How to End the War in Ukraine: Matt Duss and Ray McGovern Debate U.S. Policy on Russia, NATO & More

this is democracy Now democracynow.org The War and Peace report I'm Amy Goodman in New York joined by democracy Now co-host Juan Gonzalez in New Brunswick New Jersey highway hi Amy and welcome to all of our listening viewers across the country and around the world will we begin Today's Show looking at the war in Ukraine Russia's announced its rejoining a deal allowing for grain shipments from Ukraine Sports this comes just four days after Russia withdrew from the deal sparking fears that could worsen the global hunger crisis the Turkish president rachuptayab erdogan said the renewed deal would prioritize grain shipments to Somalia Djibouti Sudan and other African nations Russia said it rejoined the deal after Ukraine agreed not to use the C Corridor to attack Russian forces meanwhile the New York Times is reporting senior Russian military leaders have had high level discussions about how tactical weapons could be used in the war in Ukraine that's tactical nuclear weapons the article was based on unnamed U.S officials who said they have seen no evidence that the Russians were moving nuclear weapons into place or making preparations for a nuclear strike last month President Biden described the war in Ukraine as the first time the world has seen a direct threat of the use of a nuclear weapon since the Cuban Missile Crisis 60 years ago in a speech to democratic donors Biden said quote we're trying to figure out what is Putin's off-ramp well today we host a debate on the U.S response to Russia's Invasion and U.S policy toward Russia we're joined by two guests in Washington D.C we're joined by Matt Duss he's foreign former foreign policy adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders a ukrainian-american who's a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace hmm and in Raleigh North Carolina we're joined by Ray McGovern former senior Cia analyst his 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as chief of Soviet foreign policy branch and daily briefer of the president's Daily Brief at the time it was George H.W bush he's co-founder of Veteran intelligence Professionals for sanity welcome you both to democracy now Ray McGovern let's begin with you why don't you lay out what you think the U.S policy should be toward Russia now and in dealing with the Ukraine war Amy I think we need to go back and figure out how this all started in order to figure out how to end it in a word you quoted the new New York Times story this morning about uh Russian tactical nuclear missiles and Senior Russian military officials discussing this The Source described by the New York Times was multiple U.S officials now I dare say that the same multiple U.S officials and some of the same authors of this piece that warned us seven times at the end of July in one article that they were sure to be weapons of mass destruction in Iraq I guess we have to say that the New York Times has lost its credibility on these issues but more so since they do they back off the story themselves saying poutine himself last week said this there's no need for us to use tactical nuclear missiles and we never threatened to do so and Putin happens to be right on that last thing I'll say here is that the notion that the Russians are desperate is erroneous it's contrived the Russians aren't losing uh the Russians are not going to lose because they can't afford to and when I say this I mean that food chain sees an existential threat from not only Ukraine becoming part of NATO but NATO using the emplacements for so-called anti-ballistic missiles in Romania and Poland already there to put in cruise missiles or to put in Hypersonic missiles which pooching himself warned last December would give him between 7 and 10 minutes or if Hypersonic missiles five minutes to decide in a word whether to blow up the rest of the world now Katrina Van and Hoover said you know in an op-ed just last week you know we have to empathize with anyone even the haters pushing even the hated Russians and you know just thinking this through and I'll close with this uh thinking about how how many Americans hate Russia I mean hate is the word and I think back to to South Pacific you know you've got to be carefully taught you've got to be taught to hate and fear you've got to before oh dear to here it's got to be drummed in your dear little ear you've got to be careful little you've got to be taught the Russians to hate in order to remain part of the fourth estate you've got to I made up the last two lines okay but that's what it is in a word we've had six years of unfounded hating Russians I I mentioned Russia gate I think the press the fourth estate could do a real service by saying hey we were wrong about that the Russians didn't hack into the DNC and they didn't do all those other Destiny things that they were accused of and let those 35 Russian diplomats come on back in let's talk to each other let's work this out there's no reason why we can't make a deal I'd like to bring in uh Matt Dawson on on this issue Matt uh as a foreign policy advisor to Bernie Sanders a famously uh an advocate for uh peace not War what is your perspective on uh on the uh how this war would can end uh and also the issue of how it uh how it began right I mean well thank you for having me first of all um I would say the easiest way for this war to end would be for Vladimir Putin to to end his invasion and withdraw Russian troops from Ukrainian territory um you know as far as how this this War Began I mean there's certainly a lot of a lot of things we could bring in um to to describe you know the the deteriorating U.S Russia relationship over the past decades and longer um but just to focus on this issue of NATO um which was brought up just earlier you know certainly Vladimir Putin has brought up the concern about NATO this is not something just he has brought up other Russian officials have brought it up in the past um I think it's fair to to say that some of the the steps that were taken with regard to Nato could have been done differently but this idea that Vladimir Putin had to wage this war because he sees an existential threat from NATO I think has just been completely discredited by events let's let's remember Finland and Sweden announced their decision to join NATO some months ago Finland shares an 800 mile border with Russia the response from the Russian government was basically you know no big deal I would suggest that if NATO was really uh contributing to the sense of existential threat here we might have seen a bit of a different response to Finland joining NATO Matt in terms of that though clearly there is a there's a far different relationship between Ukraine and uh and Russia than there is between uh Finland and Russia clearly Russia historically sees Ukraine as the entry point to previous invasions and attack on its country whether it's Napoleon uh in the in the 19th century or uh Hitler and the Nazi the 20th century your sense of Putin's view of the special relationship that has that has existed between Ukraine and Russia no I think that's very fair to bring up clearly there's a very different historical relationship between Russia and and Ukraine um you know and Putin himself has described his view of that relationship which is that ukrainians don't really exist they are simply Russians um certainly ukrainians disagree with that uh and I think most of the people in the world would disagree with that Ukraine is a different country Ukraine has a different culture a different history certainly there are Rel there is a historical relationship uh with Russia but I think this also gets to what one of Putin's real goals here is and that is not just to defend himself against the alleged threat from NATO encroachment but it is to erase the ukrainians as an independent political entity um and I think we see various steps that he is taking um to make that Vision real including the the kidnapping essentially of thousands of Ukrainian children um you know transporting them into into Russia about putting them them with new families a violation a gross violation of international humanitarian law with regard to occupied territories so I think there's you know Putin himself has given us I think a much better understanding of his real goals and grievances in launching this war I wanted to go to General Mike Mullen in October the former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff appeared on ABC this week calling for talks to end the war it also speaks to the need I think to get to the table I'm a little concerned about the language which we're about at the top President Biden's language were bad at the top of the language scale if you will so and I think we need to back off that a little bit and do everything we possibly can to try to get to the table to resolve this thing I wanted to get both of your responses on this beginning with Matt dust you're the former foreign policy advisor to Bernie Sanders clearly there is a major debate going on right now within the progressive community of elected officials in Congress you had this letter that was released and withdrawn within a day that called for continued military support for Ukraine but at the same time pushing for negotiations as we've seen Germany call for in France call for and that was really peace but withdrawn by from eligible the head of the Congressional Progressive caucus we interviewed congressmember rokana he said it shouldn't have been withdrawn it should be the position if you can explain why they would have withdrawn this and you have Bernie Sanders himself he's not a congressman so he wouldn't have signed on to the letter he's a senator but he did say that he supported the withdrawal of the letter he said the Russian invasion of Ukraine has to be resisted that the letter should have been withdrawn he said I don't agree with that they don't agree with it apparently around the issue of urging President Biden to negotiate an end to the war with Vladimir Putin explain what this battle is about and then I'd like to get ray McGovern's response as well sure I mean a couple things about the letter one is I think in general terms it is right to support diplomacy I mean it was as I've said I said in a recent interview with the New Yorker um you know the United States is bringing its its Superior military and intelligence capabilities to bear on Ukraine's behalf um I think appropriately um it is also appropriate for the United States to bring its Superior diplomatic capabilities to bear on Ukraine's behalf but I think the question here is when the time is right uh for that high level diplomacy um you know I think no one wants to to to see the United States or I would say I don't want to see and certainly many Americans and and ukrainians don't want to see the United States simply negotiating uh the end of this war with Russia over the heads of ukrainians it is their country that has been invaded um they're the ones who are are fighting and dying to defend their country um so I think this this you know the we want to avoid the impression that it that this is simply too great power towards you know divvying up the spoils so I I think that is part of the concern that you saw from even some of the signers of the letter which I would you know just remind folks was actually written in I believe June and July and signed in June and July and then then released with a little warning to some of the signers so I don't want to get too into the details of that um but I would agree that you know diplomacy is good we I think everyone understands that at some point there will need to be a negotiation to bring this war to a close but I think the tension within the progressive Community comes to when and how that diplomacy actually takes place we're in McGovern well Amy I was distraught it was scandalous that within 36 hours those Progressive Democrats took tale and gave up I mean the suggestion was eminently sensible who could be against talks you know there's an opportunity coming up where presidents are to meet in Bali Indonesia there would be an opportunity Rose gotta Mueller who used to be Obama's Czar in the state department for arms control has suggested that we start with these intermediate-ranged nuclear missiles and start to start to deal on a tactical level but the notion that we shouldn't talk is you know I've just been focusing on the Cuban Missile Crisis of exactly 60 years ago how did that get resolved by talks and by a modicum of trust let me explain candidate took a very very serious position didn't he he said look here's a quarantine he called it a quarantine it was really a blockade illegal here's my Invasion force in Key West and here I'm going to threaten nuclear weapons that's what he did Khrushchev talked to him and said well look okay we didn't we're going to back off but we need something and kind of say okay I promise not to I promise not to invade Cuba and khrushoff said okay and on the side they did this did this little deal on Turkey now that was because these were oral promises these were negotiations by teletype in those days but why we can't have that kind of thing now with people say say you're giving in to the Russians is beyond me with respect to the Finish let me just say a word about that Matt only quoted the first part of Russia's response to the Finnish application to join NATO what poutine said is look we've lived with the Finns for a lot of years as long as no NATO infrastructure goes into Finland we got no problem what does that mean NATO infrastructure are these little holes in the ground that can accommodate missiles like the tomahawk and Hypersonic missiles which can reach Moscow five six seven minutes that's what they're afraid of and that's that that's what they consider to be their existential threat just the final word here comparing the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Ukraine crisis now Did anyone say oh I'm sorry anybody say to John Kennedy look Mr President you're overreacting this is unprovoked all these measures you're taking some of them illegal blockadeless that's unprovoked did anybody say that no why because there was it was provoked now pudding missiles within five minutes six minutes of Moscow or the ICBM force in the western part of Russia that's provocation folks and pooching has been warning about that for seven eight nine years John muirsheimer the dean of the realistic School of political science said eight years ago that the crisis in Ukraine is the West's fault he had used good evidence for that there's lots more evidence now he was right then and he's right now so what does that mean that means we have to deal we have to deal with the fact that poutine is in the same position that John Kennedy was 60 years ago he sees an existential threat he's not going to back off he's going to do illegal things unless we understand that and unless our Administration believe uh gets used to the fact that I was a military intelligence officer okay if you look at the map for God's sake where's the enemy uh what's the terrain what's the weather what's the weather coming in the next couple of months and most of all what we call Locks not bagels and locks but lines of communication and Supply I mean Russia can't lose this either militarily or politically it's going to keep going as far as it has to if High Mars and the light comes in is going to have to go farther farther north and west as lavrov the Russian foreign matter of geography we would settle for the dunbas in southern Ukraine if you're going to put in high Mars or Worse geography will dictate that we go farther so Talks Of course talks are necessary and talks are really lobil is the German word they're very delicate because there's very little trust there has to be a modicum of trust as there was in 1962 on the Cuba Missile Crisis I'd like to ask a Matt and possibly Ray also to respond to uh the Europe is suffering much more as a result of the continuation of this war both in terms of it's having to redirect its uh its energy sources uh much higher inflation than exists here in the United States uh right now uh and uh and there are some of you that Europe was dragged into this more by the United States in terms of the way it approached uh uh Russia and uh and Putin uh in terms of Ukraine your your response uh to that and how the and to whether there are differences between how Europe sees this war and the United States I mean I think there initially were I mean I think we we saw uh the reports that you European leaders were actually quite skeptical um as publicly were Ukrainian leaders of of the prospect of a Russian invasion the United States um continued to continue to say that the intelligence showed that Russia Was preparing um for an invasion that the pieces were being moved into place for this Invasion and they turned out to be right um you know I mean Mr McGovern earlier brought up the um you know the the Iraq War wmd's debacle and I think certainly the Biden Administration is is quite aware of that record and I think they have been very very careful um in in in the importance of rebuilding uh U.S credibility when it comes to making these kinds of claims and I think to their credit um the claims you know the intelligence that they have made public all along the way um has has been affirmed repeatedly um now with regard to the European position I think there were a lot of European countries particularly Germany that had a vision of you know much you know cooperation with Vladimir Putin certainly on the issue of energy um but I think European leaders based you know on observing Putin's own behavior um have come around to the U.S view um that you know of the the threat that Putin poses and what the problem what this invasion of Ukraine could really mean not just for Europe but for the world certainly they are the ones who are facing uh much more immediate difficulty with regard to energy and and food insecurity um the global South as as Amy mentioned early on um with regard to the agreement um over over uh grain export this is a really good deal that's happening because certainly countries in in the in the global South are bearing the brunt of this this Global food crisis as well um but just one last Point here with you know my Mr McGovern brought up you know John muirsheimer's comment about this war being the US's fault you know I know John muirsheimer he is not however the Pope um he has a view um I think there are many eminent Scholars who know Russia much better than John muirsheimer does who have a very different view um of how we got here uh so again I think those views should be taken into account and I would Point people once again to what Vladimir Putin himself has said is the reason for this Invasion um repeatedly both in in the written word and in speeches in that in in part is to re-establish what he believes to be Russia's historical rights Russia's historical control of what he believes to be a kind of Russian Imperium so that's not to say that that diplomacy is a necessary diplomacy is necessary I believe there is diplomacy ongoing right now perhaps not at the high level uh that some would like to see but we we know that you know the U.S defense secretary Austin has a line open with a Russian defense minister shoigu they have talked multiple times um there's also you know contacts and talks going on at lower levels um you know and I think these are the kinds of things that could lead to Greater talks at higher levels at some time down the future but I think the disagreement is when when does that time come when is it most appropriate oh Ray McGovern if you could respond and also this issue of the uh of Europe and energy and Russia the the blowing up of the north stream uh one and two pipelines which uh the the the uh Western press is remarkably uninterested in trying to investigate what actually happened there and these ludicrous claims in my view uh that Russia would blow up its own 10 billion dollar project of supplying energy to uh Europe there you go Juan uh most Americans would be prepared to believe that and I would submit that that's a direct result of six years worth of brainwashing okay now uh with respect to what poutine has said uh Now Matt is free to quote pooching but not erroneously poutine spelled out very precisely what the aims of that invasion was and he said it was a demilitarization and denotification of Ukraine uh there was no indication that he sent enough troops in there to take over give and a matter of fact they've been very reluctant to to Shell the cities until now until many provocations have happened so so you know you have to kind of really not do the what I call a Giuliani theorem uh you recall what he said to that Arizona uh legislator about corruption in the election he's on a phone he says there's lots of corruption well you got to look at it as it's corrupt and the legislator said well uh oh my god well I'm sure we'll look at it now what's what's the evidence and Giuliani famously said well we have lots of theories but no evidence now I would suggest to Matt that he's got a nice Theory there that puchin wants to take over Ukraine and that Putin wants to take over maybe the rest of the Europe like other people say there's no evidence for that now with respect to the West Germans the worst Europeans and particularly the Germans I hear the Germans real well I spent five years there some of them are my best friends all right but they are so subservient to the United States 77 years after the war that it's hard for me to believe they won't stand up on their own two feet when and it's very clear to me when the U.S or its allies UK blow up blow up story stream one and two I mean Hello so German industry is going to go boom German people are going to go okay this this winter and German people will they ever will lay back act any different than they did in 1933 and stand up on their own two legs and say no we're not going to abide by that the Germans had the majority in 1933 there are a majority of German citizens who feel straight away that this is this is unnecessary and I dare say they may follow the checks and and many of the others who by the tens of thousands are already in the streets I just hope that they see their way to standing in their own two feet and saying look you know we put up a lot of stuff but when you blew up those pipelines we're going to freeze and also our industry is going kaput so would you lay off we're going to stay on our own two feet we're going to make a deal with the Russians now there are reports that the Germans were already talking with the Russians about a deal on on energy on guest supplies when those pipelines were broken were sabotaged so you know it's a it's a real sad story story in Europe it's going to be sadder as the months go go by and not only that but you know as the ice covers those fields in Ukraine Russian forces are going to go forward and there is a hence in food chains mostly his latest speech that yes sir okay the Essa could be negotiated about it people will look at that people that read his speeches people ought to read through the Q a now if it's yes sir can easily fall after all it's a Russian city if it can fall to to the to the Russians well maybe they'd be able to negotiate on that and say look we'll make a deal here let's talk and let's work out something where we stop and Ukraine persists in a smaller way but the the war is over and ukrainians stop Dying by the thousands so let's get back test his response to that and also one's question about Menard's dream Newsweek reported speaking to reporters on February 7th Biden said if Russia invades that means tanks are troops crossing the border of Ukraine again there will no longer be a Nord stream too we will bring an end to it the president said a journalist asked Biden how he could do that since Germany was in control of the project the president replied I promise you we will be able to do it so if you could talk about both Nordstrom and the rest of what Ray McGovern just said sure I mean just to address North between first I think what the president clearly meant there was that Nordstrom 2 would not be brought online it would not it would not the project would be halted I don't think that was a threat You know despite the the tendency of some to try and interpret as the threat that the United States would blow up nordstream to and there's no evidence that the the United States was was responsible for that as for some of these other claims about what Putin really wants I I feel like we're getting into just bizarre territory here to claim that Putin wasn't trying to take over Kiev listen the Russians landed strike teams outside Kiev with the goal of toppling the Ukrainian government these troops were not just there to go camping okay I mean the plan clearly was to land forces inside cave to take control of the government um clearly Russia miscalculated they did not send enough troops they did not have solid enough supply lines um to to support these troops but then to turn around and point to Russia's poor planning as somehow evidence that Putin's goals were much much more modest I I I I think is just untenable um I did not claim that Putin wants to take over all of Europe I pointed out that Putin himself claimed that he wanted to re-establish what he describes as Russia's historic right so I don't want to overstate that but I do again want to point people think to things that Putin has written and said about this which give a good idea of his own goals

Channel: Democracy Now!

Views: 351,953

Keywords: Democracy Now, Amy Goodman, News, Politics, democracynow, Independent Media, Breaking News, World News

Id: O8Ya4QXB_7c

Length: 29min 54sec (1794 seconds)

Published: Wed Nov 02 2022