russians never go public about anything, and their words mean everything. And when Pesco said, in October of 2020, we know what the CIA is doing, the cia, we know who he's working with. We know what's happening. It meant they know. They know everything. They have all the financials, they have all the videotapes, they have everything. And the US knew it too. That interview with Tucker is very telling. He said, I'm not going to talk to Biden. There's really nothing for me to say, but he says, our special services are talking. (51:58) They're talking the language of the special services. Having been in the special services and engaged in those kinds of conversations, they're very frank, because we don't have to play games. When you sit down with somebody and they know what your background is, we don't have to pretend. We talk about human recruitment, we talk about technical surveillance, we talk about the tools of the trade, we talk about the language that we know is going on. And so when the special services of Russia sit down with the special services of the CI and say, we know exactly what you guys did. You met here, boom, boom, boom. We got the goods. He's your boy. Do you want him back? And the CIA went, Nope, we don't want him back. We're going to have a lawyer visit him. And again, it may sound something like that, a movie. (52:40) But remember, Hollywood gets its greatest cues from reality. Frank Pan, angel, Freddy, five Fingers, Freddy, five Fingers baby. Favorite scene in the world. And it's real. I mean, I'm giving away my article, but I'm writing an article that this is going to be explained in great detail, and I talk about Freddy Five Fingers. So the next point here that I want to get to with you quickly is Mike Turner, Republican of Ohio, chair of the House Intelligence Committee. He's warning that Russia may be developing a space-based weapon that could target US satellites. And a lot of the narrative that's surrounding what he said over last weekend is that now Russia has violated, there were some treaties I think signed in the mid eighties that the countries agreed that they would not militarize space. But what seems to be left out of this conversation is that I think when the United States announced the Space Force that was militarization of space, therefore the treaty that they now want to wrap themselves in and call foul based upon, really the United States has already violated it. (54:00) So go ahead. Well, the treaty is the 1967 treaty, the outer space Treaty 67. Okay? And it talks about, it doesn't say demilitarization. What it says is that space should be used for exclusively peaceful purposes and that nobody should deploy nuclear weapons in the space. Now, what Turner has to show the stupidity of Mike Turner and these people. Apparently there's raw intelligence. That's the term that's used, and that's an important phrase. Finished intelligence is when I collect information, I corroborate it with different sources. You connect the dots, I connect the dots. That's right. Bingo. Good job, Wilmer. And you connect the dots, and then you write up an assessment that it's fact-based. But here's the important thing. You disguise the sources of information because if you're going to release finished intelligence to a congressman or Congress, they do what politicians do. They talk. They bring in somebody, Hey, read this. (55:05) You're not supposed to write about it, but wink, wink, read this. And they go, oh my God, the Russians are going to put a nuclear weapon in space. What are we going to do about it? Okay, finished. Intelligence gets leaked all the time. Everybody does it. The president on down. It's just the name of the game in Washington dc. Raw intelligence though, is almost never leaked. Why? Because raw intelligence means we haven't protected the source. So Turner released raw intelligence. He released a raw intelligence report to Congress. He put it in the reading room and said, everybody needs to come and read this thing. Now, a lot of people did, a lot of people didn't, but it created a storm because he issued a public statement, which means the media now, because he knows how the game's played. Now, every reporter worked their salt in Washington. (55:55) Dcs found their congressional sourcing. What the hell is on that report? And people started talking. So what we do know now is that the Russians are developing an anti-satellite capability that incorporates a nuclear device designed to generate an electromagnetic pulse that can shut down all of our satellites in outer space. Now, why is this important? Understand this. Turner released his report on Wednesday, knowing that on Thursday, the gang of eight, four senators, four Republicans from the Intelligence Committee, the leadership was going to meet with the White House National Security Council about this very report and talk about it. So why would you release it when they're already going to talk about it? What are you trying to do? (56:42) On Wednesday, the day he released his report, SpaceX sent up a Falcon Nine rocket with two satellites. These satellites were experimental missile monitoring satellites, part of a constellation of satellites that the United States started deploying last year. We deployed 28 of them last year. It's going to be a constellation of hundreds. It's sort of like a militarized starlink. And the purpose of this constellation is give America total control over the informational domain. That means that we communicate faster, we navigate, we can target, we can collect. We've militarized space. And the Russians have said, they've written reports to Secretary General saying, Hey, this is a violation of the outer space treaty. You're militarizing space. You're creating an advantage at a time when you say you want to strategically defeat Russia, remember, that's the American objective. And the Russians are saying, if you do this, you could launch a first strike against us, and we might not be able to respond. (57:45) You're getting a unilateral advantage here, and if we do go to war, you're going to have this total control over intelligence, collection, communications, et cetera, that gives you an operational and tactical advantage. We can't allow this to happen. So what the Russians did is they developed a weapon. They haven't deployed it yet, but it's a weapon that it will go up. And in one winding flash of a moment, that doesn't threaten any life here in America. It's not like they're going up there with a giant dirty bomb. It's going to be a neutron type device, a small device that's geared towards emitting radiation, the pulse, and it's going to blind the entire in an instant shut down this entire satellite network. But here's the important thing. From Turner's perspective, the entire American military approach to war depends on this. If we don't have this satellite thing, we put talk about putting all the eggs in one basket, we have literally put all the eggs in one basket. (58:44) Everything we do depends on this. If you shut that satellite network down, ladies and gentlemen, we can't go to war. We can't go to war. It's over. And Turner knows it. So what Turner's trying to do is say, guys, why are we investing all this money? This is going to go on for years when we know the Russians can undo it. This is stupid. We need to either get involved in arms control to prevent this from happening, or we need to come up with a backup plan because these satellites ain't going to work the way you want 'em to work when you want 'em to work. That's noble. But here's the problem. He released raw intelligence, which means the Russians now know how we collected it, and at a time when we need to have continued access to this stream of reporting. Now more than ever, let's imagine that the president says, Hey, what are the Russians up to today on that satellite thing, the thing we've been monitoring, you guys came to me and you said, Hey, boss, we put a, I don't know how they did it. (59:49) We tapped a cable and now we're listening to the conversations of these guys. Oh, wow, that's cool. Okay, but boss, we can't talk about, we can't mention the following words because if we mention the following words, the Russians will know what conversation we listen to, and then they'll stop communicating. Well, raw intelligence gives you those words. It wasn't finished product. Mike Turner compromised his source. We will never listen to them again at a time when we actually need to be monitoring this to come up with a strategy. Remember, let's say we want to do the right thing for once in our pathetic lives as Americans, and we say, maybe it's time we do engage in meaningful arms control. This is when we need to know what Russian intent is. How far along are they? Are they going to deploy this? Is this something that the Russians are doing to get to the negotiating table, or is this something that the Russians are going to keep, no matter what, what's going on, it affects our negotiating strategy. (01:00:44) We don't know now because Mike Turner released the raw intelligence to do an honorable thing to get people, he knew that they were going to sweep it under the rug. He knew that the Gang of eight and the White House were just go, Nope, we're not going to worry about this. We're going to keep deploying the satellites. And he's going, that's stupid. But now we are blind. And that's why I call it Turner's folly. I mean, trying to do the right thing. He did the absolute wrong thing. And now at a time when we need to have this intelligence, it's not there. I know there's a lot of people out there that thinks intelligence is a bad word, and it's been misused throughout history. There's no doubt about that. But I'm here to tell you right now that collecting information of this nature is absolutely essential to the national security of the United States because you want our leaders to be informed about the potential threats that exist around the world. (01:01:32) And there's a need for intelligence, not Iris. I'm not talking about violating American constitutional rights. I'm not talking about, I'm saying there's a need for people like me who did it honorably. It's a tough job. It's a dangerous job. Sometimes you have to do things that you wouldn't want to talk about at the PTA, but it's the reality of the world that you have to go out there and you have to get this information so that your leaders are informed so they can make the right decisions. And Mike Turner has cost us that information at a time when we desperately need it. Final question for you. And that surrounds nato and Donald Trump's comments about nato, and there seems to be an awful lot of furor about his talking about defunding NATO and all this kind of stuff, when all that I can read and understand is that NATO is now really obsolete and that it's a money laundering scheme. (01:02:26) Yeah, let me put it this way. There's a foreign minister of Lithuania Landsburg out there, and he's, I mean, Lithuania, the Baltic countries, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, they're making a lot of noise right now about Article five and how it's essential that NATO must come to the collective defense. But Lithuania is talking about, for instance, blockading Coing grad, the Russian enclave on the Baltic Sea. They're talking about sanctions. They're talking about a whole bunch of stuff that could lead to a war with Russia. And they're saying, that's okay because we're nato, and NATO will protect us. (01:03:05) The American people need to understand that Lithuania has a population of 2.8 million. The greater East Coast megapolis from Boston to Washington DC is 50 million people. Do you really think that we're going to sacrifice 50 million people to defend 2.8 million people who are kicking a hornet's nest right now? The answer is no. And that's the bottom line about nato. The American people are waking up to the fact that NATO is not about defending Europe from the evil Russians, NATO's a suicide pill. Because you have nations like Poland, you have nations like Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, that think that because they have this NATO shield behind them, they can behave aggressively to Russian and not have any consequence to it. If they start a war against Russia and a blockade of Coing, grad is an act of war, Russia will respond militarily. And now if you're Joe Biden, it's a sacred thing. (01:04:04) Every inch of NATO soil is sacred. Article five is a sacred, no, it's a suicide pill. It's a trap having poodles trying to get the rottweilers to fight. NATO is an organization that has outlived its usefulness. Donald Trump, he's not the most eloquent person or the most articulate person. And there's a lot about him that just cannot be supported 100%. But I'll tell you right now, he's speaking the mind of many Americans when he says, we ain't doing this anymore. We're not paying your bills. We're not going to be there for you. When you want to kick a hornet's nest. We don't want to get stung. So you're on your own, and that's what's going to happen. I am predicting that nato, it may not last 10 years. It's out. It's on its way out because it's, here's the thing. Remember we talked about mobilization at the beginning? (01:04:56) We talked about mobilization. It's funny to watch the schizophrenia that exists in people like Jan Stoltenberg who stutters his way through everything. Russia is evil, and we must must stand up through Russia. NATO must do, but we cannot afford to mobilize right now. We have no money. Our industry is no longer working, and we don't, but America will pay for it because NATO is a, I mean, it's going back and forth. NATO can't mobilize right now because they don't have the industrial base to mobilize. Not only that, nobody wants to be part the British who are out there. Boris Johnson doing that ridiculous thing. Lance Corporal Johnson reporting, sir, we're going to mobilize the people. First of all, Britain has two aircraft carriers. They built for, I forget how many billions of dollars they can't get out of port because they don't work. They build a whole bunch of new frigates, brand new modern frigates to defend these aircraft carriers, but they don't have enough sailors. (01:05:51) So in order to get the sailors on these new frigates, they have to retire frigates that are still good. So they're military. We're going to fight the Russians. I mean, you hear this British general, we're going to be on the front lines of the next war with Russia, with what? Your military's 72,000. Right now, you can't fill up a soccer stadium, and in five years it's going to be 56,000. Nobody wants to join the British military anymore. Nobody's joining the Navy. Nobody's joining anything because the youth of Europe don't believe in Europe. They don't believe they're not willing to give their lives for this pathetic little enterprise called Europe or nato. So all this talk about 300,000, this, that mobilize. It's all talk. And that's the good news is it's all talk. The better news is I think NATO's done because you used a word that's very important. And normally, as I said, I shy against conspiracies, but NATO's a money laundering scheme, that's all it is. It's an employment vehicle. I mean, I have to be careful. I have relatives that work for nato. They're not Americans, and thank God, I mean, one's married to my sister. So I like the fact that he has a paycheck. It keeps my sister fed and a roof overhead. (01:07:07) But the jobs not a real job. None of NATO's a real job. It's just an employment vehicle for a political economic elite that automatically fallen on these ES because that's what NATO is. It's a sinecure for people just to sit there and collect a paycheck doing nothing. If I have the chance to speak to President Biden, and I know he watches the show regularly, I would have to ask him about the sanctity of NATO that he holds so near and dear, if you believe in NATO to the degree that you do, Mr. President, why did you engage in an act of war as in blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline? Why did you engage in an act of war against a NATO country that being Germany? Because by doing so, article five, the other NATO countries are supposed to respond to Germany's defense in a manner in which they see fit. (01:08:10) So I guess the fact that they didn't respond means they didn't see a manner that they see fit. But I don't hear anybody asking that question. Why? If NATO is NATO and it's sacrosanct as it is, why did you engage in an act of war against a NATO member? That's my final question, Scott Ritter. Well, I mean, it's a great question, but here's even an equally relevant one. Why did the German chancellor stay silent at the press conference in February when the president said that if Russian and invade Ukraine, I'll take out Nord stream. And when he was asked the question, but it's German, how could you do that? It'll get done, I promise you. And Olaf Schultz is sitting there going, not saying a word, not saying a word. So how can you, I mean, the thing about Article five is it has to be invoked by the person attacked. (01:09:05) And Germany never once said, we've been attacked because they were there when it was designed. Olaf Schultz knew all along that this was going to happen because Germany's not a sovereign state. And that's the thing about NATO that people need to understand. It exists only for the United States. It's the exclusive tool of the United States. It exists to promote American national security interests. And this is why when you have Latvia and Poland now believing that NATO's there for their interest, no, it's not. NATO doesn't exist for anybody's interest, but our own. And as Europe wakes up to this reality, they're going to realize that we don't need to be part of NATO anymore because it doesn't benefit us. And there's a lot of talk now about a European security agency and things of that nature. Yeah, and President Putin asked, I thought, a very relevant as we look at, so people say, well, why did the United States blow up nato? (01:10:05) Well, I mean, blow up Nord Stream basically to de-industrialized Germany de-industrialized Europe, and have the Europeans start buying natural gas from the United States and other things. Putin during his speech said, well, you realize they didn't destroy the entire Nord stream pipeline. There is one pipe that can still transmit gas. Why don't you open that up? He said, there's the ability to send gas through Ukraine. Why don't you open that up? There's the ability to send gas through Poland. Why don't you open that up and haven't heard an answer? But that's, you want the best answer. Go ahead. I'll just say this. I grew up in Germany and the car that I loved, I was in love with the Porsche nine 11 SC Turbo, rough modified, and well, guess what's happening. Wilmer Porsche is moving its production to the United States. Michelin, the French Tire company. Michelin has shut down, I think two tire plants in Germany, and they're moving them. (01:11:15) I don't know where they're moving, but they're moving 'em out of Germany. I know that. Can you imagine a Porsche plant and a Michelin plant? I tell you what, there's going to be a new car in my driveway pretty soon. It's going to stay made in the USA on it, but that's what's going on. We've de-industrialized Europe to our benefit. And again, we come b

In this Podcast episode, the David Satter, a renowned journalist and authority on Russia, highlights the brutality and dark history of Stalin, the rise of communism in Russia, and the KGB's role in Soviet history and its use of psychological programming and much more. This episode covers Satter's extensive career, from his days reporting in the Soviet Union to his unique position as the first Western journalist banned from Russia post-Cold War, due to his critical reporting. Timestamps: 00:00:00 - Introduction to Soviet Reporting and Psychological Novels in Russia 00:03:02 - The Bolshevik Revolution's Impact on Russian Society and Ideology00:06:00 - Communism's Influence and the Red Terror in Soviet Russia00:09:58 - Lenin's Ideology and the Role of the Intelligentsia in Soviet History00:13:02 - Stalin's Regime, War Communism, and the New Economic Plan00:16:22 - Religion, State Ideology, and Marxism in the Soviet Union 00:19:03 - Dialectical Materialism and Mass Psychology in Soviet Ideology 00:22:01 - Transition to Bolsheviks and Lenin's Influence on Marxist Theory00:25:26 - Stalin's Leadership and Soviet Repression Techniques00:28:00 - KGB's Role in Soviet Society and the Psychological Impact of Repression00:31:16 - Fear and Challenges in Soviet Society and Reporting in the Soviet Union 00:34:00 - Control of Information, Public Perception, and the KGB's System00:37:33 - Impact of Stalin's Reign, Humor in Soviet Dissent, and Anti-Soviet Sentiments00:40:25 - Risks of Suggesting Reforms and Lack of Freedom of Expression 00:43:10 - Mental Oppression in the Soviet Union and Summary of Soviet History 00:46:04 - Economic Situation and Black Market Dynamics in the Soviet Union 00:49:02 - The Rise of Oligarchs and Mass Theft during Privatization 00:52:04 - Gorbachev's Policies and the Impact of Glasnost on Soviet Society00:55:05 - The Shock of Truthful Information and the Fall of Soviet Ideology 00:58:30 - The End of the Soviet Union and the Rise of Yeltsin and Putin 01:01:10 - Transition to Post-Soviet Russia and the Failure to Establish a Law-Based State 01:04:05 - The Emergence of Gangsterism and Criminal Ties in Post-Soviet Russia 01:07:02 - The Plight of the Russian Population and the Rise of the Oligarchs 01:10:00 - The National Income Fall and the Overall Impact on Russian Society 01:13:02 - The Ideological Imprint on Minds and the Shock of Truthful Information 01:16:22 - The Fall of Soviet Ideology and the Rise of Political Orthodoxy 01:19:03 - The Destruction of the Soviet Union and the Emergence of Free Information 01:22:01 - The Transition Period Post-Soviet Union and the Rise of Gangster Capitalism 01:25:26 - The Reconstruction of the Economic System and the Rise of Criminal Oligarchs 01:28:00 - The Impact of Lawlessness and Corruption in Post-Soviet Russia 01:31:16 - The Legacy of the Soviet Union and Its Long-Term Effects on Russian Society

As Americans opened their Christmas gifts 32 years ago, the beleaguered president of a superpower on the other side of the world endured a unique humiliation. Mikhail Gorbachev, whose open mind and magnetism had captivated Western publics after coming to power in 1985, announced his resignation as leader of the Soviet Union. The nation-state he had tried to reform into something better was swept into the dustbin of history. December 25, 1991: Gorbachev was gone; the country he led no longer existed. The moment was celebrated in the West. But if democracy and market economies were on the march as the curtain fell on the Cold War, their advance halted in Russia during the disastrous Yeltsin years of the 1990s. In this episode, historian Vladislav Zubok, who was born in Moscow in the 1950s and witnessed the rise and fall of perestroika and glasnost, takes on a provocative question: what if some kind of union had survived the tumult of 1991? A proto-democratic, voluntary confederation with decision-making authority devolved to the now former Soviet republics? The question matters today. A revanchist, chauvinist Russia under Vladimir Putin seeks to dominate its neighbors. Western commentators worry about the fate of the "liberal world order" and the waning of U.S. hegemony just a generation after they appeared triumphant.

#Russia:  How did Yeltsin pick Putin to be president in 2000? Rebekah Koffler, former DIA intelligence officer and author of Putin's Playbook: Russia's Secret Plan to Defeat America, @GordonGChang, Gatestone, Newsweek, The Hill https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/12/08/putin-announces-russia-presidential-election-ukraine-war/ https://www.foxnews.com/world/putin-2024-why-he-almost-certainly-win-another-term-retaining-presidency-till-2030 1900 Petersburg

In 1998, Russia's President Boris Yeltsin shocked the nation with a last-minute decision to speak at the reburial of Tsar Nicholas II and his family, 80 years after their murder.“We must end an age of blood and violence in Russia,” he said, as he called for the country to face up to the crimes of its communist past.Lilia Dubovaya, a reporter for the state news service, told Robert Nicholson about the emotional weight of the day. A Whistledown production for BBC World Service.(Image: President Yeltsin at the reburial of Tsar Nicholas II. Credit: Reuters)

Professor Michael John Williams engages with Ambassador Dennis Ross in a comprehensive discussion about NATO's role in shaping post-Cold War geopolitics. With a distinguished diplomatic career, Ambassador Ross shares his insights on various historical events, including the reunification of Germany, NATO's enlargement, and current tensions in Ukraine.Key Topics Discussed:German Unification and NATO: The episode begins with analyzing Germany's reunification and integration into NATO, emphasizing the strategic decisions and negotiations involved.NATO's Enlargement and Russia: The conversation shifts to NATO's eastward expansion and its effects on U.S.-Russia relations, including the responses from leaders like Yeltsin and Putin.Current Conflict in Ukraine: Ambassador Ross provides his perspective on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, discussing its historical context and potential resolutions.Diplomacy and Statecraft: Throughout the episode, Ambassador Ross emphasizes the importance of diplomacy, statecraft, and the complex relationship dynamics among global leaders.This episode offers a deep dive into NATO's evolving role in international relations, providing historical context and expert analysis of current geopolitical challenges, particularly the conflict in Ukraine.Music is considered “royalty-free” and discovered on Story Blocks.Technical Podcast Support by Jon Keur at Wayfare Recording Co.

The new series of Fascinating People, Fascinating Places launches on 5 January 2024 with new episodes featuring the man who caught Saddam Hussein, the lawyer for the 9/11 mastermind, and much more. But in the interim, I am replaying five episodes that were selected by listeners as the best content over the last few years. If you're new to the show now is the time to catch up. If you're a long-term listener here is a chance to revisit some of the fan favorites.  Shortly after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I had the pleasure of speaking with WSJ veteran David Satter. He was expelled from Moscow due to his investigative work that indicated Vladimir Putin came to power on the back of terrorist atrocities committed by the FSB but blamed on Chechens. In this episode, he shares a compelling story that supports his claims. On 13 September 1999 Gennadiy Seleznyov speaker of the Duma announced to the Russian parliament that a terrorist attack had hit the remote and hitherto unremarkable city of Volgodonsk. The bombing did occur but not until 3 days later. But it was this incident in conjunction with other bombings that set in motion a series of events that salvaged the reputation of President Boris Yeltsin and laid the stage for his protege Vladimir Putin to come to power. But Selezynyovs apparent clairvoyance wasn't the only indication that something more sinister was afoot. And many people believe the second Chechen war was launched on the basis of a false flag attack concocted by Vladimir Putin. In this episode, I talk to the acclaimed journalist David Satter – formerly the Moscow correspondent for The Financial Times, and special correspondent for The Wall Street Journal. He was the first investigative reporter to detail what he believes was a bloody conspiracy to bring Putin to power. Aside from his journalistic work, David Satter has written five books about Russia including Age of Delirium: The Decline and Fall of the Soviet Union which was adapted into a documentary film, and more recently he authored The Less You Know, The Better You Sleep: Russia's Road to Terror and Dictatorship under Yeltsin and Putin. In December 2013, he was expelled from Russia having been accused of violating migration laws. A claim that he denies and has been widely derided. Like many before and since his real crime appears to have been His actual offense appears to have been his efforts to expose the true nature of an opaque and sinister regime. Music and Sound: Pixabay Guests: David Satter (on Wikipedia)  

Episode 28 of The Reed Morin Show is a podcast interview with David Satter, the man who exposed Vladimir Putin for his role in the 1999 Russian Apartment bombing. These bombings solidified Putin as the defacto leader of Russia, at a time where his ascension to power was quickly falling apart. David Satter, a journalist, author, historian, and foreign policy expert –– who is widely regarded as one of the world's preeminent experts on Vladimir Putin / Russia. In December 2013, after years of exclusive reporting on Putin's crimes against humanity, David became the first Western Journalist ever banned from Russia (by their government) in the post-Cold War era. From 1976 until his banishment in 2013, David spent the majority of his time living in the Soviet Union (which later became Russia) while working as the Moscow Correspondent for the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal. He is perhaps best known as the first researcher who claimed that Vladimir Putin and Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) were behind the 1999 Russian Apartment Bombings, the 2002 Nord-Ost Siege, and the 2004 Beslan School Attack. Over the past 2 decades, David has authored 5 books on Russia / The Soviet Union. Furthermore, he is also a Senior Fellow at both the Foreign Policy Research Institute & The Hudson Institute –– as well as a Visiting Scholar at Johns Hopkins. **Timestamps** 0:00 - Introduction: Unraveling Putin's Rise and Russia's Political Shifts 1:30 - The Near-Miss Tragedy and Putin's Ascent to Power 3:45 - Early Years of Vladimir Putin: The Making of a Leader 5:10 - Analyzing the Collapse of the Soviet Union 7:20 - Yeltsin's Presidency: Corruption and Crony Capitalism 9:35 - Vladimir Putin's Strategic Rise to Power 11:50 - The 1999 Apartment Bombings and Political Impact 14:15 - FSB's Role and Public Reaction in Russia 16:40 - Global Response to Russian Political Events 18:55 - Media Silence and Political Cover-Ups in Russia 21:10 - Putin's Election and the Strategy Behind It 23:30 - Corruption, Power, and Overlooked Russian History 25:45 - Deciphering Russia's Current Political State 26:00 - The Devastating Impact of Economic Collapse in Russia 28:15 - The High Death Rate and Social Despair in 1990s Russia 30:30 - The Tragic Consequences of Neglected Public Services 32:45 - Yeltsin's Failing Policies and Public Discontent 35:00 - The Dangerous State of Public Morale in Russia 37:15 - Putin's Opportunistic Rise Amidst National Crisis 39:30 - Analyzing the Shift in Global Political Dynamics 41:45 - Putin's Strategy in the Middle East and Its Implications 44:00 - Future of Russia-West Relations Post-War 46:15 - The Militarization of Russia and NATO's Response 48:30 - The Impact of Ukraine's Alignment with the West 50:45 - Changing Russian Ideology and the Role of the West 53:00 - The US and Russia: Learning from Soviet History 55:15 - Encouraging Critical Thinking in the Face of Mass Psychology 57:30 - Conclusion: Reflecting on Russia's Political Journey and Future Prospects

Robert Jefferson is an American broadcast news anchor and Air Force veteran, professor of journalism and has had the majority of his career working in Japan.Jefferson shares an overview of his career and biography, while offering his views on the decline of journalism and the West. He offers advice for those considering life abroad and emphasizes the importance of staying curious, questioning authority, and learning history to navigate the current media landscape. Jefferson also shares his personal health journey and the benefits of gardening and maintaining a healthy lifestyle in this insightful interview.Connect with The Kamakura GardenerSupport The Kamakura Gardener : patreon.com/TheKamakuraGardenerSubject Time Stamps:* (01:26) The Mid-Atlantic Broadcast Accent and Biography* (03:25) The Dark Side of Paradise* (07:25) Relationship to Social Media* (09:25) Work at NHK World TV…* (15:58) An Interest in the Foreign* (20:24) Moving to Japan* (27:19) A Decline in Japanese Media * (34:48) Being a Free Man in Japan* (45:07) The Kamakura Gardener / Catharsis * (57:05) Teaching at Temple University* (1:02) Critique of being labeled a conspiracy theorist and the importance of seeking truth* (1:09) Finding Opportunities Abroad * (1:15) Closure and Where to ConnectLeafbox:Today I had the pleasure of speaking and learning from Robert Jefferson. Robert is an American 47 year broadcast news anchor, and Air Force veteran. He's a professor of journalism and has had the majority of his career working in Japan. Aside from his broadcast duties, he has a smaller, intimate project known as the Kamakura Gardener. Today we explore his biography, his disenchantment with corporate media, truth finding and sense-making, and his eventual catharsis in finding local content, connecting community to the gardens and surroundings of Kamakura Japan. He shares his experience finding freedom in Japan and offers an analysis of the decline of journalism and of the West. We talk about his brief stint in Hawaii and the mainland, and offer an option for those considering life abroad and paths for finding opportunity. Thanks for listening. I hope you enjoy. That's one of my first questions. I think my mom, she introduced me to your videos and I think she fell in love with your voice. You definitely have a beautiful broadcaster voice. Where did you actually grow up in the States?Robert Jefferson:I was born in Philadelphia, but I grew up in Montgomery County, which is about an hour north of Philadelphia. And I have what's called a Mid-Atlantic Broadcast accent. I was in broadcasting in the military. That was my job information broadcast specialist. I was a TV news announcer in the Air Force. I was lucky. I insisted. I had an FCC license when I joined. I had been studying up to that point, actually. They tried to make me an inventory management specialist, and I said, hell no. Hell no. And I prevailed, and it didn't take long, just a week or so, and I was sent to a technical school, the Defense Information School of Journalism Public Affairs. I know Honolulu well, I knew Honolulu very well back in the mid eighties for KHVH News Radio 99 and KGU Talk Radio 76. The voice of "Hawaii".Leafbox:Well, you actually had the perfect Hawaii accent there. That was pretty well done.Robert Jefferson:Yeah, most people have no clue what the W is a “V” sound.Leafbox:It's not America and it's not Japan. It's in between both. But here in Hawaii, I think we have, there's a strong sense of Aina, of place, of localism, of culture, of being connected to each other. People haveRobert Jefferson:The benefit of true diversity. You have the Japanese, the Chinese, the Portuguese, and the Polynesians, and then all of the other imports from around the world. So yeah, it's truly diverse. And that's not some just trite word. It truly is. Yeah. And then the local traditions, the first time I was ever called nigger was in Hawaii, in Honolulu. I was walking home one night from a club or somewhere. I was living in Lower Manoa, and I was walking up the hill from Honolulu. And these young, they were Asian kids, they were drunk or something, and they lean out the window, Hey nigger. That was the first and only time. I never felt any racial discrimination or antipathy or anything like that while I was there. And I was like, well, what the hell was that all about?Leafbox:What year was this in?Robert Jefferson:85, 86. But yeah, that was the only time. And so I would never let that taint my view or my experience in Hawaii. I mean, I was, it's this young, skinny black kid basically who got hired at two of the best radio stations in town. And then ABC News hired me to come back to, I left Japan to go to Hawaii, and then ABC News hired me to come back. So I'm not sure what that was all about, but that was the only time most people were very kind and gracious.Leafbox:So how long were you in Hawaii for?Robert Jefferson:About two years. And I meant to do this. I had to go back. When you get older, you kind of forget certain things, especially when it was four decades ago, a year and a half to two years that I was there. And I was able to, actually, I think I may have it, if you give me just a quick second here. There was a recreation of a voyage, a Polynesian voyage, the Hokulea, and I was there when they arrived at the beach, sort of like a spiritual leader, Sam Ka'ai. He was there, and yeah, I'll never forget that. They were blowing a co shell and they were doing all kinds of Hawaiian prayers and whatnot. It was absolutely beautiful.Leafbox:I didn't know anything about this. And your biographies kind of limited online a lot about yourRobert Jefferson:Yeah, I used to be on LinkedIn and all that. I erased it all. I got rid of it all. I don't trust LinkedIn, and I don't mind people knowing about me. But yeah, I would just prefer to have control over it.Leafbox:I apologize about these people in, butRobert Jefferson:Oh, no, no, no, no. You don't have to apologize at all. You have to apologize.Leafbox:Well, I mean, the good thing is you saw some of the darkness in Paradise as well, that there's very complex class issues.Robert Jefferson:When I was in Lower Manoa, I lived at, it was a house share, actually an old converted garage share. I was sharing with two other guys. One was Filipino American and the other one was from Detroit, a black American. And the owners were Chinese, and they were really sweet, very nice. The old lady, she used to get, she realized how poor we were. So she used to give us our lunches or dinner boxes, whatever. And she would always say "Sek Fan" , she couldn't speak much English. Sek Fan" is Cantonese for Have you Eaten? Which means How are you? But basically, it literally means have you eaten Shan Shan? And yeah, she's very sweet. Her sons were very nice, very nice. So yeah, I mean, I never had any racial issues except for that one night. Luckily it was just that one night. Yeah, you're right. It's good that I did experience a little darkness in paradiseLeafbox:Talking about darkness. I just was wondering what your concern a few times in the interview with the Black Experience guy, you talked about how you removed your Facebook account and how you just said that you deleted your LinkedInRobert Jefferson:Pretty much at the same time. Yeah, that was like 2016. I had just gotten fed up with big media.Leafbox:Well, that's one of my first questions is that you were in big media. Yeah. What shifted that media disenchantment or disgust?Robert Jefferson:Well, it was what Facebook and Zuckerberg were doing, prying into people's private affairs, restricting people from doing this, that and the other. I could see it coming, what we have now, the blacklisting, the shadow banning the outright banning of people. I could see that coming. And I said, I don't want to be any part of this. That's why I did sign up for Twitter years ago. I tried to use it a couple of times, and I was like, what the hell is this for? I couldn't really see the purpose. And it turns out it's just a place for people to go and show off or b***h and complain about each other. I don't want to be a part of that. It's something that Americans don't learn in school, and that is Jacobinism, bolshevism, Communism, Marxism. It is exactly what's happening in the United States now.It's being taken over. You go back and look at the French Revolution, the Jacobins, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, how they destroyed Russia, what happened in Germany during World War ii, the Nazism and all that. And they're doing it here now. Well, here, they're doing it in the United States now, and most people aren't taught about this stuff. They have no clue. They have no clue what's happening, and you can see it. For example, what's his name? The former FBI Director McCabe back in the seventies when he was in college and just getting out of college, he was identified Marxist, a communist. He was a member of the Communist Party, Brenner, the former CIA director, communist.And the media won't say anything about them. You try to bring it up and they'll deny it. But I mean, their quotes are out there. They don't deny the quotes. And now these people are running government. I mean, the whole Congress just pisses me off. I mean, how do you have somebody making 170,000 between $170,000 and $200,000 a year owning million dollar mansions? What's Maxine Waters in California? She owns a four and a half million dollar house on a $170,000 salary. That's impossible. Nancy Pelosi is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Her husband is worth more.Leafbox:Robert, why don't we go back one second, and just for people who don't know about your career and who you are, just a one minute biography for people.Robert Jefferson:Currently, I am a broadcast journalist. I work for Japan's public Broadcaster, NHK, at which I am a news writer and an announcer. I worked for two sections of NHK , NHK World tv, and I also work for the domestic service channel one as an announcer. We have what's called here, bilingual news. And the evening news is translated by a huge staff of translators and simultaneous interpreters, and I'm one of the on-Air English language announcers. So on a sub-channel, sub audio channel, how you can tune into either Japanese or English or both. You can split the channels. NHK world TV is internet based. It's for a foreign audience. It's not allowed to be broadcast in Japan, sort of like Voice of America used to be banned from broadcasting in the United States until Barack Obama came along. It was illegal for the United States government to propagandize its citizens, and the Voice of America is considered to be propaganda.And Barack Obama changed that to allow them to broadcast propaganda to American citizens. But anyway, I digress. So yeah, I've been in broadcasting as a professional. It'd be 50 years in 2026, actually started learning broadcasting in 1974. So next year will be my 50th anniversary as a novice, at least. I started in Philadelphia. I started, I heard it at W-D-A-S-A-M at FM in Philadelphia, if you can see that. I think it says 1977. I actually started in 1976, and I also worked at WRTI in Philadelphia, Temple University's radio station. And that was back in the late mid seventies. And then in 2003, when I went back to the States, I worked at WRTI, Temple University's radio station for a short while, while I was still in Philadelphia. Sorry to be jumping around like this, but right now, yes, I work for NHK right now. I was in high school.I started studying television production in high school in 1974 as a freshman. And then in 1976, I went to work as an intern, a production assistant at WDAS AM and FM in Philadelphia. People may remember Ed Bradley. He was with 60 Minutes. He got his start at, I don't know, maybe not his start, but he did work at WDAS in Philadelphia for a short time. And I went on and joined. I was enrolled at Temple University after high school in 1978, and I only spent one semester there because I was just sick and tired of sitting in classrooms after having spent 12 years in grade school and already had experience. I even had a federal communications commission's license, a third class radio telephone operators permit, which I still have somewhere around here, the certificate be in the business. I wanted to be, my dream was to be a foreign correspondent, which came true later.I'll get to that. And I wanted to be a war correspondent, but there were no wars at the time because the Vietnam War had ended, had it continued, I probably would've been drafted, but it ended in 75, and I came of age, well military age in 77. So I decided to join the Air Force. A friend of mine was thinking of joining the Air Force, and he wanted me to come along and basically sit with him and hold his hand while he talked to an Air Force recruiter. And so I went along and listened to him, and after he finished his spiel with my friend Tony, he turned to me and said, well, what about you? And I said, I'm fine. I'm enrolled at Temple University. And yeah, I've been a pursue a broadcasting career. And he said, well, don't you realize that the United States military has the largest network at the time in the world?And I said, really? Never heard of that? And he said, yeah, I'll come back and I'll bring some pamphlets and show you what we have. So he did, did come back, and there was the promise of being stationed overseas. I wanted to be a foreign correspondent. And so here I had an opportunity to travel the world and be paid for doing something in the United States military, at least that I wanted to do. And it was so enticing that I said, sure, I'll do it. I said, get away from the college classes. That would just totally boring. And to continue doing what I had already been doing for the past couple of years, four years at least. So yeah, I signed up and went to the Defense Information School of Journalism and Public Affairs. Overall, it was about a two year course and my first assignment, I was never stationed stateside. All of my assignments were overseas. My first assignment was in Southern Turkey at Interlink Air Base, just outside the southern Turkish city of Adana, just off the Mediterranean coast, just above Greece and Cyprus, close to the border with Syria and not too far from Lebanon.Leafbox:Where did this interest for the foreign come from? Was your family also military family, or where did you have Philadelphia? Why were you concerned with the rest of the world?Robert Jefferson:My family wasn't, we weren't traveling military. All of my grandfather was a jet engine mechanic in World War ii. My father was in the Korean War, but he was stationed in Germany. His younger brothers were also in the Korean War. They wanted to take advantage of the GI Bill, which they did. My father went on to study architecture at Drexel University in Philadelphia, but from a very young age, I was very curious about news. My first recollection, well, what I remember most about my childhood, the earliest recollection that I have of my childhood was November 22nd, 1963. I was three years old when John F. Kennedy was shot. And I was wondering, why are all of these adults staring at the television and crying, and why is the TV on all the time? All day long, we had this black and white TV sitting in the living room. We lived in Philadelphia at the time, and I was just fascinated.I could still remember the cortage of Kennedy's horse-drawn coffin on top of a horse-drawn carriage going down. I guess it was Pennsylvania Avenue towards the White House or wherever. I'm pretty sure it was the White House. And ever since that, I was just curious. I would sit when my mother would have her little cocktail parties or whatever, I would sit in the other room and eavesdrop. I was just curious about what they were talking about. I was always curious about news. Back in the sixties, you had the African liberation movements and the assassinations of African leaders. The Vietnam War was in full swing. Well, after Kennedy was assassinated and Johnson came in. Then there was the moon, the space race, how the Soviets were winning the space race, the first country to put a satellite in space, the first country to put an animal in space, the first country to put a man in space, the first country to put a woman in space, the first country to put a person of African descent in space in Americas was being shown up. See, we don't learn this stuff in school, but you could fact check me. Yeah, we had had newspapers galore. We had the Philadelphia Daily Bulletin in the morning and afternoon. We had the Philadelphia Enquirer. They had two papers a day. Of course, there was no internet back then, but people actually read the newspaper and actually talked about it. It was okay to talk about things. The civil rights movement was in full swing. It was quite a heady time to be young and impressionable.Leafbox:Robert, did your sister share this interest in media and international, your twin sister, you have?Robert Jefferson:No, not at all. Not at all. And I've, she recently joined Telegram, and I sent her a little welcome message, and then I tried to send her something newsworthy and she didn't want to hear it. She even said, I don't want to be seeing things like this. I forget exactly what it was. And so I deleted it. And I've never said anything like that. I have an older brother. I have two older sisters who are also twins, and then an older brother, and we used to send each other articles and we used to talk about things. But there's been a huge divide I found in America. A lot of people have joined a team, a tribe, and they don't want to hear anything else, whether it's the cult Covidian or the staunch Democrats or the staunch Republicans, the MAGA country people or whatever, people, a lot of people just don't want to talk anymore. But back in the sixties and seventies, people talked. They argued and they went out and had a barbecue together. There wasn't this vitriol in this division. Now, and this is done on purpose to divide and rule people. This is all being done on purpose. But back to your point, yeah, my sister, she was interested in sports. I wasn't. I became the house announcer at basketball games. I did play in junior high school. I did play football, but that was about it. I never played basketball, never learned the rules, never learned the positions. It just didn't interest me. I saw brothers fighting over basketball games and whatnot, destroying each other's bicycles over, and these were brothers how they went home and solved it, I don't know. ButLeafbox:Just moving forward a bit in time to Japan, you do the Air Force, they train you to be a journalist or announcer, and then how do you get to Japan?Robert Jefferson:Not only that announcer, a writer, a camera operator, a technical operator pressing all the buttons in the control room, ENG, electronic news gathering, the little mini cam on the shoulder thing, everything they taught.Leafbox:I mean, this might be a direct question, but you talked about propandandizing the population, being educated as a journalist or person in the Air Force seems, I'm curious how that educational experience is different than maybe how you're teaching a Temple and what the goals of that information management is.Robert Jefferson:Well, it is interesting. I dunno if you've seen the movie, Good Morning, Vietnam. Remember the two twins who were censors, the identical twins who were censoring, they would stand in the other room just beyond the glass, staring at the DJ or whatever, making sure they don't say anything wrong or if they're reading the news or something. That's Hollywood. There was never any such censor. We had no one censoring us. We had host nation sensitivities. Here I am in Southern Turkey during the Iran hostage crisis. No one stood over my shoulder censoring me. When I put together a newscast, it was my responsibility, and nobody told me what I couldn't say or what I couldn't say. It was just be respectful. We are in a predominantly Muslim country, Turkey, and so be respectful. And I was actually studying Islam at the time, and so I was one of the few people who could pronounce the names of the people in the news back then, the Iranian Foreign Minister or the Iranian president, the Iranian Foreign Minister.. , and the president's name was..., and I was one of the only people who could even pronounce these names.And the Saudi Arabian, who was the OPEC oil chief, Ahmed Zaki Yamani. I was studying Arabic at the time. I was studying Turkish and Arabic, and so I could pronounce these names, but we didn't have censorship. We used the wire services, United Press International, UPI and Associated Press AP. And they had some really good broadcast wires and far different than today. They were real journalists. Then.There may have been some slants pro this or pro that pro Europe, pro-Israel or whatever, but it wasn't as blatant as it is today. I think we were far more objective and neutral back then than what I hear today, especially on the corporate networks, the big American networks, the cable networks and whatnot. We were far more objective and neutral than what people are listening to today. And this was in the Air Force. So the news that I was broadcasting was basically pretty much the same as people heard on the radio while driving to work in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, although I was in Southern Turkey, we tried to recreate the American media atmosphere there as either as DJs or news announcers, because we had all of the same inputs that you would have at a radio and television station back in the state. The obvious slants that you see today, that CNN, for example.Leafbox:What about Japan? That's one of my main critiques or questions I have about how the Japanese media is managed and your analysis as an American of how that media consensus is created in Japan. If you have any opinion on that.Robert Jefferson:Well, it seems to me, I've noticed, I've worked in Japanese media now for 40 years. It seems to me that now there's been a huge change. Japanese media used to be more curious than they are now. They seem to follow, how should I put it, the status quo, the western status quo. Don't, for example, the war in Ukraine between Russia and Ukraine, they're calling it an unprovoked attack on Ukraine. It was not unprovoked. Hello? There was a coup d'etat instigated by the United States during the aba, the Barack Obama administration, the overthrew, a democratically elected, the first democratically elected president of Ukraine, was overthrown by a US backed coup led by the state department's, Victoria Neuland and John McCain was there, John Kerry was there, Neuland. She was there handing out cookies in Maidan Square, and now they called it an unprovoked invasion. The Ukrainians were killing their own people.They happened to be ethnic Russians, but they were killing their own people. 14,000 of them were dying in Eastern Ukraine. The Donetsk Lugansk don't question that. To answer your question, the Japanese don't question. They just go along with whatever Reuters is saying, whatever the AP is saying, whatever the Western American corporate TV networks or cable news are saying, it is just blindly following the status quo. And years ago, they didn't do that. They're taking sides because Japan and Russia have some territorial disputes, some four northern islands that Russia invaded and took over in the closing days of World War ii. And Japan and Russia have yet to sign a peace treaty. They have diplomatic relations, but they've yet to sign a peace treaty because the Japanese were upset that the Russians won't vacate those adds and give them back. But there's a lot of untruths being told in Japanese media about what's going on, that the Ukrainians are winning when they're obviously losing, that the Russians committing atrocities. And it's been proven that the Ukrainians military has committed far more atrocities than the Russians have, and on and on.Leafbox:Do you think that change in journalistic culture, where does that come from? Is that from just external pressure, the lack of, why do you think? Is that because of the decline of Japan economically, the independence that it's had? I'm just curious where you think thatRobert Jefferson:There's a lot of them. Yeah, it is the economic decline. It's wanting to feel as though there's a feeling, in my opinion anyway. I sense that there's a feeling among the Japanese leadership that they want to be accepted. They have been accepted in the Western Bloc. That's a full fledged member of the Western Bloc, and they don't want to lose that position. But they sense it's obvious that economically Japan has fallen very far, and basically it's suicide. We had trade representatives, and I still remember some of the names, Charlene Barshefsky, the US Trade representative coming to Japan, forcing Japan to stop being successful economically, forcing their automobile companies and other industries to stop being so goddamn successful. How dare, how dare you produce such wonderful cars that everyone wants to buy, especially from the 1970s when they produced cars with great, great mileage, gasoline mileage.And here we are watching Japan. It's already slipped from number two to number three behind China, United States. And United States is not the number one economic power anymore. And Western media, American media won't admit that, but America may have more in the way of money or wealth. But when it comes to purchasing power, there's an index called PPP, purchasing Power Parity, and then there's also manufacturing China, far outstrips the United States in manufacturing capacity and purchasing power of parity. So China is number one economically. The United States is number two. Japan is number three, but it's about to lose that spot to Germany, but then Germany is going to lose it to whoever. I mean, Germany economy has been screwed. Again, it's another example of the German economy is another example of how a company is committing suicide. All the EU is basically committing suicide, allowing the United States to blow up the Nord Stream pipeline, and it's like, whoa, we don't know who did it? Who did that? Who did? Okay, well knock it off. Joe Biden ordered that pipeline being destroyed, and we have him on tape saying that if the Russians do this, that pipeline is dead. We have Victoria Neuland saying basically the same thing. We have a Twitter message from someone in the US State Department to, I think it was the Polish leader. The job is done, and she got fired soon after that. I mean, it's all a sick game, a deadly game being played here.Leafbox:As a journalist and as a thinker about media information management, how do you think you are seeing through it? How are you seeing through the untruths? Why does writers at the New York Times differ? Is it because you're a foreigner in Japan that you think you have that, or where do you get that independent spark from?Robert Jefferson:I've got nearly 50 years of experience in news in international news as a foreign correspondent with ABC news here in Japan. I was also the Tokyo correspondent for the West German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle Radio at the same time that I was working with ABC. And at that time, I was also an announcer at Tokyo Broadcasting System. It was a weekend anchor at Japan able television. I did some radio programs and entertainment program music programs here in Japan. I've been around the world, not all everywhere. I haven't been to Africa, I haven't been to South America, but Europe and Asia and Pacific I've been to and covered stories. I can see how the news coverage has changed. It's very obvious to me. I can see right through it. I stopped watching television. I've got a television here. I've got one downstairs, big TVs. I don't even watch them anymore. I may hook them up to my computer and watch something online on my TVs, but I don't watch CNN. I don't watch Fox News. I'll watch little snippets of it online.And one of my heroes was Peter Jennings, someone I really looked up to. He was with ABC. He started at ABC back in the sixties when he was 26 years old. He was an anchor for ABC's World News tonight. It may not have been called World News tonight then, but ABC's Evening News, whatever it was called back then. His father was a Canadian. He's Canadian. Well, he naturalized as an American citizen eventually, but his father was a news executive in Canada and Peter Jennings, I mean, he was a high school dropout. He never went to college, but he was absolutely brilliant. He was an autodidact. And yeah, I think he was quite brilliant. He didn't need such diplomas and degrees and things, but he felt that he needed to leave the anchor role and go and hone his skills as a journalist, which he did.And he stayed with ABC, and he became the chief international correspondent based in London. And back in the early eighties, there was a tripartite anchor team, Frank Reynolds in Washington, max Robinson, the first black network news anchor in the United States. He was based in Chicago, and Peter Jennings was based in London. They had a wonderful, wonderful, and the ABC Evening News back then was absolutely wonderful. They actually told you what was going on around the world, but you could learn the names of countries and cities and leaders and places and people, and now you've got people on these networks now who can't even pronounce names correctly. Even people who are foreign correspondents can't even find places on maps. It's just, it's sad to see how low journalism has fallen and trust in journalism has really fallen. I mean, it's in the single digits now, which is sad.So yeah, I can see through, I mean, the whole situation that erupted in February of 2022 in Ukraine, people like unprovoked attack by Russia. Russia wants to take over Europe. No, they don't. They simply want to be left alone. The United States under Bill Clinton tried to rob Russia, tried to go in there and steal Russian industry, the Soviet industry, basically to use the oligarchs who basically swooped in and scooped up all of these industries and made billions of dollars who were trying to persuade born Yeltsin who was suffering from alcoholism to basically sell out his country. He wasn't stupid, but he did have an alcohol problem, and he turned to Vladimir Putin and told him basically, dude, you got to help save Russia. A lot of Americans don't know the history between Russia and the United States, that Russia supported the American Revolution, that Russia parked some of its armada, naval armada off the coast of New York Harbor and told the French and off the coast of I think the Carolinas, and told the British and the French, don't you dare interfere in the American Civil War. The French and the British were trying to help the South and against the north, and the Russians, the Russian empires said, no, no, don't you dare.Leafbox:In one of the interviews you had with the, I forget the host of the name, but you said that you feel free in Japan. I forget the exact quote. You said, maybe like I'm a free black man in Japan.Robert Jefferson:Yeah.Leafbox:How does that connotate to how you analyze the world? I mean, do you think if you had been 40 year career in the States, you'd have this lens?Robert Jefferson:I have been back to the States once the first time to Hawaii for two years, and then when I was in 2000, I was turning, I think by the time I went back, yeah, well, that year, 2000, I turned 40. So I have been back to the states, and I had no desire to work for corporate media. I went back and went to work for WHYY in Philadelphia, which is an NPR and PBS affiliate, and I actually was an NPR correspondent. I was their Philadelphia correspondent. While I was there covering expressly presidential visits, whenever a George Bush would come to town, president Bush would come to town, I would join the White House press pool at the airport and ride in the presidential motorcade into the city and follow the president around. I was a pool reporter, and then I left WHYY and went out west.I wanted to challenge myself and do more. So I went into media management and worked at a community radio station in Portland, Oregon. And then I went to another community radio station owned by Bellevue Community College, just outside of Seattle, Washington, and went into a management there as assistant general manager and program director at a radio station there. And it was wonderful to work at a nonprofit media organization teaching people how to do news. And when I was there, Portland, Oregon was voted year after year as the most livable city in America. Look at it now, a shithole, a shithole of left-wing people who've just destroyed the city. And I'd always consider myself left. But at 63 years old, now I'm conservative, not a Republican conservative. No, I'm just conservative of hopefully someone who's got a little bit of wisdom and who would like to conserve decency and morality and people's right to practice whatever religion they want to and to say what they want to look at, how free speech is being eroded in the United States.Now, some of the things, I'm talking to you now, I'd be criticized or banished from saying, and this is by people on the left. We never heard anybody on the right saying banished them. And I remember when I was in Hawaii at KHVH News Radio, rush Limbaugh was getting his start. He was on KHVH. Larry King was on KHVH, and we allowed people to say what they wanted to say, Limbaugh. He would take the word liberal and say liberal. He would just vomit it out. But you had another voice on there, Larry King and other voices, left, right, center, whatever. And now look at how polarized and divided America is today. It is sad. It's very sad. But yeah, it is not like I'm here in Japan in a bubble. I can see everything. You see, I don't watch television, so I'm not watching KION or what, I forget what the other stations are. I wouldn't watch them. But if something is newsworthy, I can go online and see what's happening in Lahaina or Lana, as most of the journalists these days call it. They don't even do your research, learn the pronunciation, and they even put up a transliteration on the screen, L-A-H-H-A-Y-nah. It's not Laina, it's Lahaina.It's just laziness. A lot of journalism today is just laziness going along to get along, being part of the team. And this is what I didn't like about sports growing up, just seeing brothers fighting over a goddamn ball game. And here we have that now, this sports mentality, this tribal mentality of wearing colors and painting your face colors of your team, and it's bled into our politics. Now. I remember the house speaker Tip O'Neill, he would say something, oh, my friend across the aisle, now it's that terrorist across the aisle or that oph file across the aisle or something. America has really devolved, and as someone who grew up at a time when in the sixties, up until the early to mid seventies, we didn't lock our doors. There were no home invasions. What happened in Lewiston, Maine yesterday, 22 people being shot. We didn't have kids going into school, shooting up each other. We had kids walking down the street with a shotgun over their shoulder. They were going to hunt some squirrels or deer hunting or something, and they did it right. They registered their guns, they wore the orange stuff, and what the hell happened? What happened to families? What happened to mother and father? Now you've got single women raising kids, fathers, making babies, and walking away, what the hell happened to America? And it's going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.Leafbox:Going back to Japan, I'm just curious, Japan has a history of political violence and disagreement.Robert Jefferson:Last year we had the assassination of a former Prime minister.Leafbox:Correct. So I thinkRobert Jefferson:The attempt assassination this year of another one, it's successor.Leafbox:So I'm just curious how you contrast that to the us or if you do, or I always feel like information in Japan is actually more freeIf you look for it.Robert Jefferson:YouTube channel, well, not used, but websites aren't banned here in Japan as they are in the eu. They don't have these draconian measures like the EU does. And the United States would love to impose information flows freely here in Japan, if you know where to look for it. If you want it, you can look for it. You can get a VPN and disguise your location and find out more information. But yeah, political violence, there's a long history of it here. I mean, going back thousands of years, I mean, Kamakura, the city I live in here, there's a monument and the graveside of a guy named Hino who had his head lopped off because he disobeyed a Shogun. And just this morning I walked past his little, this little graveside. It is like, wow. And I looked into the history of it. He got beheaded because he disagreed or the win against a local warlord or Shogun, the leader of, well, Japan wasn't unified then, but it was becoming unified.But yeah, Japan was extremely fascistic at the turn of the last century, the 20th century, prime ministers were assassinated. The military took over, got Japan involved in World War ii. Yeah, yeah. But it's been very peaceful here, post World War ii, there are lots of heinous crimes that are committed every day, seemingly ordinary people. People you wouldn't expect to fathers against sons, sons against fathers or against mothers. It happens here. Japan is not a paradise here, but it is. I do lock my doors here, but no one has ever bothered me here at my home. No one's bothered my car. People are very decent. There's decency here that is disappearing fast, disappearing in the United States. Neighbors who won't talk to you in the United States, I know my neighbors here. One reason I moved out of Tokyo is because neighbors, you lived in an apartment building. You get on an elevator, you're like, well, who are you? I wanted to know who you are.I'm Robert. I live on the sixth floor. Who are you? I demanded people to know who people were. But here, people are curious. They want to know, well, who's this black guy who moved here when I moved here 17 years ago, and now everybody knows me. The police know who I am. They come by and check on me. They have a registration that you fill out so that they know who's who. But yeah, I've never bothered by the police. I don't fear going to the police station. I laugh and joke with him. One policeman came on his motorbike years ago when I first moved here a few years after I moved here. And he was just doing his patrols. And he slipped and fell, and he had some mud on his boots and up his pant leg. And so I helped him wash it off and whatnot. And we had a good laugh about that. Yeah, I mean, it is, I don't have to put up with foolishness, and I'll look at things on Twitter or X as it's called now, of black, especially youth running amuck in the states, going into convenience stores or department stores and just going crazy, acting crazy in fast food joints, tearing the place up, throwing chairs and tables and stuff. It's like, what the hell? I never experienced that when I lived in the United States. And everybody thinks it's normal now.That happens. Something terrible is going on in the United States, as you say. It's happened in Venezuelas, it's happened in Colombia, it's happened in Mexico, it's happening in Europe. Now. The chickens are coming home to roost. I don't know, but something is afoot, and I'm simply saying, not today, Satan. Not here, not with me.Leafbox:So maybe we can go to your gardening project, Robert, because that sounds like a, to me, it feels like a counter to all that negative energy. You have this personal space, and you have such a wonderful voice and broadcast history, but now you're producing this content that offers an alternative. So I'd love to know where that comes from and why you're doing it.Robert Jefferson:It's catharsis, it's healing. Nearly 50 years of covering wars and murder and mayhem and thievery, and just, I'll admit it, it's still exciting when news happens. It's exciting to see. When I was a kid, I always wanted to be the first to know and the first to tell. I wasn't a snitch. No. But that's what attracted me to journalism was being the first to know and the first to spread the word for me. Now, after all these years, five, six decades of reporting the news, I'm tired. Some or so that I gave up drinking three years ago. I gave up alcohol, completely, cold Turkey in one day, April 30th, May 1st next day, Mayday, mayday, mayday. I was alcohol free. And I had been since then, desire, I even had still a few bottles left in the fridge and here and there, and I gave them away.I had no desire to drink anymore. So my gardening, I've been doing that pretty much all of my life with some breaks in between. I grew up gardening, helping a neighbor, particularly with her garden. And then as a teenager, when I was also working at the radio station, and on weekends, during the week, especially in the summertime, during summer break, I worked for a landscaper, a guy in my town. He had a landscaping business. And I love working with plants, either cutting them down or helping them grow. Yeah, it is just beautiful for me. This is very cathartic, the gardening. And then something said, well, I've been doing this for years and I'm not, I thought about YouTube years ago, and it's like, nah, it is the alcohol that made me so lazy. I didn't even want to do it. And then finally, oh, about 2016 or so, 2016 I think it was, I made one video, and if you go back and you can see my very first video, it's featured my two dogs at the time, my band spunky and just showing my garden.And then three years ago when I quit drinking, I needed something to do with my time because I'm an independent contractor, so I don't have a set schedule, schedule changes, and sometimes I'm busy and sometimes I'm not back. Three years ago, I was not very busy at all, and now I'm extremely busy and I love it. But yeah, it was a chance to channel my energies into something productive and to give something back to the world. Instead of talking about how many people got murdered in Lewiston, Maine yesterday, how to take this little seed, sprout it, grow it into a tree that's taller than me now, and to give something back. A lot of my subscribers and viewers, as you say, they mentioned how calming my videos are. And I think now that you've heard me talk for a while, you can see why I do what I do.I've got a lot in me that's just screaming to get out, and it's not all negative, but there's a lot of negativity out there. And instead of joining that bandwagon, I decide to put this energy into something that can hopefully, even if people don't want to get into gardening or they can't because they live in an apartment. Someone just sent me a message the other day saying, I mentioned growing stuff. If you have a balcony, and they said, no, I live in an apartment. I don't have a balcony. Then I thought about, yeah, there's a lot of people who don't even have balconies, but if they can't do gardening, at least I can bring them some sort of enjoyment or peace of mind for the 15 or 20 minutes that they're watching my channel.Leafbox:Well, that's why I enjoy it. I think you're offering kind of like, yeah, just a counter to that negative informational, and also being in Japan, you're creating, as an American, you're offering this alternative Look, you can live in this calm way. You can go to the gardening store and be polite. You don't have to rob the store. You don't have to get in a fight. You can share this space. And you met this British guy, and he's doing the natural farming. Another form,Robert Jefferson:Actually, he's Dutch.Leafbox:Oh, Dutch, sorry.Robert Jefferson:He studied in Britain. He went to Oxford. And yeah.Leafbox:Anyway, it's just nice to see you building this community. I mean, you have the community of foreign correspondents and Japanese broadcasters, so it's nice to see you go very local, but now you're sort to, you can feel the layers building you're building.Robert Jefferson:Yeah, you're absolutely right. This is one reason why I wanted to come back to Japan. I went back to the States, and I was there for five years. Even though the people here is a majority Japanese country, it's not as homogeneous as you think it is because the foreign communities are growing here, especially other Asians, Vietnamese and Chinese and Koreans. The article in the newspaper just yesterday that I saw that the numbers are increasing quite a bit, but it's a place to come and meet people from all over the world. Hendrick, my neighbor here, I walked past this house every morning and I'm like, this is Hendrick. This is interesting. And then one afternoon I walked past and I see, oh, this is your place. And he looked at me like, who are you? Like, well, who are you? Why are you half naked out here in somebody's front yard and it's his front yard?And I said, dude, we sat and talked for an hour and a half, and then I came back with the camera. I said, if you don't mind, I'd like you to give me a garden tour and whatnot. He just sent me an email this morning. He's going back to Shizuoka, which is south of here. He's got some land there. Him and his son are going down for the weekend to do some work on the land they just bought. They don't have a structure on the land yet, but they're just working the land. Yeah, it's a chance to meet people from all over the world. And I found that when I was in the States, there's this closed mindedness, this closed mentality. You in Honolulu, you've got a lot more, as we were saying earlier, there's a lot more diversity, cultural diversity, ethnic diversity, and that makes a living in Hawaii so nice is that diversity.It's not just all the same types of people or people. They had their enclaves here and there, but there's more of in the United States, I mean even in places like New York or even the larger cities, people are separated in different enclaves. Here, there's a lot more melding in, well, it wouldn't make sense for all Americans to live in this section or all the Chinese to live in that section. But I mean, you do like an ost, there's a preponderance. There's a lot more people of Korean descent than in other cities. And in Yokohama, a lot more people of Chinese descent. But you don't have these ghettos that you see, these ethnic ghettos that you see in the States. So here, it's, it's a place to be, place to be yourself, to be oneself, to be who you are. A lot of people, especially when they're young, they come here and they do this.If, I dunno if you remember that song, turning Japanese, I forget who, a Divo or somebody turning Japanese. Oh, yes, I'm turning Japanese. Oh, yes, I think so. I forget who did the song. And people play that little thing. Everybody goes through that. We're in kimono and going to the Matsui, the festivals and stuff. Everybody goes through that. Then you've kind of had enough of that. But it's a place to, because I don't care. Even if you get Japanese citizenship, you're never going to be Japanese. So it's a chance to come and find out who you are. I don't have to speak like a brother from the hood, and I really can't do it anyway, so I better not even try. I don't have to act black. You may see in some of my speech patterns and mannerisms and whatnot, but I can just be me. We were talking, you were trying to figure out my accent. Earlier. When I was in high school and junior high school, I used to be ridiculed by other black kids. Bobby talked like he white because, well, if you notice, most children speak very clearly. They don't have black accents or this accent or that they speak very clearly. It's not until they get into puberty and beyond that, they start adopting these speech mannerisms of black or Asian or whatever.Leafbox:Do you think Japanese have the same freedom when they come to the US or when they leave Japan?Robert Jefferson:Yes. Yes. Because Japanese are under extraordinary pressures to fit in, to join a company, to fit into society, to not break the rules. It's a very rules-based society. And that's why you see such rebellion. And a lot of it, it may be superficial. A young Japanese kid with dreadlocks or now since the nineties, the big fat is to bleach blonde your hair, bleach your hair blonde. It's such a, and they're trying. Even still, there's a debate going on for high schoolers about the length of hair. They have to keep their hair at a certain length. The girls can't perm their hair. In many of the schools, the boys, if they have curly hair, they have to straighten it. And now you've got kids of mixed heritage. And there was a kid who's part black and part Japanese, and he was trying to wear cornrows at his graduation ceremony and couldn't attend. They banned it from attending and things like that. But see, I didn't grow up that way. I didn't grow up here for one. But yeah, there's a huge pressure. There's a lot of pressure, tremendous pressure for Japanese to conform, and they leave a lot of 'em still. There's a huge desire, oh, I want to go to the States, because they can finally explore who they are, who they want to become.And I had many students when I was teaching at Temple for 13 years, they said, yeah, next semester I'll be going to the main campus. And my advice was, be careful, make good friends and be very careful. But I said, go and explore. I mean, you're going to meet some wonderful people there, and you'll meet some horrible people. Some of them will be white, some of them will be black, some of them will be fellow Asians. You're going to have good times and bad times, but just take care. Be careful. Watch your back.Leafbox:Robert, talking about your classes at Temple, I think you were teaching ethics. What were you teaching? Ethics. I taught Journalism. I taught journalism. I started teaching media management and organization. That was my first course. Then I taught writing courses. And then at the end, I was teaching, the last four years or so, five years maybe. I was teaching ethics in journalism and the history of journalism. They were separate courses. So I taught history one semester, ethics, the next history, the ethics, the next, or over the summer I teach one or the other. So the history of journalism and ethical issues in journalism. Yeah.Well, I was just curious about what topics you were particularly interested in the ethics of journalism.Robert Jefferson:A lot of it dealt with hypocrisy in the media and using clips from media showing the hypocrisy and the outright lies, showing how, for example, CNN, there's a CNN correspondent in London, staging a demonstration. They went and got a group of people from a particular group. They were Muslims, and I forget exactly what they were protesting against, but they were actually telling people where to stand and how to stand. And the cameraman only framed these people in the shot to make it look like it was a huge crowd, but it was only about 10 or 12 people. I don't know why they recorded the whole thing, but I showed them the clip of the correspondent and the producers telling people what to do, when to hold up their signs. And then suddenly, oh, we're live now in London and it's all fake. And I played a lot of them. Have you seen the clip of the news catches like a montage of clips of newscasters all across the United States. We're concerned about our democracy. And they're all saying the same thing.Leafbox:Yes, it's troubling. I playedRobert Jefferson:That years ago, three, four years ago to my classes. And that was from Sinclair Broadcasting. They had all of their affiliates around the country read the same script, and somebody got ahold of all of them and put them all together in this montage. And that was three years ago. And look what we have now, people being canceled for saying the wrong thing. And these news organizations claiming to want to protect democracy. No, no, no. This is what communists do. And in America, we don't learn about the communist Ong. In China, the cultural revolution back in the 1970s, it wasn't that long ago, just 50 years ago, of students going after their professors, putting paint on their faces, making them wear dunk caps and stuff. And what's the guy's name? Weinstein in Oregon, who was raked over the coals by his student.Leafbox:Oh, Brett Weinstein. Yes. Weinstein. That was before CovidRobert Jefferson:Out of his university. Him and his wife. Yeah. Yeah. And I was being, they didn't have the balls. My core supervisor, temple University didn't have the balls to confront me. He wouldn't even have, we never once sat down and have a conversation. How about anything? He's one of these probably Marxists. I mean, they were marching up and down the streets supporting George Floyd, who just recently this news came out when he died, that he was not killed by the police officer. And this is what I was trying to tell my students. He died of a fentanyl and not fentanyl. It's fentanyl. Look at how the word spell you idiots. NYL is nil. Tylenol, fentanyl. And you got broadcasters who don't even know the difference, can't even pronounce the word correctly. But he died of a drug overdose. Fentanyl was in his system. Alcohol was in his system, cocaine was in his system. And what was he doing when he got arrested? He was trying to steal from a shop owner by passing counterfeit bills. And he and the police officer were bouncers at a nightclub. They knew each other, they knew each other. But that was hushed. This whole thing was hushed and cities burned. Milwaukee burned. Five police officers in Dallas were killed. Shot in their cars or on the street or wherever. Five of 'em just murdered by B bbl, M and Antifa.Leafbox:And what was your relationship with the Temple professor? You were saying?Robert Jefferson:He was my core supervisor and he was talking behind my back, calling me a conspiracy theorist. Journalist should be conspiracy theorists. That's why we had, I have Stone and Jack Anderson and Seymour Hirsch, who's still alive. And Glenn Greenwald. All journalists should be conspiracy theorists. We have to theorize about conspiracies because our government carries them out. The Nord streaming bombing was a conspiracy to tell Germany and the rest of Europe stay in line. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, it was a conspiracy to get America more involved. The Vietnam War, the bombing of Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy not only of the Japanese, but Theodore Roosevelt, not Theodore Roosevelt. Franklin Roosevelt, FDR, to get America involved in World War ii, and he blamed it on Commanders of the Pacific fleets. There we should always be conspiracy. And this is what I was trying to teach my students to always ask questions. When I was a news director at the radio station at Portland, I was news and public affairs director, and I would put little reminders on the wall. Stay curious. Always stay here when somebody crossed out the C and put an F. Stay furious.And yeah, this is what I was trying to teach my students to question authority. Our job as journalists is to give voice to the voiceless and to question those in power. Not to just power what they say. I mean, this whole Covid thing, especially Black people who were complaining about systemic racism, they ran out to get the man's poison injected into them multiple times. And now we're learning just how dangerous that s**t is. People dying of myocarditis, sports, people first and now just regular people, children, they injected the s**t into children. My own twin sister, she got injected and now she doesn't want to talk much about her medical problems. I mean, this is what the media has done to the United States in particular. It's happened here too.Leafbox:Robert, do you know what post-truth is, meaning the sense that we're moving into a media empire state, that it's almost impossible to know what's real or what's true AI like you're talking about the CNN,Robert Jefferson:It's OrwellianLeafbox:Generating narratives. What are some tools?Robert Jefferson:We have AI news announcers now. Yeah,Leafbox:I know, but how do you try to stay sane in a world where it's like a Philip k Dick universe in the sense that everything is unreal and unreal at the same time? So how do you navigate this post-truth? Reality?Robert Jefferson:You have to have a good knowledge base. You have to have lifelong learning. When you see that link in something online or whatever, click that link. Go deeper. When you see that word you don't know, click on it and look up that word. Broaden your knowledge base, read history. Go onto YouTube and look at some of the historical documentaries. And one, some of it, it's b******t, but the more knowledge you have read books. Who's reading books anymore? Not many people, whether it's an audio book, but you can listen to it, or if it's an ebook. Read study history. That's why I was telling you about the history between Russia and the United States. Most of us Americans have no freaking clue that Russia and the United States were once so very close. That's why Russia sold us Alaska for pennies on the dollar, and it was so far away. They hadn't even explored much of their far east. But yeah, and most people don't know that Russia and the United States, that Soviet Union were allies in World War ii. It was that Russia did most of the heavy killing in World War II to defeat the Germans. We're not taught that.The whole thing with a Russiagate, you remember that? It was totally bogus. I was trying to tell my students then that this is b******t. It was all b******t, and I was proven right. I'm not there anymore. I tell the truth, but I was right. And those students will hopefully realize that their professor was trying to tell them the truth, and my superiors were trying to undermine me, and it is just sickening to see that whole Hillary Clinton cooked up that whole Russiagate thing and the FBI went along the FBI should be disbanded. The CIA was involved in overthrowing a duly elected president. And if it happens to Trump, I don't care what you think about Trump, I'm not. Are you a Trump supporter? No, I'm not a Trump supporter. I'm a truth supporter, and I would say this in class. I'd be the honest, do you support Trump?No, I don't support, I didn't support Barack Obama either. Here's this obscure, skinny Black dude from Chicago who's elevated to the presidency, first to the Senate, and then the presidency. This is all b******t. It's all b******t. He's fake. I'm sorry, but yeah, the key is, is to become an autodidact, mean someone who learns on their own. Yeah. See, and a lot, Al Robert, you're just a conspirator theorist. It's like grow up. I've had enough, I tried to warn people about the Covid injections. It is totally bogus, and most people don't realize that the whole thing was a Department of Defense project. Most Americans had no clue. That was all DOD working with the Chinese. Anthony Fauci sent millions of dollars because of gain of function. It has been banned in the United States, but they did it anyway, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. So they farmed it out to the Chinese and then blamed it on them. Isn't that some nasty s**t?Leafbox:I mean, that's one theory. There's also the Chinese theory, so there's so many theories and alternative theories, and that's why I,Robert Jefferson:Yeah, the Chinese theory is like, okay, okay, we're not stupid, so we're going to weaponize this thing against you. The art of war. That's another thing people need to study. People like Sun Tzu, study Confucius.Leafbox:One of my last questions, Robert. I have a lot of friends in America who are concerned about collapse in the US and the West, and they're all dreaming about either moving to Japan or moving to Alaska or doing the homesteading kind of thing. I lived in South America and we had a hyperinflation situation when I was young, so I've seen it firsthand.Robert Jefferson:Where were you?Leafbox:In Brazil when I was like 13. We had hyperinflation. Yeah. And so I'm just curious how you feel being in Japan. Are you going to retire? I mean, do you plan on staying the rest of your life in Japan, or what's your, do you want to return to the states or who knows what the so is?Robert Jefferson:I have no desire to return to the States. I did twice. And when I went back, was it 23 years ago, middle age, I could see then the downward spiral of American society. America's a beautiful country. I drove from Pennsylvania all the way across the country to the West coast, to Oregon, three and a half days. It took me, it's a beautiful country. They're beautiful people in America. I'm not anti-America. There's beautiful people there. Our governments, local, state, national, are basically ripping us off America's in debt. They've been talking about 33 trillion in debt. No, no, no. It's more than that. We're talking about quadrillions. If you can imagine trillions of quadrillions of dollars in debt, the pension plans are broke. There's no money there. Social security. There's no money there either. Remember Al Gore talking back in the 2000 election about the social security lockbox? People, Social security is gone. They'd spent all that money, and this is why they had to take us to war. To war. And there's going to be, I'm watching. I'm hearing a number of different voices. We're going to war on a global scale, world War iii. It's going to happen. They have to because most governments are broke. America's broke. Japan is broke. The European Union is broke, but Japan has been around for thousands of years. It still has cohesion.They seem to be committing suicide. Young people don't want to have children. Businesses, when I first came to Japan, there were clear societal roles, familial roles. The father went out to work and he worked hard, and he worked for his company for a lifetime, whatever, and that's all gone now. Young people can't even find jobs or they're getting part-time jobs or whatever.Everybody should first of all know where their food comes from. Where's the chicken come from? The supermarket not done. People should know where their food comes from. They should know how to grow food. They should start growing little things like herbs and tomatoes and potatoes. They're the easiest thing to grow. Go to the supermarket, buy some potatoes, wash them really good, and then put 'em in a brown paper bag. When they start sprouting, put 'em outside. Or if you have some old potatoes that start sprouting, put'em outside in a bag, I use grow bags, buckets will work.Just have some drainage in them. People need to grow, need to know where their food comes from, and they need to start learning how to grow their own food and just like their ancestors did. Not that many generations ago when I was growing up in the sixties, I had friends whose parents could barely speak English. They're from Germany, they're from Italy. They were from Hungary or Ukraine. They left their countries for a better life. Americans of today may have to lead the United States for a better life. Don't just sit in the same place going through the same. I tried to tell my elder brother, how about Mexico? Oh, man, Mexico is dangerous. Dangerous. There are some wonderful places in Mexico, Probably. He's five years older than me. He's 68. He could live very well on social security there. People don't want to take the chance.I always get on an airplane. Boom, I'm gone. I couldn't wait to get on an airplane, go somewhere else. Will I stay here in Japan? Yeah, I'll probably, but I'm keeping, I've got the corner of my eye on a side escape route. I'm not sure where. But like I just said, I can live on a retirement very cheaply somewhere. It could be, I don't know, Cambodia. It could be Vietnam. There's no major wars going on there right now. And the people there still, they still know how to smile. I do get asked this quite often, keep your eyes wide open, Japan. Not unless there's a major war. And it seems as though the leadership here, the political leadership, are just itching to get into a fight with someone and Japan's military, and they do have, it's called the Self-Defense Forces, but it's a military, but they have no practical experience fighting.They'll get massacred. They don't understand guerrilla warfare. They don't understand urban warfare. Japan should just stay pacifist. I'd be glad to see American military bases. It leaves Japan. I mean, it's how I got here is through the military, but there's no need. Japan can defend itself, and actually it shouldn't be any need. Japan, Korea needs to stop fighting over some dumb s**t that happened a long time ago. So much of their culture has come from China and India and elsewhere through Buddhist connections and contacts. But yeah, Japan should stop trying to ape the west. Stop trying to imitate the West and be Japanese. Be Asian for once. Yeah, I mean, Japan and Korea should not be arguing the way they still are and China as well. But then these are global forces trying to divide and rule to keep the Korean peninsula separated. That's ridiculous that the Korean peninsula is still separated.The same people still quarreling over some dumb s*

This week we discussed a book about the collapse of the Soviet Union and guess what, it wasn't the result of the United States' efforts to defeat the Evil Empire. It's much dumbe rand worse than that.Serhii Plokhy. 2015. The Last Empire : The Final Days of the Soviet Union. New York: Basic Books, A Member Of The Perseus Books Group.Head over to our Patreon and join for $2 a month to hear the whole episode and join the Discord to take part in the discussions.Support the show

When President Bill Clinton eulogized Richard Nixon in April 1994, he briefly referred to advice he had received from the former president just the month before. “Even in the final weeks of his life, he gave me his wise counsel, especially with regard to Russia,” said Clinton at the 37th president's funeral. The advice on Russia came in the form of a memo, only recently released to the public thanks to the work of researcher Anthony Constantini. In March 1994, following a trip to Russia, Ukraine, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Nixon wrote a 7-page memo detailing the grave problems in Russia's experiment with liberal democracy and market economics. In this episode, Constantini, who is a regular contributor to The American Conservative, says the memo that he obtained from the Clinton presidential library shows that Richard Nixon understood what was at stake as Russia under Boris Yeltsin tried to transition to political and economic freedom. Nixon advised Clinton to fix the aid program to Moscow, and find alternatives to the frequently drunk and faltering Yeltsin. But, Constantini contends, most of Nixon's advice was ignored to the detriment of global history.

It's October 1st. In 1994, Russian President Boris Yeltsin is set to stop off for a diplomatic visit in Ireland. But when his plane lands on the tarmac at Shannon Airport, Yeltsin refuses to get off. Jody, Niki, and Kellie discuss Yeltsin's reputation for heavy drinking and boorish behavior, how that played into this incident, and what may have really happened on that plane. Sign up for our newsletter! We'll be sending out links to all the stuff we recommended later this week. Find out more at thisdaypod.com This Day In Esoteric Political History is a proud member of Radiotopia from PRX. Your support helps foster independent, artist-owned podcasts and award-winning stories. If you want to support the show directly, you can do so on our website: ThisDayPod.com Get in touch if you have any ideas for future topics, or just want to say hello. Our website is thisdaypod.com Follow us on social @thisdaypod Our team: Jacob Feldman, Researcher/Producer; Brittani Brown, Producer; Khawla Nakua, Transcripts; music by Teen Daze and Blue Dot Sessions; Audrey Mardavich is our Executive Producer at Radiotopia

He may have just been sentenced to another 19 years, now in a 'special regime colony', but the indomitable Alexei Navalny has just produced a broadside against the 'reformists' of the 1990s - whom he considers nothing of the sort, but instead the architects of kleptocracy and authoritarianism. And it's hard to disagree with that. I go through what is in effect his manifesto, with lots of quotes and also lots of my own marginalia, and conclude by questioning whether Navalny's very purity of purpose may be a problem - and the lessons for the West.The translation of his article in Meduza is here.The podcast's corporate partner and sponsor is Conducttr, which provides software for innovative and immersive crisis exercises in hybrid warfare, counter-terrorism, civil affairs and similar situations.You can also follow my blog, In Moscow's Shadows, and become one of the podcast's supporting Patrons and gain question-asking rights and access to exclusive extra materials right here. Support the show

"Those who trust in the Lord…cannot be shaken." Ps 125:1 NIVPeople are naturally attracted to leaders who convey poise and self-assurance; they won't follow one who lacks self-confidence. An excellent illustration of this is an incident that took place in Russia during an attempted coup. Army tanks encircled the government building that held President Boris Yeltsin and his prodemocracy supporters. As the army moved into position, Yeltsin strode from the building, climbed up on a tank, stared the commander in the eye, and thanked him for turning to the side of democracy. Later the commander admitted that although he hadn't intended to go over to Yeltsin's side, the Russian leader appeared so confident, the soldiers decided to join him. Great achievers exhibit confidence regardless of circumstances. But true confidence doesn't come from having the approval of people around you. The Bible says, "The Lord will be your confidence" (Pr 3:26 NKJV); it's about knowing He has called you and equipped you to do the job. Paul wrote, "We feel certain before God...It is God who makes us able to do all that we do" (2Co 3:4-5NCV). Even though others may not believe in you, knowing God believes in you enables you to believe in yourself. David wrote, "Many are saying of me,'God will not deliver him.' But you are a shield around me...the One who lifts my head high" (Ps3:2-3 NIV). A confident leader can say to those who follow him or her, "I have confidence in the God who called me. I have confidence in you. I believe that together we can accomplish what God wants done."Support the showChanging Lives | Building Strong Family | Impacting Our Community For Jesus Christ!

There's been talk of Ukraine possibly joining NATO since the early years of post-Cold War Europe, but it never happened. And the allies aren't quite ready to go ahead with membership now, as evidenced by their vaguely-worded commitment issued at the Vilnius summit "to extend an invitation to Ukraine to join the Alliance when Allies agree and conditions are met." From the moment the post-Soviet world started coming into view, when and where NATO should expand has aggravated relations between the U.S. and Moscow. When it came to Ukraine, the country got the worst of both worlds: it was left on the wrong side of Europe's dividing line and Russian leaders were angered by the mere idea of Ukraine entering NATO. In this episode, historian Jeffrey Engel discusses the origins of today's debate about Ukraine's future, whose circumstances could compel the U.S. and its European allies into direct conflict with Russia. 

What is the path to peace for the war in Ukraine? Is America still powerful enough to impose global order? The US has just 4.1% of the world's population, while the BRICS countries have 41.5%. In this conversation with economist Jeffrey Sachs, we discuss the origins of the conflict in Ukraine and NATO enlargement, US-China relations, and the decline of US dominance.Jeffrey Sachs is Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Sachs has been Special Advisor to three United Nations Secretaries-General. He was an economic adviser to Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Former President of Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma. Sachs was twice named among Time magazine's 100 most influential world leaders, received the Tang Prize in Sustainable Development, the Legion of Honor from France, and was co-recipient of the Blue Planet Prize. He is Co-Chair of the Council of Engineers for the Energy Transition, and academician of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences at the Vatican.Sachs has authored and edited numerous books, including three New York Times bestsellers: The End of Poverty (2005), Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet (2008), and The Price of Civilization (2011)."The US signed several statements in 2021 confirming that NATO would enlarge. Russia massed troops on its border and put on the table a draft US-Russia security agreement on December 17th, 2021 based on no NATO enlargement. The Biden administration formally replied that it was not willing to negotiate over that issue in a response in January. Then Russia invaded on February 24th, 2022. Four weeks later, Zelenskyy declared that Ukraine was accepting of neutrality. In other words, the initial Russian invasion brought Ukraine to the negotiating table, and during the second half of March, with the Turkish government being the mediators, Russia and Ukraine hammered out a peace agreement. Incredibly, the United States blocked it because the United States told the Ukrainian government: you fight on.The basic point is the US has 4.1% of the world population. So how could it presume to be the world leader? You know, the US is a powerful country. It's a rich country, but it doesn't run the world, and it should not aspire to run the world. That's a kind of madness, and the US ideology for a long time has been that the US should run the world.It's, to my mind, unbelievable. But then again, I've spent most of my career outside the US seeing the other 95.9% of the world. And I know that the other 95.9% of the world doesn't want the United States to run the world. It's not against the United States. It just says: let us have our own part of the world. We don't want you running the world. We don't want you deciding what our government is, who we are, how we rule ourselves. You know, you're just one place. And this, the United States leaders don't understand. They're very arrogant. They're very ignorant because of the two big oceans. They're very unaware of the history of other parts of the world. And we end up with this arrogant and naive and dangerous foreign policy because, there's no doubt the United States is rich and powerful, and it makes lots of weapon systems. And I'm 68 years old and the United States has been at war almost every year of my life from Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia and Nicaragua, Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria and Libya, and now Ukraine. Come on, give it a break."www.jeffsachs.orghttps://sdgacademy.orgwww.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgIG www.instagram.com/creativeprocesspodcast

What is the path to peace for the war in Ukraine? Is America still powerful enough to impose global order? The US has just 4.1% of the world's population, while the BRICS countries have 41.5%. In this conversation with economist Jeffrey Sachs, we discuss the origins of the conflict in Ukraine and NATO enlargement, US-China relations, and the decline of US dominance.Jeffrey Sachs is Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Sachs has been Special Advisor to three United Nations Secretaries-General. He was an economic adviser to Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Former President of Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma. Sachs was twice named among Time magazine's 100 most influential world leaders, received the Tang Prize in Sustainable Development, the Legion of Honor from France, and was co-recipient of the Blue Planet Prize. He is Co-Chair of the Council of Engineers for the Energy Transition, and academician of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences at the Vatican.Sachs has authored and edited numerous books, including three New York Times bestsellers: The End of Poverty (2005), Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet (2008), and The Price of Civilization (2011)."Young people should lead the way to a safer, cooperative, peaceful, environmentally sustainable, and fair world. We need to build the future. We want not to feel trapped in this mindless cycle of violence and environmental destruction. The problems that we face are solvable, and they are not driven by the needs of the people. They're driven by greed or the power-seeking of elites. And we need to have a new generation say: this is not working. We want a world that is at peace, that is shared in prosperity and that solves the environmental crises which have become so deep and are neglected, in part because we are wasting our time, our lives, our resources on these useless wars.”www.jeffsachs.orghttps://sdgacademy.orgwww.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgIG www.instagram.com/creativeprocesspodcast

What is the path to peace for the war in Ukraine? Is America still powerful enough to impose global order? The US has just 4.1% of the world's population, while the BRICS countries have 41.5%. In this conversation with economist Jeffrey Sachs, we discuss the origins of the conflict in Ukraine and NATO enlargement, US-China relations, and the decline of US dominance.Jeffrey Sachs is Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Sachs has been Special Advisor to three United Nations Secretaries-General. He was an economic adviser to Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Former President of Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma. Sachs was twice named among Time magazine's 100 most influential world leaders, received the Tang Prize in Sustainable Development, the Legion of Honor from France, and was co-recipient of the Blue Planet Prize. He is Co-Chair of the Council of Engineers for the Energy Transition, and academician of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences at the Vatican.Sachs has authored and edited numerous books, including three New York Times bestsellers: The End of Poverty (2005), Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet (2008), and The Price of Civilization (2011)."The US is also experiencing the reality that other places in the world are catching up on technology, indeed leading on technologies as well. And China is a very successful, very industrious, very hardworking society, which in the last 40 years has gone from poverty to a very significant world-important economy. And the US has a very hard time accepting that. The US attitude, if you listen to congressmen, who don't seem to know anything, is Oh, if China's successful, must be because they're cheating. What about because they're saving more than 40% of GDP, that the Chinese people have been engaging in a remarkable upgrading of education, hundreds of thousands of PhDs minted each year, and massive scientific research programs? Come on, this is the truth. And so this arrogance is not allowing the truth to come through. But you mentioned one specific point, which is the role of the US dollar. Part of the US strength after World War II is, well, the US was basically the only economy standing. And it was a technologically advanced, rich, large economy; the world's largest. And the dollar was really the only international usable currency for quite a long time. So the dollar system became the center of how you do international trade. When you trade in goods, they're denominated in dollars when you buy. The imports you pay in dollars, meaning you use accounts in US dollars. Typically in the US banking system, when the transaction is closed, it's closed through the so-called SWIFT interbank system. And so the US has had what France long ago called 'an exorbitant privilege', that it could print a lot of money because the rest of the world was holding dollars, using dollars. The dollar was the basis of the world economy. That's changing now. And it's changing for three basic reasons. One is the share of the US and the world economy is diminishing, so this means that the predominance of the US is bound to diminish. The second is technologically settlements are going to occur in all sorts of ways other than through US banks. So-called digital currencies, especially Central Bank digital currencies will mean other ways to make settlements. We'll settle in renminbi when we buy in China, or settle in rubles or settle in rupees when trade is with India, and so forth. So there will be multiple currencies. And then the third part, which is really a matter of a bad set of decision-making, the US has militarized the dollar. Meaning that usually, you think about money, well, you have it, you can use it, you can spend it. But the United States has come to say: if we don't like you, you don't necessarily have access to your money anymore if it's in our banks.”www.jeffsachs.orghttps://sdgacademy.orgwww.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgIG www.instagram.com/creativeprocesspodcast

What is the path to peace for the war in Ukraine? Is America still powerful enough to impose global order? The US has just 4.1% of the world's population, while the BRICS countries have 41.5%. In this conversation with economist Jeffrey Sachs, we discuss the origins of the conflict in Ukraine and NATO enlargement, US-China relations, and the decline of US dominance.Jeffrey Sachs is Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Sachs has been Special Advisor to three United Nations Secretaries-General. He was an economic adviser to Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Former President of Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma. Sachs was twice named among Time magazine's 100 most influential world leaders, received the Tang Prize in Sustainable Development, the Legion of Honor from France, and was co-recipient of the Blue Planet Prize. He is Co-Chair of the Council of Engineers for the Energy Transition, and academician of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences at the Vatican.Sachs has authored and edited numerous books, including three New York Times bestsellers: The End of Poverty (2005), Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet (2008), and The Price of Civilization (2011)."The US signed several statements in 2021 confirming that NATO would enlarge. Russia massed troops on its border and put on the table a draft US-Russia security agreement on December 17th, 2021 based on no NATO enlargement. The Biden administration formally replied that it was not willing to negotiate over that issue in a response in January. Then Russia invaded on February 24th, 2022. Four weeks later, Zelenskyy declared that Ukraine was accepting of neutrality. In other words, the initial Russian invasion brought Ukraine to the negotiating table, and during the second half of March, with the Turkish government being the mediators, Russia and Ukraine hammered out a peace agreement. Incredibly, the United States blocked it because the United States told the Ukrainian government: you fight on.The basic point is the US has 4.1% of the world population. So how could it presume to be the world leader? You know, the US is a powerful country. It's a rich country, but it doesn't run the world, and it should not aspire to run the world. That's a kind of madness, and the US ideology for a long time has been that the US should run the world.It's, to my mind, unbelievable. But then again, I've spent most of my career outside the US seeing the other 95.9% of the world. And I know that the other 95.9% of the world doesn't want the United States to run the world. It's not against the United States. It just says: let us have our own part of the world. We don't want you running the world. We don't want you deciding what our government is, who we are, how we rule ourselves. You know, you're just one place. And this, the United States leaders don't understand. They're very arrogant. They're very ignorant because of the two big oceans. They're very unaware of the history of other parts of the world. And we end up with this arrogant and naive and dangerous foreign policy because, there's no doubt the United States is rich and powerful, and it makes lots of weapon systems. And I'm 68 years old and the United States has been at war almost every year of my life from Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia and Nicaragua, Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria and Libya, and now Ukraine. Come on, give it a break."www.jeffsachs.orghttps://sdgacademy.orgwww.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgIG www.instagram.com/creativeprocesspodcast

What is the path to peace for the war in Ukraine? Is America still powerful enough to impose global order? The US has just 4.1% of the world's population, while the BRICS countries have 41.5%. In this conversation with economist Jeffrey Sachs, we discuss the origins of the conflict in Ukraine and NATO enlargement, US-China relations, and the decline of US dominance.Jeffrey Sachs is Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Sachs has been Special Advisor to three United Nations Secretaries-General. He was an economic adviser to Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Former President of Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma. Sachs was twice named among Time magazine's 100 most influential world leaders, received the Tang Prize in Sustainable Development, the Legion of Honor from France, and was co-recipient of the Blue Planet Prize. He is Co-Chair of the Council of Engineers for the Energy Transition, and academician of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences at the Vatican.Sachs has authored and edited numerous books, including three New York Times bestsellers: The End of Poverty (2005), Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet (2008), and The Price of Civilization (2011)."Young people should lead the way to a safer, cooperative, peaceful, environmentally sustainable, and fair world. We need to build the future. We want not to feel trapped in this mindless cycle of violence and environmental destruction. The problems that we face are solvable, and they are not driven by the needs of the people. They're driven by greed or the power-seeking of elites. And we need to have a new generation say: this is not working. We want a world that is at peace, that is shared in prosperity and that solves the environmental crises which have become so deep and are neglected, in part because we are wasting our time, our lives, our resources on these useless wars.”www.jeffsachs.orghttps://sdgacademy.orgwww.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgIG www.instagram.com/creativeprocesspodcast

Far West Ltd., private military companies, PMCs, World Anti-Communist League, WACL, Ukraine, Russian Federation, shift of world trade from Atlantic to Eurasia, Russia as key to Eurasia, historic Silk Road, modern Silk Road, Belt and Road Initiative, Anglo-American Establishment, neo-liberalism, BRICS, energy/oil politics, pipelines, NATO, Boris Yeltsin, Yeltsin's "Family," Putin's rise, Mikhail Kasyanov, Bush II Administration, Dick Cheney, Halliburton, Exxon, US-Afghan War, Bagram Airfield, drug trafficking, Aleksandr Voloshin, Alfa Bank, Russiagate, Gazprom, Yukos, Yukos scandal, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Victims for Communism Memorial Foundation, Captive Nations, Lev Dobriansky, OUN-B, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists-Banderites, OUN-M, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists-Melnyk, "velvet coup"/"soft coup"/"color revolution," Gene Sharp, Albert Einstein Institute, National Endowment for Democracy, Reaganism, Freedom House, George Soros, Open Society Foundation, Peter Ackerman, Drexel Burnham Lambert, Michael Milken, Leon Black, Donald Trump, Brexit, Otpor!, Serbia, Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies, Eurasian Economic Union, Belarus, Georgia, Rose Revolution, Mikhail Saakashvili, Leonid Kuchma, General Nicholas Krawciw, Krawciw's background, Krawciw's reformation of Ukraine's military, Viktor Yushchenko, Orange Revolution, Far West's role in Orange RevolutionMusic by Keith Allen Dennis:https://keithallendennis.bandcamp.com/ Get bonus content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Summary Calder Walton (Website, Twitter) joins Andrew (Twitter; LinkedIn) to discuss the 100-year intelligence war between the United States and Russia. Calder is the author of the new book, SPIES.  *EXTENDED SHOW NOTES & FULL TRANSCRIPT HERE* What You'll Learn Intelligence The epic clash of intelligence systems Russia's assassination program then and now The roots of Putinism  China as “the Soviet Union on steroids” Reflections Cold War 2.0 Could it have been otherwise? And much, much more … Quotes of the Week My conclusion, unfortunately, Andrew, is that looking at this large sweep of history that we have, not so much a Putin problem today, but a Russia problem. And the Russia problem has been persistent over a hundred years, which is why it makes me very cautious about speculation … Unfortunately, it seems to me that the Putin and the people he surrounds himself with in the Kremlin are all cut from this very similar cloth as he is.  Resources  SURFACE SKIM *Headline Resource* SPIES: The Epic Intelligence War Between East and West, Calder Walton (Simon & Schuster, 2023) *SpyCasts* Ukraine & the Alliance with NATO's Assistant Secretary General for Intelligence David Cattler (2023) Ukraine & Intelligence: One Year On with Shane Harris (2023) Becoming a Russian Intelligence Officer with Janosh Neumann (2022) The Spies Who Came in From the Cold with Chris Costa and John Quattrocki at the Pritzker Military Museum & Library in Chicago (2022) Dealing with Russia with Counterintelligence Legend Jim Olson (2022) CIA Legend Jack Devine on Countering Russian Aggression (2012) *Beginner Resources* Putin's Revisionist History of Russia and Ukraine, I. Chotiner, New Yorker (2022) [Short article] Has Putin's war failed and what does Russia want?, P. Kirby, BBC (2023) [Short article] The Cold War Explained in 15 Minutes, YouTube (2021) [15 min. video] *EXTENDED SHOW NOTES & FULL TRANSCRIPT HERE* DEEPER DIVE Books Russian Intelligence, K. Riehle (NIU, 2022) Putin's People, C. Belton (William Collins, 2021) Between Two Fires, J. Yaffa (Duggan Books, 2020) The New Cold War, E. Lucas (St. Martin's Griffin, 2014) Primary Sources  The Putin Files, CBS (n.d.) Memorandum of Conversations (Rise of Putin) Clinton with Putin (2000) Clinton with Putin (2000) Clinton with Yeltsin (1999) Clinton with Yeltsin (1999) Clinton with Putin (1999) Madelaine Albright with Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov (1999) Clinton with Putin (1999) Clinton with Yeltsin (1999) Oral Histories U.S. Ambassadors to Moscow John Huntsman (2017-2019) John F. Tefft (2014-2017) Michael McFaul (2012-2014) John Beryle (2008-2012) Alexander Vershbow (2001-2005) James F. Collins (1997-2001) Thomas R. Pickering (1993-1996) Jack F. Matlock (1987-1991) *Wildcard Resource* Putin Strikes: The Coming War for Eastern Europe A two-player board game where one commands the Kremlin's forces and the other an international polyglot force. Trippy or what? *EXTENDED SHOW NOTES & FULL TRANSCRIPT HERE*

The images of Bakhmut, the latest Ukrainian city to be left in ruins after months of Russian shelling, evoke memories of the Second World War. Every building reduced to piles of pulverized concrete or a flimsy facade with windows blasted out, streets clogged by rubble and wrecked vehicles. But you don't have to peer back into the 1940s for parallels to what's happening in Ukraine today. In the mid-1990s and early 2000s, Russia destroyed Grozny, the largest city in Chechnya, twice. Tens of thousands of civilians died. It was in the Second Chechen War when newly empowered Vladimir Putin, then 47, crushed Chechen independence on his way to reestablishing Russian state power after the enervating turmoil of the prior decade. As in Grozny a decade ago, Russian military commanders are showing no qualms about using massive violence against urban areas, an unsettling indication of where the current war is headed. In this episode, historian Mark Galeotti, the author of more than 25 books on Russia, discusses the parallels between the first major war of the post-Soviet era (prosecuted by Boris Yeltsin against Chechnya) and Putin's destructive bid to subjugate Ukraine.

After the fall of communism and the collapse of the USSR, the new President of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, comes to Britain on an official visit. During his lunch at Buckingham Palace, the Queen brings up the uncomfortable topic of the slaughter of the Russian royal family in 1918 and the fact the location of their remains is still a great mystery. Yeltsin promises to locate their remains so the Queen's relatives can have a proper burial. But in uncovering what is believed to be the Romanovs' bones, scientists need the help of Prince Philip - one of the closest living relatives of the Tsar's family - in order to correctly identify the remains. This unearths a fascination in Philip to find out more about his Russian heritage and with the help of Penny Romsey, he uncovers an unpalatable truth about how the Romanovs met their demise.In this episode, Edith Bowman talks with Director Christian Schwochow, Production Designer Martin Childs, and Head of Research, Annie Sulzberger.The Crown: The Official Podcast is produced by Netflix and Somethin' Else, in association with Left Bank Pictures.