Isis, Israel, Torture, Pittsburgh

THE ABSURD TIMES

The World of Late, or the Late World

by

Zarathustra

Illustration: sent by one of you.  Well-known journalist banned in Pittsburgh.

            There hasn't been much reason or interest enough to put out another of these for some time.  Once you know the pattern, why need more examples?  I am more and more convinced by what Thoreau meant by that so many years ago.

            I suppose what has most intrigued me is recent stupidity.  A few days ago, and African-American [already suspicious, no?] Moslem [well, that clinches it] was killed outside a CVS by the FBI.  Surprisingly, the video seemed to support the FBI's version of the incident.  There was discussions about beheading the woman who goes around trying to irritate Moslems by blocking building of Mosques and staging contests to draw Mohammed.  I understand that no one know what he looked like anyway, so a caricature is a rather foolish idea.  So is paying attention to this moron, but religion has its own logic.  Maybe logic isn't the right word.

            One of the proofs that they were planning a beheading (and we are opposed to beheadings, btw) is that someone said "I'm thinking with my head on my chest."  I was reminded of Gertrude Stein's remark to Hemingway "Earnest, you are always wearing a wig on your chest."  Code is cryptic, I guess.

            In a recent issue, we talking about a Ukrainian/Russian pianist who was uninvited by the Toronto Symphony Orchestra after some trollish moron complained about her anti-fascist remarks about current Kiev.  It was a bit of a revelation here that she was one of the premier classical pianists of the day as we were aware only of the Ukrainian remarks.

            Now, Chris Hedges has been uninvited from a panel at the University of Pittsburgh for likening ISIS to Israel.  It seem much like that same thing.  To those overseas who hear about our first amendment and freedom of speech, it is important to realize that only government agencies, or officially nominal government agencies, are bound by that.  Since huge amounts of money run this country, and government is only an organ of capitalism, the first amendment really isn't that much of a force.  The University would loose a lot of money if it allowed such unpopular truths be told. 

           

            Below is something quite unrelated on its surface.  Medical Doctors took part in the torture during Bush whose brother is running for President.  We were told the AMA was against this sort of thing, but money is money.

            We wonder if the International court could make war crimes stick and some country could arrest Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, et. al if they were in their country?

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2015

"These are War Crimes": Shocking Details Emerge of U.S. Resident Majid Khan’s Torture by CIA

Shocking new details have emerged about how the CIA tortured a former resident of Baltimore, Maryland, who has been in U.S. detention since 2003, first at a CIA black site, then at Guantánamo. Majid Khan is the only known legal resident of the United States to be held at Guantánamo. Over the years, Khan has detailed U.S. torture practices to his attorneys at the Center for Constitutional Rights, but until recently much of the information remained classified. According to the declassified notes, Khan was waterboarded on two separate occasions, he was hung on a wooden beam for days on end, he spent much of 2003 in total darkness, and he experienced repeated beatings and threats to beat him with tools, including a hammer. Khan also faced rectal feeding, which his lawyers described as a form of rape. Part of Khan’s torture was outlined in last year’s Senate torture report, but the declassified information provides new details on the abuse. We are joined by Majid Khan’s lawyer, J. Wells Dixon, a senior staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Shocking new details have emerged about how the CIAtortured a former resident of Baltimore, Maryland, who has been in U.S. detention since 2003, first at a CIA black site, then at Guantánamo. Majid Khan is the only known legal resident of the United States to be held at Guantánamo. Over the years, Khan has detailed U.S. torture practices to his attorneys at the Center for Constitutional Rights, but until recently much of the information remained classified. According to the declassified notes, Khan was waterboarded on two separate occasions, he was hung on a wooden beam for days on end, he spent much of 2003 in total darkness, and he experienced repeated beatings and threats to beat him with tools, including a hammer. Majid Khan also faced rectal feeding, which his lawyers described as a form of rape. Part of Khan’s torture was outlined in last year’s Senate torture report, but the declassified information provides new details on the abuse.

AMY GOODMAN: Majid Khan is a 35-year-old Pakistani citizen who graduated from Owings Mills High School in Baltimore. He was captured in Pakistan in 2003, then reportedly held at an unidentified CIA black site from 2003 to 2006. In the newly released documents about his interrogations at the CIA black site, Khan says agents told him, quote, "Son, we are going to take care of you. ... We are going to send you to a place you cannot imagine." He later confessed to delivering $50,000 to al-Qaeda operatives in Indonesia and to plotting with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to serve as a sleeper agent for al-Qaeda in the United States.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: In 2012, Khan pleaded guilty to conspiracy, material support, murder and spying charges in exchange for serving as a government witness.

Well, for more, we’re joined by Majid Khan’s lawyer, Wells Dixon. He’s a senior staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Wells Dixon. Could you talk about how you came to represent Majid Khan?

J. WELLS DIXON: Sure. So, in March of 2003, Majid Khan disappeared. His family had no idea where he was, and he wasn’t heard from until he appeared in Guantánamo in September of 2006. But shortly before he arrived in Guantánamo, during the course of a criminal case that was being tried here in New York, his name came up. And the government introduced at that trial a stipulation, a written document that acknowledged that they had him in custody. And the document purported to describe things that he would say about what was going on in the trial. So that was the first time that his family knew that he was in U.S. custody. And after that, we were in contact with his family, and they asked us to file a case to challenge the legality of his detention.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And it was in 2012 that Khan signed a plea agreement? Could you explain what it means to sign a plea agreement and what the impact of that has been on his case?

J. WELLS DIXON: Sure. So, for many years, we represented—that we were representing Majid, he was challenging the legality of his detention. But in early 2012, he was charged by a military commission with various offenses. And he ultimately signed an agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty and to cooperate with the government. He became a cooperating witness for the government. And he did that for—really, for one central reason, and that is that he was sorry for the things that he had done, and he really wanted to make up for the things that he had done. And this was a way for him to accept responsibility, to really move forward with his life and to hopefully have some chance at a life after Guantánamo. You know, he didn’t want hisCIA torture and his time at Guantánamo to be the last chapter written in his life.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, and can you talk about this—the information now that’s been declassified, what Majid Khan alleges was done to him by CIAinterrogators? I mean, some of this material is quite stunning.

J. WELLS DIXON: Well, it’s horrifying. As you mentioned earlier, he was waterboarded twice in 2003. He was subjected to sexual abuse. He was subjected to extreme sensory deprivation. And he suffered tremendously as a result of this. I mean, it’s absolutely horrifying what was done to him.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, I want to turn to a comment by former U.S. Justice Department attorney John Yoo, who played a key role in drafting the Bush administration torture memos. In December, he appeared on CNN after the release of the Senate committee report on the CIA’s use of torture. He was asked about the allegations of torture, which include—about Majid Khan, such as forced rectal feeding. This was Yoo’s response.

JOHN YOO: I agree with you. If these things happened as they’re described in the report, as you describe them, those were not authorized by the Justice Department. They were not supposed to be done, and those people who did those are at risk legally because they were acting outside their orders.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was John Yoo speaking on CNN. Could you comment on what he said?

J. WELLS DIXON: Yeah, so there you have it. I mean, in the Senate report, there was a disclosure, the fact that Majid had been raped. And you have there the legal architect of the CIA torture program, the lawyer who literally wrote the memos that allowed the torture to occur, saying that’s not something that he authorized and that that’s something that would violate the anti-torture statute.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And what about the fact that he—you said earlier that he regretted, he wanted to compensate for what he had done. How do we take his claims of admission, given the fact that they claim—for whatever it is that he’s admitted to, they all came after he was subjected to this torture, is that correct?

J. WELLS DIXON: Yes, he agreed to plead guilty and to cooperate after being tortured. And what’s important to understand about that is that he agreed to plead guilty despite what had happened to him, not because of what had happened to him. You know, as you might imagine, the decision to trust the government, to take a leap of faith, to use the words that he used at his guilty plea, was very difficult, given the fact the he had been waterboarded and raped and subjected to all of these other horrors. But he really, truly believes that that was—that that’s something that’s necessary for him to do to put his prior life behind him and to move on with his life.

AMY GOODMAN: Wells Dixon, can you talk about how you, as an attorney representing him, knowing what has happened to him over the years, how you work these deals with the government about what you can and cannot reveal or say?

J. WELLS DIXON: Right, well, the Center for Constitutional Rights has long been on record opposing Guantánamo, opposing the CIA torture program and raising serious objections to the military commissions system. Having said that, our first interest always is the best interest of our clients. And so I, as counsel for Majid Khan, have to do what’s in his best legal interest, and ultimately what he directs me to do. And he made a decision that he wanted to plead guilty and cooperate, that he really wanted to try to atone for what he had done. And this is the way that he can do that. He is committed to fulfilling—to his obligation to cooperate in the commissions system. But, you know, if the government were to decide, for example, that it wanted to transfer his cooperation here to a criminal court in the United States, he would certainly be receptive to that. And, you know, I, as his counsel, think that there are policy reasons why that might be a good thing to do, notwithstanding the flaws, you know, even in our criminal justice system. But it’s up to the government. It’s really up to the government whether that happens.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to read from a Reuters report about the newly released details of Majid Khan’s treatment in a CIA black site: quote, "In a July 2003 session, Khan said, CIA guards hooded and hung him from a metal pole for several days and repeatedly poured ice water on his mouth, nose and genitals. At one point, he said, they forced him to sit naked on a wooden box during a 15-minute videotaped interrogation. After that, Khan said, he was shackled to a wall, which prevented him from sleeping.

"When a doctor arrived to check his condition, [Majid] Khan begged for help, he said. Instead, Khan said, the doctor instructed the guards to again hang him from the metal bar. After hanging from the pole for 24 hours, Khan was forced to write a 'confession' while being videotaped naked."

That’s an excerpt from a report by Reuters. Can you comment on this, overall, Wells, but also talk about the role of doctors, the role of psychologists, or what you heard about what happened in this CIA black site?

J. WELLS DIXON: Well, one of the things that we got declassified was Majid’s commentary on what had happened to him, how it felt and what he was experiencing as these things occurred. And one of the things that he has said is that doctors were among the worst torturers that he had. And I think, you know, you’ve given that one example as a perfect illustration, where you have a medical professional who is not only monitoring him, but monitoring him for the purpose of deciding when he can go back and be tortured even more. It’s horrifying. It’s a betrayal of the medical profession. And it’s unlawful. I mean, I think that’s the bottom line here, is that what happened to Majid Khan was unlawful. If you accept the notion that the United States is at war, which is of course debatable, if you accept that notion, these are very clear war crimes. Torture, rape, these are war crimes, and they need to be prosecuted. There needs to be a new DOJ investigation into this.

AMY GOODMAN: How did he know the person was a doctor?

J. WELLS DIXON: I don’t know the answer to that question.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And he’s the only—Majid Khan is the only high-value detainee who has legal representation, is that right, in Guantánamo?

J. WELLS DIXON: No, actually, there are several who have legal representation. There are some, like Abu Zubaydah, for example, who has counsel. And then there are a number of men who have been charged by military commission—the alleged 9/11 plotters; the alleged Cole bomber, Nashiri. So there are several counsel who are representing these men.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And what is it that you are calling for? What should be done now in his case?

J. WELLS DIXON: Well, we’re calling for greater transparency and accountability for what happened in the torture program. You know, every time there is a public disclosure about what has happened, we see more and more evidence of the savagery that occurred and sort of the treachery that’s occurred at the CIA. And it just gets worse. You know, once we get to—we think we’ve gotten to the bottom of it, there is a new and horrifying revelation. So there needs to be more accountability. We need to see the entire Senate report. And there need to be Justice Department prosecutions, as I said. That’s the only way to get to the bottom of what really happened.

AMY GOODMAN: Speaking about the release of the Senate intelligence report, I wanted to ask you about an interesting interaction I had with the former CIA director, Porter Goss. It was in March. I was participating at Hofstra University in Long Island in a review of the George W. Bush presidency. It was called "The Bush Doctrine and Combating Terrorism." This is a clip of my exchange with the former CIA director, Porter Goss, about the bipartisan Senate committee report on the CIA’s use of torture.

PORTER GOSS: In the interests of fairness, would respond a little bit on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence study on rendition, detention and interrogation—was a partisan political study. It was not two-sided. And there are further facts that need to come out from those who are able to, I think, correct some of the misstatements in the Senate study. That has not happened yet. I hope it will happen, because I do believe the American public needs to know the truth of all of this. The Senate study is not the full truth.

AMY GOODMAN: Was there any truth in it?

MODERATOR: Could you say again?

PORTER GOSS: What?

AMY GOODMAN: Was there any truth in it?

PORTER GOSS: Of course there was some truth in it. It was a cherry-picked, selective presentation of information to support a narrative that was made before this report actually even was started. The announced purpose of the report, of the study, if I’m correcting Chairman Feinstein—if I’m quoting Chairman Feinstein properly, was to make sure this never happens again. I’m not sure what the "this" was, or neither are a lot of people. But apparently, as you go through the report, as you go through this study, there are a series of observations that involved information that the decision makers could have provided to the people doing the report and would have given a fairer and more complete understanding of what happened and why. If you want to know why something happened, it’s a good idea to go back to the people who made the decision and ask them. They calculatedly and determinedly avoided going back to anybody that they thought might spoil their narrative. So, consequently, yes, there is some information that is cherry-picked, some out of context and some actually factually correct, as far as I know. I have not read a word of the report. I have not read a word of any of this stuff, because, to me, it is purely partisan political. And a politicization of intelligence in this country is going to hurt only one person, and that’s every citizen in the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: I just wanted to quote Senator McCain, who—

PORTER GOSS: I love Senator McCain, and I would certainly agree with you that Senator McCain is the icon of prisoner of war conduct. He has suffered greatly for our country and made great sacrifices and deserves to be listened to. But he does not have all of the information either.

AMY GOODMAN: He said, "It is a thorough and thoughtful study of practices that I believe not only failed their purpose—to secure actionable intelligence to prevent further attacks on the U.S. and our allies—but actually damaged our security interests, as well as our reputation as a force for good in the world."

PORTER GOSS: He is welcome to his opinion. I doubt he’s read the report. And in any event, he has certainly not asked the people who were involved in this activity what they think, because they have all indicated that he has not asked them. So, even he is dealing with less than a full deck.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Porter Goss, the former director of the CIA. Wells Dixon, you’re a senior staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. His response?

J. WELLS DIXON: Well, I also have a lot of questions I’d like to ask people who were involved in the torture program. One of those questions is: Why was Majid Khan raped? Now, in response to the Senate report, the CIA offers no justification. And we heard earlier that the legal architect of the torture program said that wasn’t authorized. So, why did it happen? I do want to know the answer to that.

But, look, the notion that the report was incomplete or that it’s a partisan hack job, that it wasn’t well done, those are—those are talking points. And the only people who are making those talking points are people who are actually implicated by the report.

One of the really important aspects of the information that we got declassified concerning Majid Khan is that it corroborates a lot of what’s in the report. Not only does it discuss his torture that exceeded what’s disclosed in that report, but it also corroborates a lot of things in there—the sexual assault, for example, detainees being subjected to torture methods that are indistinguishable from waterboarding. So, you know, I am all in favor of the public release of the entire report, as well as the CIA’s own Panetta review. I think that’s a starting point for accountability.

AMY GOODMAN: Leon Panetta.

J. WELLS DIXON: Correct, right.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us, Wells Dixon, senior staff attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, where he represents Guantánamo prisoner Majid Khan. He specializes in challenging unlawful detentions.

This is Democracy Now! 

-->

Valentina Lisitsa

THE ABSURD TIMES

You have to hear this.

MUSIC

Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto #3, called "Rach 3", is at the pinnacle of classical music concertos.  Any pianist who can master it, if any ever really masters it, has achieved one of the greatest feats possible.  Daniel Barenboim never tried to record it as best I know, nor Vladimir Ashkenazy, and many others.  Many have tried it and failed, falling short either in places or all over in time and tempo.

The first able to play it well was the composer himself, Serge, and the recordings are available on CD.  He is to this concerto as Arthur Schnabel is to the Beethoven Sonatas.  Serge was well-known and acclaimed as a concert pianist even before this concerto and it made him the only living master of it.

One day, Vladimir Horowitz played it while Serge was in the audience.  Many analogies occur to me, but I'll pass them by.  Horowitz was apprehensive to say the least until Serge shook his hand and said "It is now yours." 

After that, a few came along.  Van Cliburn having won the Tchaikosky competition in Moscow during the cold war, was jingoistically promoted and sold a lot of records and, to his credit, helped many younger pianists.  Still, he was no giant, to say the least (although he was very tall).

I remember much later some pianist in Australia suffered from a form of schizophrenia and lost what could have been a great career.  Well, he recovered somewhat and recorded the Rach III.  I had no idea about the movie or Grammys and Oscars -- just not my interest), but I suspect his recording was a best seller for some time.  I heard it and laughed a bit, thinking it was a parody.  No harm intended, I assure you.

Most recently, a pianist named Lang Lang recorded the Rach III.  Even though he hit every note, exactly at the right time, and more quickly than anyone had a right to expect, somehow it seemed to miss the emotional impact the work once had for me.  I kept remembered a recording by Richter that was much better for me.

Well, now there is a new artist.  She is one of the best new artists to appear since Glenn Gould. 

Valentina Lisitsa plays the Rach III dynamically, driven, filled with passion and intent.  There seems to be nothing missing.  I played it several times and then went back and compared the Horowitz (yes, with Ormandy) and Rach himself (I don't remember the orchestra), and she is right there with them, at least for me.

            Not many realize this, but she also has a great brain or mind.  She started out wanting to be a professional chess player and is very outspoken about Ukraine.  If she had only one composer to play, ever, it would be Beethoven.  Many of her performances are available on You Tube and have attracted millions.  All of this came as a bit of a surprise to me as I only knew her for her incisive remarks on Twitter, and only became aware of her as a pianist when the (pardon the expression) Toronto Symphony Orchestra cancelled one of her performances because of bitching by Kiev supporters.  (I told you she could think).

            She was born and grew up in Ukraine, but now lives in the U.S.  Check her out on You Tube.  She also has recordings on DGG, Decca, and a few other labels. 

-->

Ukraine and the War Party

THE ABSURD TIMES

 

Ukraine and the War Party

            It is not clear whether we have a three party system here or if the two more traditionally named parties are morphing into one, but the War Party is becoming the most influential force in our country.  The illustration above clearly shows just how our priorities have shifted, as munitions manufacturers make a great deal of money and most citizens do not.   Anyone considering the fact above would easily see how ridiculous the idea is, yet would be helpless to do anything about it.

The American public is daily indoctrinated with jabber, (jibber-jabber as Shelley Berman used to say on Boston Legal,) about how Putin and Russia is oppressing the Ukraine, today simply called "Ukraine," is being attacked and invaded by Putin so he can maintain popularity. 

The facts are quite to the contrary: there was unrest in Ukraine.  there was a conference to hold free elections in Ukraine while the current president maintained office.  Then neo-nazi and fascists staged a bloody coup, the left-wing President sought asylum in Russia, we (especially Hillary Clinton) arranged for a replacement, and he began to terrorize the ethnic Russian citizens in the East.  The conflicts continued, Crimea voted overwhelmingly to join the Russian Federation, and the rest of the Eastern Federation would like to follow.  

There would be a great deal of money to be made if we shipped weapons to Kiev and that is what we are trying to arrange right now.  Germany remains the only force right now capable of negotiating some sort of sane arrangement, but this will not be allowed so long as America's lap-dog, Great Britain, remains in the European Union.

Saner minds here would argue that the country is not prepared for another war and that the money can be better spent otherwise.  Stephen Cohen, below, argues that there should at least be a debate, but that would be futile.  When Bush II almost lost his bid to invade Iraq, steps were taken to avoid further debates.  The argument in favor of debates, of course, are in favor of democracy, but a viable democracy requires an informed public.  In anyone is to inform the public, the powers that be in the industry point out, they will handle that part of it through their corporate owned television networks and AM radio fatheads spewing out patriotic nonsense 24/7.

We are closer to a nuclear war than we have been for decades.  We would welcome a wide-spread thermonuclear war, providing all sides went all out, as it would end human life on this planet quickly and humanely rather than through slow poisoning of the air and water and disruption of the climate.  However, the use will be of "tactical" weapons, thus defeating the one bright spot in this whole movement.  Finally, we have a voice to provide rational analysis of the situation, one that predicted months ago what would happen and that has been proved correct.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2015

Is Ukraine a Proxy Western-Russia War? U.S. Weighs Arming Kiev as Violence Soars

The United Nations has raised the death toll from fighting in eastern Ukraine to more than 5,300 people since last April following the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych one year ago this month. Another 1.5 million people have been displaced. As fighting intensifies, the Obama administration is now considering directly arming Ukrainian forces against Russian-backed rebels. Washington already supplies nonlethal military equipment to Ukraine, but top officials are reportedly leaning toward sending arms, from rifles to anti-tank weapons. The role of the U.S. and European allies in Ukraine has prompted former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to accuse the West of dragging Russia into a new Cold War. We are joined by Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AARON MATÉ: The U.N. has raised the death toll from fighting in eastern Ukraine to over 5,300 people since last April, following the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych one year ago this month. Another 1.5 million people have been displaced. According to Russian-backed rebels in Donetsk, shelling in eastern Ukraine has killed at least eight people and wounded 22 others in the past day. Ukraine says five more of its soldiers have died.

This comes as the White House now considers arming Ukraine in its fight against Russian-backed separatists. Washington already supplies nonlethal military equipment to Ukraine, but there is a growing push to send arms, from rifles to anti-tank weapons. On Monday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki was asked about U.S. policy.

MATTHEW LEE: There are a whole plethora of reports out this morning that the administration is reconsidering providing lethal assistance to the Ukrainian government. Would you care to address those?

JEN PSAKI: Well, Matt, we are constantly assessing our policies on Ukraine to ensure they’re responsive, appropriated and calibrated to achieve our objectives. We are particularly concerned about recent escalating separatist violence and separatist attempts to expand the territory they currently control further, beyond the ceasefire line agreed to in Minsk, as well as the increasing toll of civilian and military casualties.

MATTHEW LEE: OK, so it sounds like you’re not saying, no, that these reports are wrong. Is it accurate then to say that this kind of assistance is now part of the conversation?

JEN PSAKI: Well, we haven’t taken options on or off the table, Matt. It’s an ongoing discussion. Obviously we have take into account events on the ground. But I don’t have anything to lay out for you in terms of internal deliberations.

REPORTER: Why would the president want to get into a proxy war with Russia?

JEN PSAKI: Well, I don’t think anybody wants to get into a proxy war with Russia. And that is not the objective. Our objective here is to change the behavior of Russia. That’s the reason that we’ve put the sanctions in place. We certainly want to help Ukraine, a sovereign government, thrive and go through this transition period. No decisions have been made. I’m talking about the fact that we of course preserve the right to consider a range of options.

AARON MATÉ: That’s State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki. On Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry will travel to Kiev to meet with Ukrainian leaders.

AMY GOODMAN: Last week, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev accused the West of dragging Russia into a new Cold War. He said, quote, "If we call a spade a spade, America has pulled us into a new Cold War, trying to openly implement its general idea of triumphalism. Where will it take us all? The Cold War is already on. What’s next? Unfortunately, I cannot say firmly that the Cold War will not lead to the hot one. I’m afraid that they might take the risk," he said.

On Monday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the conflict cannot be solved militarily.

CHANCELLOR ANGELA MERKEL: [translated] Germany will not support Ukraine with weapons. I am firmly convinced that this conflict cannot be solved militarily, and therefore we insist that, on the one hand, we will impose sanctions, if necessary—we have done that jointly in Europe—and, on the other hand, we will use all diplomatic means to resolve this conflict through talks, or at least alleviate it.

AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the crisis in Ukraine, we’re joined by Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. His most recent book, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, is out in paperback.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Professor Cohen.

STEPHEN COHEN: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: What’s happening in Ukraine?

STEPHEN COHEN: What’s happening in Ukraine? Gorbachev had it right. We’re in a new Cold War with Russia. The epicenter of the new Cold War is not in Berlin, like the last one, but it’s right on Russia’s borders, so it’s much more dangerous. You and I have talked about this since February, I think. What I foresaw in February has played out, I regret to say: A political dispute in Ukraine became a Ukrainian civil war. Russia backed one side; the United States and NATO, the other. So it’s not only a new Cold War, it’s a proxy war. We’re arming Kiev. Russians are arming the eastern fighters. And I think, though I don’t want to spoil anybody’s day—I said to you in February this had the potential to become a new Cuban missile-style confrontation with the risk of war. That’s where we are now. And I think Gorbachev was right.

AARON MATÉ: There was a ceasefire reached in September. What’s happened since then?

STEPHEN COHEN: Well, it was never honored in full. And the primary problem was—I mean, there were many provisions of the ceasefire, which was supposed to stop the fighting in the east and lead to direct negotiations between the rebel government, or fighters—we call them "separatists." They weren’t separatists when all this began, but now they’re separatists: They don’t want to live with Kiev any longer. But it was supposed to lead to negotiations. The main thing that happened was, is it required both sides to pull back their artillery, primarily Kiev, because Kiev was bombarding the capital cities of eastern Ukraine—Luhansk and Donetsk. That artillery was never pulled back. It was supposed to be 30 kilometers. How far back they pulled them, I don’t know. But as you know, in the last week, those cities have been bombarded again. So the ceasefire was honored kind of marginally in the breach for a couple months, but about a week ago, 10 days ago, the fighting escalated.

Now, there is a dispute, because it eliminated the possibility of negotiations again: Who began the escalation? The State Department, you heard Psaki say it was Russia and Russian agents. Russia and the rebels say it was Kiev. But we’re in a fog of war. That expression comes from World War I, I think, when there was so much misinformation—we didn’t have email then, and it traveled more slowly—that the perception of what was going on was distorted, corrupted by news. And it led to war. The fog of war today derives from this, and it’s worse because it moves so fast, on social media news, is that you’ve got all this misinformation coming out of Kiev, out of Moscow, out of Washington. And for the three of us to sit here and say who threw the first punch 10 days ago is almost impossible.

AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, three prominent U.S. think tanks—the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs—issued a joint report urging the United States to provide Ukraine $3 billion in military assistance over the next three years. Former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott co-wrote the report. He’s now president of Brookings.

STROBE TALBOTT: In the context of what is happening in Ukraine today, the right way to characterize it is an act of war on the part of the Russian Federation. This means that there is going on in Ukraine today a literal invasion, not by—it’s not a proxy war. It’s a literal invasion by the Russian armed forces. It’s a literal occupation of large parts, well beyond Crimea, of eastern Ukraine. And it is a virtual annexation of a lot of territory other than just the Crimea. And in that respect, this is a major threat to the peace of Europe, to the peace of Eurasia, and therefore a threat to the interests of the United States and, I would say, a threat to the chances of a peaceful 21st century.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, now president of Brookings. Your response?

STEPHEN COHEN: Well, he’s much more than that. People need to drop their masks and say what their personal stake in this is. Strobe Talbott, whom I’ve known for years, was the architect of the American policy that led to this crisis. He was "the Russia hand," as he called his memoir, under President Clinton, when the expansion of NATO toward Russia began.

Understand what he said—and the rollout of this report has been coming. And if you look at the signatures, these are the leaders of the American war party, the people who literally want a military showdown with Russia. Stop and think what that means. Stop and think what that means, as though Russia is going to back off. But the people who signed this report—and they’ve been bringing it out for days—are saying that the—he literally just said this—the future of the 21st century is at stake in Ukraine. Stop and think what that means. Then he went on to say things that are fundamentally untrue, that Russia has invaded and annexed eastern Ukraine. I mean, when the State Department was asked a few weeks ago, "Can you confirm the presence of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine?" the State Department, which misleads about this story all the time, said, "No, we cannot." So what are—this is what I’m talking about the fog of war, where we’re being told Russia has annexed eastern Ukraine, the stake of the world is at—the future of the world is at stake here, and basically they’re calling for war with Russia.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to continue this discussion in a minute. We’re talking with Professor Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. We’ll be back with him in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University, Stephen Cohen. His latest book,Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War. Aaron?

AARON MATÉ: Yes, so, on this issue of Russian involvement in Ukraine, and NATO’s expansion, I presume you acknowledge that Putin is destabilizing Ukraine—he sent in weapons, he sent in tanks, he sent in some troops in some form. Is the point then that he’s acting not to revive the Soviet empire, but to stop NATO encroachment? Is that your point?

STEPHEN COHEN: That’s my short point. But let me ask you a question. Five million people, approximately, live in this area of eastern Ukraine. They’ve lived there for centuries. Their grandfathers, their parents are buried there. Their children go to school there. That is their home. Do they have no humanity or agency? We’ve taken—not I, but the main press in this country is referring to them as "Putin’s thugs." Where is the humanity of these people who are dying, now nearly 6,000 of them? A million have been turned into refugees. These are people there.

Who’s doing the fighting? Primarily, the folks, the adults, of these people. Have they had Russian assistance? Absolutely. Has Kiev had Western assistance? Billions of dollars. General Hodges—I don’t know exactly what he does, but he’s an AmericanNATO officer—publicly announces he’s in Ukraine to train the National Guard. Both sides are involved militarily. But make no mistake: If there was not an indigenous rebellion in eastern Ukraine, there would not be a Ukrainian civil war. Is Putin abetting the east? Yes. Are we abetting the west and Kiev? Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to Hodges for a minute. Last month, U.S. soldiers from the 2nd Cavalry traveled to the Soviet state of Latvia for a military exercise, dubbed Atlantic Resolve, to train soldiers from Latvia, other Baltic countries and Poland. In addition, the U.S. brought more than 50 units of military equipment, including 17 armored vehicles, Stryker, that will stay in Europe. Ben Hodges, who you’re referring to, is the commanding general of the U.S. Army in Europe.

GEN. BEN HODGES: The decision was made last year to leave the equipment to stay in Europe. So, more than 200 tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, the decision has not been made yet where they will stay. For sure, some will stay in Germany at an American base, but we are looking at options to put some of them in Latvia or Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Ben Hodges, the commanding general of the U.S. Army in Europe. So, bringing in former Soviet state Latvia and the others, what does this mean?

STEPHEN COHEN: What? His presence in Latvia? Well, he’s in Ukraine now. What it means is we’re on the move militarily—"we," I mean NATO, but the United States runs NATO. You heard what Strobe Talbott said: We’ve got to do everything now to defend Ukraine. By the way, he doesn’t mention there are two Ukraines. What about the people in the east I just mentioned? Have they no humanity? But we are on the verge of war with Russia.

Now, you referred to me as emeritus. That means old. That means I remember things. And I remember that when we hit these kind of Cold War extremes back during the last Cold War, people spoke out in opposition in this country, not only folks like the three of us, ordinary folks, but I’m talking about senators, members of Congress—even the administration was divided—The New York Times, The Washington Post. We have the silence of the hawks now. The American war party is on the march. You can see how close we are to, literally, a military confrontation with Russia. And there is not one word of establishment, mainstream opposition in this country.

So, is this good or bad? Do we go to war? Did we have a debate before we invaded Iraq? We did. And those of us who opposed it lost the debate. But we had a debate. That "democracy now," not today, not in the United States. There is no debate whatsoever. So, the danger is great. There is no opposition. All these people you’re showing—Strobe Talbott, General Hodges, anybody else you put on the screen, because only they speak to the American people—they’re on the march.

AARON MATÉ: What is driving this policy on the part of the U.S.? Many people who took part in the Cold War are no longer in power. Are they seeking to revive that era? Is it a matter of expanding NATO, or confronting Putin because they don’t like him? What is the driving force here?

STEPHEN COHEN: All of the above, I think. I don’t know. I’m not smart enough to tell you. Historians will look back—assuming there are historians to look back, because both sides are now mobilizing their nuclear weapons, as well. Russia has already said that if it is faced with overwhelming force on its borders, it will use tactical nuclear weapons. They’re nuclear small, but they’re nuclear weapons. When is the last time you heard a great power say that? We say—Obama, our president, says, "We’re modernizing our nuclear weapons." What does that mean? We’re redeploying them, pointing them even more at Russia. Why is this happening in the United States? I don’t know. I think there’s a lot of factors mixed in, a kind of ideological hangover from the old Cold War. But the demonization of Putin has become so extreme in this country, I do not recall—and I entered this field back in the '60s—the United States ever demonizing a Soviet communist leader the way our leaders do—Obama, Mrs. Clinton referring to him as a Hitler. Look, if Putin is Hitler, clearly we have to go to war. That's the logic, is it not? Is it not? And where are the voices that say this is crazy? He may be a Russian nationalist. He may be threatening. But Hitler?

AMY GOODMAN: During an interview on CNN that aired Sunday, President Obama acknowledged the United States played a role in the ouster of Ukraine’s elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, last February.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Mr. Putin made this decision around Crimea and Ukraine, not because of some grand strategy, but essentially because he was caught off balance by the protests in the Maidan and Yanukovych then fleeing after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.

AMY GOODMAN: President Obama’s comments made headlines in Russia. This is Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

SERGEY LAVROV: [translated] I have two comments which are important. There has been confirmation that the United States was directly involved, from the very beginning, in this anti-government coup d’état. And President Obama literally called it "the transition of power." Secondly, I would like to note that Obama’s rhetoric shows Washington’s intention to continue doing everything possible to unconditionally support Ukraine’s authorities, who have apparently taken a course toward a military solution to the conflict.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s the Russian foreign minister and, before that, President Obama.

STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah, President Obama said something that undoubtably he was later told he shouldn’t have said, because he wasn’t clear what he was referring to. Many people have argued that the United States organized a coup in February to overthrow the president of Ukraine and bring to power of this new pro-American, pro-Western government. I do not know if that’s true. But what Obama said leads people to think that’s what he was acknowledging. He wasn’t.

Here’s what happened. And he’s right about Crimea. He just let the cat out of the bag here. An agreement was brokered in February. Everybody think back. It’s only one year ago. Foreign ministers of Europe, as violence raged in the streets of Kiev, rushed to Kiev and brokered a deal between the sitting president and the opposition leaders—Yanukovych—that he would form a coalition government and call new elections in December. And everybody thought, "Wow, violence averted. We’re back on a democratic track." And what happened? The next day, mobs took to the streets, stormed the presidential palace; Yanukovych, the president, fled to Russia.

But we now know that when that deal was struck by the European ministers, Putin and Obama spoke on the phone, and Putin said to Obama, "Are you behind this?" And Obama says, "I am. Let’s get back on peaceful track." And then he asks Putin, "Are you behind it?" And Putin said, "A hundred percent." And the next day, this happened. So, something happened overnight. Obama lost control of the situation. He didn’t know what was going on. But when he says that they negotiated a peaceful transition to power, he’s not referring to the overthrow of Yanukovych; he’s referring to the deal he signed onto to keep the Ukrainian president in office for another eight or nine months until national elections.

So, he has now confirmed the Russia dark suspicions that the CIA or somebody carried out a coup. I’m sure he regrets having said that. But it is completely unclear to me—I voted for him twice—whether President Obama understands what’s going on in Ukraine, because he said a number of things that are so divergent from the historical record that either he’s getting bad advice or he’s not paying attention. I don’t know which.

AARON MATÉ: Can you sketch out for us the fighting that has taken place since April? The U.N. now says the death toll is over 5,300. Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., has praised Kiev’s response and said that they practiced "remarkable, almost unimaginable, restraint" in their attacks on the separatists.

STEPHEN COHEN: Well, it makes me ashamed to be an American citizen. Let’s remember that when Ambassador Power was not Ambassador Power, she was the great architect and ideologue of the responsibility to protect civilians. Correct? Everybody is familiar with that.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain it briefly.

STEPHEN COHEN: Well, you explain it.

AMY GOODMAN: You explain it.

STEPHEN COHEN: You’ve done it on your show. Well, it means the United States is obliged to do everything it can to prevent a humanitarian disaster resulting either from natural or warlike measures. And that’s been American official policy since Clinton. Now, whether it’s a wise policy or not, I don’t know. But the architect of it now says what’s going on in eastern Ukraine—and there are a lot more than 5,000 dead; even the U.N. has said we really don’t know, but let’s say 5,300. There’s also a million and a half refugees, most of them to Russia, but some to other parts of Ukraine. And the United States is saying—and the State Department and the White House and in the U.N., with Samantha Power—Kiev has been restrained.

All right, back up. What has Kiev called since April its military operation in the east? An anti-terrorist operation. Literally, those are the words. If I declare that you are a terrorist—not a rebel, not a political opponent, but you are a terrorist—I don’t talk to you, I kill you. And that is what Kiev has been doing, with American support. It’s been destroying the civilian centers of eastern Ukraine. Have the rebels fought back? Have they killed Ukrainian army members? Absolutely. But what in the world are we doing supporting a government that’s bombing civilians? And, by the way, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, many other organizations have now said these are war crimes. And yet, the American government sees no evil.

AMY GOODMAN: So we just played Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, earlier. She said Germany will not support Ukraine with weapons. She supports sanctions. She says there’s only a diplomatic answer. What is the solution? And what do you feel about sanctions, as the front page of The New York Times talks about the arming of—U.S. arming Ukraine?

STEPHEN COHEN: Amy, what are you doing to me? You’re trotting out every person who has behaved unwisely in a role of leadership and asked me what I think of them.

AMY GOODMAN: Yes.

STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah. What I think of them, we need some leaders. Now, I thought, when I first visited you in February or January, that the solution was the chancellor of Germany, Merkel. Why? Because Germany is the powerhouse of Europe. Because Merkel speaks Russian and German, and Putin speaks Russian and German. They can talk, like you and I talk, and they understand nuances. Merkel has said, all along, this cannot be resolved by military means, there must be negotiations. And yet, politically, she supported every escalation of the crisis. Why has she done that? Because she was, and maybe she still could be, the key figure here.

AMY GOODMAN: And she’s coming to the White House Monday.

STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah, but she’s been in Ukraine. She’s been everywhere. She moves. There’s distance between the White House and Berlin, no question. Merkel could end of this, or she could go a long way. She could put her foot down: no more sanctions, no more NATO involvement. Stop and think who she is. The only solvent country in Europe. And look what’s going on in Greece. I mean, they may leave the EU. By the way, if the U.K. leaves the EU in May, when there’s the referendum, who will run Europe? Germany. And Germany’s attitudes toward Russia and China are fundamentally different than Washington’s attitude. So we may be observing here, below the radar, not only the split of Europe, but the drift of Germany, and the part of Europe that follows Germany, away from the United States. Everything is at stake in this civil war.

How to get out of it? It’s the same solution we talked about here on this broadcast months ago: a ceasefire; withdrawal of artillery so the cities of Donetsk, where the rebels are, are not being bombarded; Kiev’s willingness to sit down, at a table about this size, under the auspices of the great powers, and talk to the rebels. What home rule will they be given? Some kind of federalism, some kind of devolution of authority. The governors of the regions of Ukraine are appointed in Kiev. Our governors aren’t appointed in Washington; we elect them. There’s no federalism there. Everybody says federalism means a Russian takeover. But Germany has a federal system, Canada has a federal system, we have a federal system. They are hard, but it can be done.

But you know how you get this? You get it through leadership. Where’s the leadership? Where’s President Obama? Where’s Chancellor Merkel? And the leadership in Ukraine—I mean, Poroshenko, he’s the president of the country. He has no power. He has no power. He’s not the leader. The power is with the people in Ukraine who control the fighting battalions and what’s left of the army. So, we don’t even know what kind of regime or leadership is possible in Kiev now.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Professor Stephen Cohen, we will continue to cover this. We thank you very much for being with us, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. His most recent book,Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, is out in paperback. And we’ll link to your recent writings on Ukraine at TheNation.com.

This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report.

---

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

-->