Ralph welcomes award-winning foreign correspondent Stephen Kinzer to discuss America's bloody history of proxy wars. They'll also discuss the mainstream media's "shameful" coverage of the war in Ukraine, the warhawks on Capitol Hill, and the catastrophic trickle-down effects of American military meddling.
All the Shahs Men by Stephen Kinzer is a great book about the Iranian revolution. Tragically the same dirty tricks are typical of US foreign policy today.
I support Russia in this war. I watch YouTube for the expert opinions provided by Jeffrey Sachs, John Mearscheimer, Scott Ritter, Col. Douglas MacGregor. Two daily presenters are Judge Napolitano and Alex Mercouris. Napolitano has a core of experts that are well informed, Ray McGovern comes to mind. The democratic government of Ukraine was overthrown, illegally, in 2014; the eastern provinces held referendums to vacate the Ukraine government and won. The Ukrainian government conducted bombings for 8 years killing up to 14,000. The U.S. does have missiles stationed in Poland, Romania, probably Bulgaria, Turkey, and Italy. They are potentially aggressive nuclear missiles with about 20 minutes of flight time away from Moscow. There are more reasons that Ukraine was a divided country, precariously united. The Russian military is preparing an offensive, and it will likely succeed in achieving the end described in Nader's interview, a neutral Ukraine, like Austria. We could have saved maybe 160,000 Ukrainian lives, either killed or badly wounded, if the U.S. had taken the path to peace. I advice everyone to write the White House and elected officials, pull out. Watch the YouTube reports mentioned, become informed.
It's the simple triple B equation: Bombs + bullets= business.
It is good that you finally got around to bringing the longest waiting guest on the Radio Hour.
I must be one of the next longest waiting guests as I have been trying to get you to discuss One Demand since 2015 and been waiting since 10-24-2018 when you said on Washington Journal you would have me on the Radio Hour to discuss One Demand.
Please continue to work through the longest waiting guest list as it is imperative that we get started with One Demand now so it can begin to be effective in 2024 and yield significant progress in getting the big money out of politics by 2026 and 2028.
If we had started in the 2016, 2018, 2020 or 2022 elections we could be well along the way already in getting the big money out of politics.
So let's get started demanding small donor candidates and enforcing that demand with our votes which puts another simple equation into action now- if we keep voting for big money candidates we will keep getting big money legislators as the politicians have no incentive to stop taking big money if they take big money and work for the big money interests and we vote for them anyway.
I quite enjoyed this conversation with Mr. Kinzer. I agree with most of what is said by Mr. Kinzer, but there is one area where his argument fails and that is related to his response to the question Mr. Nader asked him about universities. Mr. Kinzer’s response is economically uninformed in terms of national government spending in the US and other countries with a sovereign currency. The ability for the federal government to spend is not constrained as Mr. Kinzer implies in his response. John Yarmuth, the former chairman of the House Budget Committee, understood this point to some degree, but it is rare to get this understanding from other progressives.
This is a very salient issue because, as John Kenneth Galbraith pointed out decades ago, the people who are employed in the military industry today will need to be kept employed to maintain national productivity and, obviously, to keep people employed. This will require significant federal funding to ensure that everyone working in the military industry at the present time is still employed in a job paying at least what they are making now in a productive job which will not require onerous re-education and relocation programs. Practically speaking, this is a political requirement as well as the public will not support demilitarization if it leads to large-scale unemployment. The military industry employs people across the country in well-paying and stable federally-subsidized blue- and white-collar jobs.
An example of this is transitioning engineers working in the military industry to work on public infrastructure projects including green energy projects. Those working in manufacturing can, as an example, work on public health and infrastructure manufacturing projects in the same factories they work in currently if there isn’t a need for defense items. Naturally, there will still be a need for public defense technology and the best way to achieve this is through a nationalized defense industry which is focused on meeting national needs rather than Wall Street’s needs.
This will be expensive, just as any truly effective single-payer, single-provider healthcare program would be, but with an understanding of macroeconomics, one can understand how it is possible to fund demilitarization, a Green New Deal, and healthcare reform. Unfortunately, Mr. Kinzer’s response to Mr. Nader’s question falls short in this regard. Mr. Kinzer is, perhaps unwittingly, pushing a monetarist austerity argument that those working in the military industry will have to become unemployed in order to fund healthcare. This is incorrect from an economic perspective and politically unfeasible.
To answer David’s question, I don’t know about the Pentagon, but I’m sure you wouldn’t have to look hard to find State Department types who would deem the US’s proxy actions in the 1980s USSR-Afghanistan conflict to be a smashing success in their eyes. It could be argued that those actions, plus the US’s support of Boris Yeltsin, led to the fall of the USSR which allowed US business interests to enter Eastern Europe and, of course, expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe meant more arms sales for the US military industry.
Meanwhile, Afghanistan and their entire region was destabilized and those fighting against the USSR who were armed and trained by the US in places such as Pakistan turned against the US in the 1990s which led to 2001 and our subsequent responses to that. All of this means that US business interests have new markets to do business in the former USSR and the military industry was able to maintain growth with the new wars in the Middle East even with the temporary thaw in the Cold War. Oh, sure, the American families impacted by the events in 2001 and the families of the US soldiers who suffered physical and mental injuries during the ‘War on Terror’ continue to suffer, not to mention the tremendous environmental damage caused by the ‘War on Terror,’ but the end result has been good for private business interests and, of course, militarization has kept people employed so this is beneficial for politicians in terms of winning elections. Without a better public understanding of macroeconomics, we’re forced to settle for this neoliberal and neoconservative definition of success.
America is the failing neocon in this stupid proxy war . Whose brutal and evil when both Ukraine and Nato have had many opportunities to discuss a peaceful resolution but refuse . Absolutely aberrant behaviour.
Careful---what do you do when they come for you? Peace is expensive because of humans such as Putin who perfected his own mafioso. (or even two Bushes albeit) Provoked? Fear did expand NATO...
It expands or contracts us all depending.... Stalin? smiled at us all while scheming at chess-like eventual dominance, then there is mafioso Putin-- Regardless, ----Putin or his successors want Ukraine or bust---peace talks? Requires a dialogue that will move to an agreement between sides....really think Putin will budge an inch or how about if you give up your home then all's good???
The many many books and research and articles about all the inglorious war causes/ wastes and outcomes enumerated by many other professors too---nothing new here BUT what do you do when they come for you??? Putin thinks NATO is after him and i would say so---gee, how long did Keenan's containment last? Is it heresy to even think perhaps 9/11 must have been provoked? ----BUT the RESULTANT: Twin Tower with much death and destruction is happening now in Ukraine---and if this were your home? Peace is so expensive talk is cheap and Brown U is expensive too
I am 100% IMPRESSED with the Insight & excitement that there is a way to “Follow uP”
the out~of~control global politic policies
Ruining our Planet & our Lives.
I think it is a Great Idea to contact the UN Secretary GeneraL. I have tried finding the Secretary GeneraL’s eMaiL or Phone number without success. Please Advise.(w)
All the Shahs Men by Stephen Kinzer is a great book about the Iranian revolution. Tragically the same dirty tricks are typical of US foreign policy today.
I support Russia in this war. I watch YouTube for the expert opinions provided by Jeffrey Sachs, John Mearscheimer, Scott Ritter, Col. Douglas MacGregor. Two daily presenters are Judge Napolitano and Alex Mercouris. Napolitano has a core of experts that are well informed, Ray McGovern comes to mind. The democratic government of Ukraine was overthrown, illegally, in 2014; the eastern provinces held referendums to vacate the Ukraine government and won. The Ukrainian government conducted bombings for 8 years killing up to 14,000. The U.S. does have missiles stationed in Poland, Romania, probably Bulgaria, Turkey, and Italy. They are potentially aggressive nuclear missiles with about 20 minutes of flight time away from Moscow. There are more reasons that Ukraine was a divided country, precariously united. The Russian military is preparing an offensive, and it will likely succeed in achieving the end described in Nader's interview, a neutral Ukraine, like Austria. We could have saved maybe 160,000 Ukrainian lives, either killed or badly wounded, if the U.S. had taken the path to peace. I advice everyone to write the White House and elected officials, pull out. Watch the YouTube reports mentioned, become informed.
It's the simple triple B equation: Bombs + bullets= business.
It is good that you finally got around to bringing the longest waiting guest on the Radio Hour.
I must be one of the next longest waiting guests as I have been trying to get you to discuss One Demand since 2015 and been waiting since 10-24-2018 when you said on Washington Journal you would have me on the Radio Hour to discuss One Demand.
Please continue to work through the longest waiting guest list as it is imperative that we get started with One Demand now so it can begin to be effective in 2024 and yield significant progress in getting the big money out of politics by 2026 and 2028.
If we had started in the 2016, 2018, 2020 or 2022 elections we could be well along the way already in getting the big money out of politics.
So let's get started demanding small donor candidates and enforcing that demand with our votes which puts another simple equation into action now- if we keep voting for big money candidates we will keep getting big money legislators as the politicians have no incentive to stop taking big money if they take big money and work for the big money interests and we vote for them anyway.
Zelenensky is an imposter!! He does not hav the “best interests of Ukraine @ heart!! That is BS. He is a puppet and he is “Rogue” !!!
I quite enjoyed this conversation with Mr. Kinzer. I agree with most of what is said by Mr. Kinzer, but there is one area where his argument fails and that is related to his response to the question Mr. Nader asked him about universities. Mr. Kinzer’s response is economically uninformed in terms of national government spending in the US and other countries with a sovereign currency. The ability for the federal government to spend is not constrained as Mr. Kinzer implies in his response. John Yarmuth, the former chairman of the House Budget Committee, understood this point to some degree, but it is rare to get this understanding from other progressives.
This is a very salient issue because, as John Kenneth Galbraith pointed out decades ago, the people who are employed in the military industry today will need to be kept employed to maintain national productivity and, obviously, to keep people employed. This will require significant federal funding to ensure that everyone working in the military industry at the present time is still employed in a job paying at least what they are making now in a productive job which will not require onerous re-education and relocation programs. Practically speaking, this is a political requirement as well as the public will not support demilitarization if it leads to large-scale unemployment. The military industry employs people across the country in well-paying and stable federally-subsidized blue- and white-collar jobs.
An example of this is transitioning engineers working in the military industry to work on public infrastructure projects including green energy projects. Those working in manufacturing can, as an example, work on public health and infrastructure manufacturing projects in the same factories they work in currently if there isn’t a need for defense items. Naturally, there will still be a need for public defense technology and the best way to achieve this is through a nationalized defense industry which is focused on meeting national needs rather than Wall Street’s needs.
Economist Robert Pollin, who has been on the RNRH, discussed ‘just transition policies’ in a recent interview with the Truthout news website in the context of the Green New Deal (https://truthout.org/articles/a-mass-climate-mobilization-is-taking-place-sunday-heres-why-its-urgent/). The same applies to demilitarization.
This will be expensive, just as any truly effective single-payer, single-provider healthcare program would be, but with an understanding of macroeconomics, one can understand how it is possible to fund demilitarization, a Green New Deal, and healthcare reform. Unfortunately, Mr. Kinzer’s response to Mr. Nader’s question falls short in this regard. Mr. Kinzer is, perhaps unwittingly, pushing a monetarist austerity argument that those working in the military industry will have to become unemployed in order to fund healthcare. This is incorrect from an economic perspective and politically unfeasible.
To answer David’s question, I don’t know about the Pentagon, but I’m sure you wouldn’t have to look hard to find State Department types who would deem the US’s proxy actions in the 1980s USSR-Afghanistan conflict to be a smashing success in their eyes. It could be argued that those actions, plus the US’s support of Boris Yeltsin, led to the fall of the USSR which allowed US business interests to enter Eastern Europe and, of course, expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe meant more arms sales for the US military industry.
Meanwhile, Afghanistan and their entire region was destabilized and those fighting against the USSR who were armed and trained by the US in places such as Pakistan turned against the US in the 1990s which led to 2001 and our subsequent responses to that. All of this means that US business interests have new markets to do business in the former USSR and the military industry was able to maintain growth with the new wars in the Middle East even with the temporary thaw in the Cold War. Oh, sure, the American families impacted by the events in 2001 and the families of the US soldiers who suffered physical and mental injuries during the ‘War on Terror’ continue to suffer, not to mention the tremendous environmental damage caused by the ‘War on Terror,’ but the end result has been good for private business interests and, of course, militarization has kept people employed so this is beneficial for politicians in terms of winning elections. Without a better public understanding of macroeconomics, we’re forced to settle for this neoliberal and neoconservative definition of success.
and yet you want people to vote for Biden....what happened to you Ralph?
Nader calling President Putin "a dictator and brutal" is ill-informed. Apart from that, this is great commentary by Stephen Kinzer. Thanks!
America is the failing neocon in this stupid proxy war . Whose brutal and evil when both Ukraine and Nato have had many opportunities to discuss a peaceful resolution but refuse . Absolutely aberrant behaviour.
Careful---what do you do when they come for you? Peace is expensive because of humans such as Putin who perfected his own mafioso. (or even two Bushes albeit) Provoked? Fear did expand NATO...
It expands or contracts us all depending.... Stalin? smiled at us all while scheming at chess-like eventual dominance, then there is mafioso Putin-- Regardless, ----Putin or his successors want Ukraine or bust---peace talks? Requires a dialogue that will move to an agreement between sides....really think Putin will budge an inch or how about if you give up your home then all's good???
The many many books and research and articles about all the inglorious war causes/ wastes and outcomes enumerated by many other professors too---nothing new here BUT what do you do when they come for you??? Putin thinks NATO is after him and i would say so---gee, how long did Keenan's containment last? Is it heresy to even think perhaps 9/11 must have been provoked? ----BUT the RESULTANT: Twin Tower with much death and destruction is happening now in Ukraine---and if this were your home? Peace is so expensive talk is cheap and Brown U is expensive too
I am 100% IMPRESSED with the Insight & excitement that there is a way to “Follow uP”
the out~of~control global politic policies
Ruining our Planet & our Lives.
I think it is a Great Idea to contact the UN Secretary GeneraL. I have tried finding the Secretary GeneraL’s eMaiL or Phone number without success. Please Advise.(w)