Connect with us

conflict

Jeffrey Sachs charges CIA, White House with endangering the world in interview with Tucker Carlson

Published

26 minute read

Jeffrey Sachs

From LifeSiteNews

By Patrick Delaney

The left-leaning diplomat emphatically warned of possible nuclear annihilation due to the neoconservative policies of the U.S. government. ‘Are we mad?’ he asked, advising Joe Biden to ‘tell the truth’ and ‘stop the wars today.’

In an extraordinary interview with Tucker Carlson, Columbia University economist and senior UN adviser warned that a neocon-inspired “deep project of the (U.S.) security apparatus” is driving a policy that is endangering the world with nuclear war, primarily due to the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza.

He further cautioned such a catastrophe could happen very easily, through even an “accidental tripwire,” and yet if American policy makers decided to do so, these wars could be ended “today.”

According to the well-known analyst, this aggressive foreign policy plan was inspired by the neoconservatives and began just after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, with the now-disbanded think tank Project for a New American Century  (PNAC) later articulating its goals and principles, especially with the document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (RAD) released in 2000.

In the opening portion of the interview, Sachs thoroughly explains the well-documented reasons why, contrary to the western mantra that Russia’s February 2022 military movement into Ukraine was “unprovoked,” a long succession of serious provocations over three decades were committed by the U.S. and NATO against this nuclear adversary.

READ: ‘Monumental provocation’: How US and international policy-makers deliberately baited Putin to war

These included 1) the relentless expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders despite frequent, clear, and emphatic warnings from Russian leaders who reasonably saw such expansion as a security threat; 2) the facilitating of a violent overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected government in 2014; 3) the building up of Ukraine’s army to be the largest in Europe poised to attack Russia; 4) the persistent and intensifying military attacks on ethnic Russians in the Donbass region of the country; 5) disregarding peace treaties it had agreed to (Minsk I & II); and finally 6) a cascade of reckless diplomatic and military provocations after the installation of the Joe Biden administration in 2021.

Sachs tells Jake Sullivan: Ukraine’s neutrality builds U.S. security, ‘don’t have an accidental tripwire’

While reviewing the historical outline, Sachs recalled Putin’s last attempt to come to a negotiated settlement before their invasion. On December 15, 2021, after a meeting with Biden, the Russian president “put on the table a draft Russia-U.S. security agreement” that, “the core of it was to stop the NATO enlargement.”

READ: Putin tells Tucker it would have been ‘culpable negligence’ for Russia to not intervene in Ukraine

Sullivan assured Sachs “there’s not going to be a war,” yet their policy was that Russia had no say or interest in whether or not Ukraine joined NATO, which could then house U.S. first strike missiles just minutes from Moscow.

Mocking this posture, Sachs observed, “to use the analogy, if Mexico and China want to put Chinese military bases on the Rio Grande, the United States has no right to interfere in that. And this was the formal U.S. response in January 2022.”

“So, unprovoked? Not exactly. Thirty years of provocation where we could not take peace for an answer one moment. (The only posture) we could take is, ‘we’ll do whatever we want, wherever we want, and no one has any say in this at all.’”

“We are not threatened by Russia, and Ukraine being neutral is not a threat to U.S. security. It builds U.S. security, period,” Sachs reported telling Sullivan. “‘It’s not even a concession, Jake. It’s a benefit for us. Leave some space between you and them. That’s what we want, some space so we don’t have an accidental tripwire … We don’t have to be everywhere. We’re not playing (the board game) Risk. We’re trying to run our lives. We’re trying to keep our children safe. We’re not trying to own every part of the world.’”

Neocons: NATO no longer about protecting Europe but U.S. hegemony

Before Europe became “a kind of vassal province of the United States government,” Sachs explained that they, with Russia, wanted what is termed “collective security” which he defined as “security arrangements in which one country’s security doesn’t ruin the security of another country.”

In such an arrangement, this would mean that Mexico would not rationally be able to welcome Chinese bases on the Rio Grande, and Ukraine would not be allowed to become a member of NATO with the ability to host U.S. military assets on Moscow’s front porch.

To reach this end the Organization of Security Cooperation in Europe was created in the 1970s, but another way to get to such collective security arrangements, Sachs said, was that after USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev’s dissolving of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, NATO should have been dissolved as well.

The neocons, however, explicitly wrote that the maintaining of NATO “‘is our way of keeping our hegemony in Europe,’” the political analyst explained. “In other words, this is our way of keeping our say in Europe, not protecting Europe, not even protecting us. This is hegemony. We need our pieces on the board. NATO is our pieces on the board.”

U.S. senators ‘don’t care at all’ about massive Ukrainian deaths

And according to Sachs, the resulting presence of American troops in Europe in places like Germany means they are not “free actors,” and thus lack sovereignty. “When the U.S. has a military base in your country, it really pulls a lot of the political strings in your country,” he said, citing Germany’s non-response to the U.S. obliterating the Nord Stream  pipeline in September 2022.

“They’re so subservient to the U.S. interests, it’s a little hard to understand because it makes no sense for Europe,” he said. In fact, “it’s doing huge damage to Europe (and) it’s destroying Ukraine … wasting a hell of a lot of lives and money in the United States, which the neo-cons don’t count … (including) 500,000 Ukrainians dead for nothing.”

Neocons ‘gambling’ with others’ lives, country and money and not ‘their own stakes’

Carlson noted that despite U.S. rhetoric justifying the war as supporting “our friends in Ukraine, the standard bearers of democracy,” senators in Washington “have no idea” how many Ukrainian lives have been lost “and they have no interest in knowing.”

“And they don’t care at all,” Sachs confirmed. “And sometimes they say they don’t care. Mitt Romney said, ‘It’s the greatest bargain, no American lives!’ Dick Blumenthal said the same thing … No, they don’t count the Ukrainian lives.”

He added that these neocon wars are not in the interests of the United States either, observing “we’ve spent maybe $7 trillion on these reckless perpetual wars since 2001,” adding to the national debt that has “gone from about 30% of national income to more than 100% of national income.” And considering that “millions of people have died in American wars of choice,” Sachs called these neocon policies “completely perverse.”

With regard to the current results of these wars, Sachs said the neoconservatives and allied policy makers have “gambled wrong all along … with someone else’s lives, someone else’s country and someone else’s money, our money, the taxpayer money… (and) not with their own stakes.”

All must understand: ‘Ukraine will never join NATO short of a nuclear war’

Going on to highlight the recklessness of American and other governmental leaders in the West, the lifelong Democrat, who stated he left the party last year over COVID policy, ridiculed these “idiots” who are willing to risk a nuclear conflict.

“My resentment gets very high when we reach that level,” he said, noting in disbelief current political rhetoric actually discussing the possibility of nuclear war, the many “crazy people in our government,” and allies cheering on the prospect of an all-out war with Russia. This includes the president of Latvia who has repeatedly tweeted, “Russia delenda est!” (“Russia must be destroyed”).

“Honestly, a president of a Baltic state tweeting that ‘Russia must be destroyed’? This is prudent? This is safe? This is going to keep your family and my family safe? Are we out of our minds? And all through this, Biden hasn’t called Putin one time,” Sachs complained. “I don’t like my family being at risk of nuclear war.”

Proposing some essential clarity for Carlson’s sizable audience, the former UN adviser observed that “until this moment, every senior official in the U.S. or the secretary-general of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, says, ‘Ukraine will join NATO.’”

“One thing everyone that’s listening should understand: Ukraine will never join NATO short of a nuclear war, because Russia will never allow it, period,” he affirmed. “So every time we say it, all we mean is the war continues and more Ukrainians are destroyed.”

Neocons seek to break-up Russia, and instead commit strategic blunder in driving them into union with China

Contradicting Carlson’s perception that current Secretary of State Antony Blinken was a “driving force” of this ongoing U.S. aggression, Sachs opined that its origin is rather in “a big, deep project of the security apparatus that goes back 30 years,” including the CIA as “a driving force” along with the Pentagon, the National Security Council and other governmental bodies.

“It’s not one individual, but it’s a project that is long dated and it doesn’t turn,” meaning its “a rudder that’s stuck.” In other words, “they can’t do something different,” even when it is clear their current course is not capable of achieving their objectives.

READ: US is run by the CIA and other agencies, not elected officials, Putin claims in Tucker Carlson interview

Thus, with regard to the heavy U.S. economic sanctions imposed on Russia 2 1/2 years ago, Russia was able to adjust, and instead of selling their oil to Europe, they sold it to Asia and “and the sanctions didn’t have any effect,” the economist said.

Additionally, the neocons caused what the late realist school, former National Security Adviser under President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, implored to be the worst possible outcome.

“In all of this neo-con strategizing, they had this glimmer of insight, and actually Zbig Brzezinski was very good on it,” Sachs explained. “He said, ‘by all means, the one thing never, never to do is to drive Russia and China together.’” And yet, “this is exactly what these (neoconservative) dunderheads have done.”

READ: Col. Douglas Macgregor tells Tucker that US handling of Ukraine war has ‘backfired’

In addressing what he believes to be the motive behind this U.S. government’s aggression towards Russia, Sachs indicated it is to break up this enormous nation into several smaller states. In making his case, he cited PNAC’s RAD document which “says maybe Russia will be decentralized into a European Russia, Central Asian Russia, a Siberian Russia they call it, and a Far East Russia.”

“The CIA’s hope… probably in this deep long-term vision, was after the Soviet Union fell, so too will Russia disintegrate. It will disintegrate along its ethnic lines… [and] geographic lines,” he surmised.

Sachs opines that this is a chosen project for the U.S. government only because they resent “there is a country of 11 time zones, and it’s so big that it is, on its face, a denial of U.S. global hegemony. In other words, how obnoxious of them to be there!” he quipped.

CIA’s ‘overthrowing’ of governments ‘not a good vocation for us’

When addressing Carlson’s question regarding the influence of the CIA in the operations of the U.S. government, Sachs said the agency “has absolutely extraordinary influence” including his relating a story where he personally witnessed a CIA-orchestrated coup d’état of Haiti President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004, which he couldn’t get the New York Times to even cover at the time.

“Definitely in many, many places, [the CIA] is the instrument of regime change,” he explained. “The US is the only country in the world that relies on regime change as the lead foreign policy instrument.”

“We are the country that makes a living by overthrowing other governments. And that’s not a good vocation for us. It almost always ends in disaster, in bloodshed, in continued instability,” the diplomat explained.

Making reference to the Church Committee hearings in the House of Representatives, which conducted oversight of the CIA in 1975, Sachs said they discovered the agency was “a private army of the president of the United States” which may operate in a rouge fashion, on their own, but is “completely outside” the “oversight and control” of Congress. They also discovered that the agency had been involved in foreign assassinations, including that of Patrice Lumumba in Congo in 1961, was “trying to kill Castro” in Cuba “and many other things.”

JFK assassination ‘probably’ a CIA ‘coup in broad daylight’

In the last 49 years, “there’s never been another Church committee of its kind. It’s unbelievable,” he commented. “How many things have happened since then?”

Carlson asked, if the CIA’s expertise is “taking down leaders of foreign countries, how long before it does that here in the United States?”

Sachs responded that their “first run” at a coup in the United States “probably” came 61 years ago with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. According to his “best guess,” this treasonous crime was committed “at least maybe rogue CIA or maybe official CIA or maybe a compartmentalized CIA operation. It was clearly someone’s operation, not Lee Harvey Oswald’s, from all we know.”

“We probably had a coup in broad daylight on November 22nd, 1963, and we never quite got over it,” he said. There is “a tremendous amount of evidence that it was a conspiracy at a high level. And yet, it passed for the last 61 years without any official practical note of that fact.”

Neocons ‘think it’s a game,’ playing Risk with our lives and Ukrainian lives

The political analyst also recalled the last time he “had a word on mainstream media” was when he stated why he believed the U.S. government destroyed the Nord Stream pipeline. “I was yanked off the air within 30 seconds,” he said.

Carlson called this event “the largest act of industrial sabotage” in his lifetime and marveled that it is not being covered more by the press.

Sachs said it was “an act of war” and continued, “Look, if you can kill a president in broad daylight and get away with it for 61 years, if you can walk a president of a neighboring country out to an unmarked plane and not have it covered, if you can have a ‘unprovoked’ war that you provoked over a 30-year period, you can do lots of things. And this (blowing up of Nord Stream) is just one of the things that you could do.”

“The people in power think it’s a game,” he said. “They’re playing Risk with our lives … (and) with Ukrainian lives … The government says what it wants … (and) pretty much everyone knows it’s lies.”

“I don’t like the risks that were being put under Tucker. I don’t like it. This is not a game. I’ve got grandchildren and I really care about this, and I don’t like the games, and I want people to tell the truth,” he said.

Telling the truth would end the wars ‘today’

“If we told the truth, we could actually stop the wars today,” he asserted. “If we told the truth about Ukraine, if Biden called Putin and said that ‘NATO enlargement, we’ve been trying for 30 years, it’s off. We get it. You’re right. It’s not going to your border; Ukraine should be neutral.’ That war would stop today.”

“If the government of Israel either were told or said, ‘There will be a state of Palestine and we will live peacefully side by side,’ the fighting would stop today. These are basic facts, basic matters of truth that if we actually spoke them, if we actually treated each other like grownups, we would resolve what seems to be these insurmountable crises. They’re not at all insurmountable. They just require a measure of truth,” Sachs said.

World remains in close proximity to annihilation, ‘stay away from the cliff’

The diplomat also contends that since 1945, Americans have been living in a situation where their nation is just one mistake away from causing the potential extinction of humanity.

“The ability to screw things up in this world is very high,” he said, citing the apparent leak of the COVID-19 virus as just one example. This corresponds to “the ability to have a nuclear war even by accident,” which becomes much more likely “when you’re in the face of your opponent and talking about defeating them.”

Americans have been living in such close proximity to potential annihilation for these many decades but “don’t know it, because like everything else, the narrative doesn’t permit it,” he observed. He went on to give an example of how Biden uttered in the fall of 2022 that “we could be on a path to nuclear Armageddon” for which the media excoriated him for “scaring the people.”

He also unpacked a true story about how the world “came within a moment of a full nuclear annihilation” in 1962 when a Soviet naval officer named Vasily Arkhipov intervened to countermand an order by a submarine commander to fire a nuclear torpedo. The commander was under the false impression that a war was happening above the surface and they were under attack. According to U.S. military doctrine at the time, this single nuclear discharge would have triggered “the full force of the U.S. nuclear arsenal” with strikes across the Soviet Union, China and all of the Eastern European countries killing an estimated 700 million people.

“Now I take this not only as a literal event, but as a metaphor for our reality, which is something can always go wrong,” Sachs advised. Therefore, “stay away from the cliff. Stay away from the cliff. This is how close we are. Talk to President Putin, negotiate with China, make a two-state solution to stop the war in the Middle East. Stop carrying on like you run the world, because you don’t.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

conflict

Biden gives green light for Ukraine to shoot US-provided missiles into Russian territory

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

This is a major escalation of NATO engagement, likely intended to provoke Russia to strike alternate targets.

According to Politico and the New York Times the Biden administration has given Ukraine approval to launch U.S.-provided missiles into Russia. This is a major escalation of NATO engagement, likely intended to provoke Russia to strike alternate targets. The people inside Ukraine responsible for using these U.S. provided weapons are likely not Ukrainian.

CTH is in an unusually serendipitous position to analyze how Russia is responding to this shift in U.S. position. The morale inside Russia is very high amid the military-age population. The recruitment efforts of the Russian government appear to be numerous and very effective.

There are thousands of newly enlisted military personnel very visible in/around training facilities. There is no apparent tension discernable. Overall Russia appears to take great pride in their military, and it is considered a matter of honor and pride to support them.

From Politico:

The Biden administration has quietly given Ukraine permission to strike inside Russia – solely near the area of Kharkiv – using U.S.-provided weapons, two U.S. officials and two other people familiar with the move said Thursday, a major reversal that will help Ukraine to better defend its second-largest city.

‘The president recently directed his team to ensure that Ukraine is able to use U.S. weapons for counter-fire purposes in Kharkiv so Ukraine can hit back at Russian forces hitting them or preparing to hit them,’ a U.S. official said, adding that the policy of not allowing long-range strikes inside Russia ‘has not changed.’

In effect, Ukraine can now use American-provided weapons, such as rockets and rocket launchers, to shoot down launched Russian missiles heading toward Kharkiv, at troops massing just over the Russian border near the city, or Russian bombers launching bombs toward Ukrainian territory. But the official said Ukraine cannot use those weapons to hit civilian infrastructure or launch long-range missiles, such as the Army Tactical Missile System, to hit military targets deep inside Russia.

It’s a stunning shift the administration initially said would escalate the war by more directly involving the U.S. in the fight. But worsening conditions for Ukraine on the battlefield – namely Russia’s advances and improved position in Kharkiv – led the president to change his mind.

You can tell from the general vibe amid the officials of government, Russia is not playing around with their military approach toward previous NATO encroachment or the provocations by the U.S. The sense is that Russia is in this for the long haul and their structural changes in the aftermath of the sanction regime are not temporary. Russians overall are hard and resilient to the reality of things as they are, not as they would wish them to be.

Russia appears to be entirely prepared financially, sociologically, and economically to remain disconnected from the “West.” Asia and India are filling the economic void created by Western sanctions. Amid ordinary life, the general Russian sentiment seems to be one of acceptance to the geopolitical isolation.

In recent weeks, the push toward further conflict with Russia seemed to be diminishing; however, this direct action by Biden and the State Dept. puts the U.S. (NATO) in a more aggressive posture.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán opposes the escalation by NATO:

During a Friday interview on state radio, Orbán said that French President Emmanuel Macron’s stance that he wouldn’t rule out sending troops to Ukraine, as well as a NATO proposal that would allow Kyiv to strike military bases inside Russia with sophisticated long-range weapons provided by Western partners, risked escalating the war in Ukraine into a global conflict.

‘War is a monster that is constantly hungry, it must be fed, and it must be fed with money. And I see that the Americans and the Democratic government of the United States, and the leaders of the European Union, are ready to feed it,’ he said.

Continue Reading

conflict

Slowly But Surely, Biden And The West Are Ramping Up Involvement In Russia-Ukraine War

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By JAKE SMITH

 

If we said, ‘Yeah, okay, go ahead [and fire into Russian territory],’ then you’re really putting the Russians in a corner to do something to top that, and who knows what that might be.

As Russia’s war against Ukraine drags on, the U.S. and the NATO alliance are increasing their involvement in the conflict, presenting risks for a more direct confrontation with Moscow.

President Joe Biden reportedly gave Ukraine the green light in May to start firing U.S.-provided weapons directly into certain parts of Russian territory, as NATO members consider a similar policy and the possibility of sending trainers to train the Ukrainian military. The new initiatives would represent a shift in NATO’s policy of engagement in the war and could further escalate the proxy conflict with Russia.

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly convened on Monday and urged the alliance to remove a ban currently preventing Ukraine from firing Western weapons directly into Russian territory, echoing calls recently made by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and top officials from Britain, Sweden, Latvia, Poland and Lithuania. Kyiv has long requested that it be allowed to fire Western-provided weapons into Russia, with officials bemoaning that the NATO ban has prevented them from effectively countering Russia’s advances.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken Antony Blinken during a press conference on Wednesday did not signal any immediate policy change plans on how Ukraine is allowed to use U.S. weapons against Russia. But Biden has reportedly already given Kyiv permission to fire into Russian territory, according to the Financial Times, which Blinken failed to mention on Wednesday.

“The president recently directed his team to ensure that Ukraine is able to use U.S. weapons for counter-fire purposes in Kharkiv so Ukraine can hit back at Russian forces hitting them or preparing to hit them,” a U.S. official told Politico on Thursday, adding that the administration’s policy stance against long-range strikes inside Russia “has not changed.”

But Moscow has warned that if NATO allows Ukraine to fire their provided weapons into Russian territory, it will escalate the war and potentially drag alliance member nations further into the conflict. Russian President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that such an action by NATO would represent another escalation that could “lead to serious consequences.”

“Providing Ukraine with the means and the permission to strike deep into Russian territory significantly increases the chances of a direct U.S.-Russian clash, which in turn could lead to the use of nuclear weapons,” George Beebe, former CIA analyst and director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute, a non-interventionist foreign policy think tank, told the DCNF. Beebe noted that it was unlikely that Russia would utilize tactical nuclear weapons in the interim but instead potentially target American assets such as satellites, creating “a cycle of tit-for-tat retaliation with the United States that proves difficult to manage and contain.”

Even though Ukraine could benefit from using Western weapons to fire against Russia — as its own domestic weapons are not capable of effective, long-range strikes — the West’s hesitation on the matter may have created a “hype” that will invite a Russian retaliatory response, Jim Townsend, an ex-NATO and Pentagon official and senior fellow at the Center for New American Security, a foreign policy think tank led by former Democrat officials, told the DCNF.

“We have made this such a big deal that it will force the Russians to react one way or another. All of a sudden, it has become a red line drawn by the Russians, highlighted by the U.S. not wanting to escalate,” Townsend said. “And now, it has got such a high profile publicly that if we said, ‘Yeah, okay, go ahead [and fire into Russian territory],’ then you’re really putting the Russians in a corner to do something to top that, and who knows what that might be. So I think that certainly does run a risk of escalation, even more so than it did earlier in the war.”

Aside from weapons policy, members of the NATO alliance are also considering the idea of sending troops into Ukraine to help train Ukrainian forces. Ukraine suffers from a worsening manpower shortage and is rapidly recruiting and conscripting new men for the war effort; Kyiv has requested the U.S. and NATO to help train them.

A NATO-backed training presence in Ukraine, which would be the first of its kind since the war began, could bolster the country’s fighting abilities against Russia, whose own military does not suffer from the same manpower problems.

But if NATO-allied troops stationed in Ukraine are caught in the crossfire of an attack from Russia, it could prompt the entire alliance to take much more direct action in the conflict. Article Five of the NATO treaty stipulates that “an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all” and the alliance is then obligated to collectively take “action as it deems necessary,” including through armed force.

“Let’s say there are French trainers or German trainers in Ukraine, and they’re killed in a Russian missile strike,” Michael DiMino, a senior fellow at Defense Priorities and former CIA official, told the DCNF. “So now, what do we do? What happens after that? Do we go ahead and avenge those casualties and have the U.S. or France or Germany — again, all NATO members — engaged in some kind of limited strike on Russia? Is Russia not going to view that as an act of war and then not respond?”

If NATO troops are killed in a Russian attack and the alliance chooses not to pursue retaliation, it could come with the risk of undermining the alliance’s promise to defend itself.

“Even relatively small numbers of Western boots on the ground would create an enormous incentive for Russia to target them; failure to do so would only encourage the West to believe that Russia would tolerate greater and greater direct Western involvement over time,” Beebe told the DCNF.

Kyiv officials and Zelenskyy will attend a June peace summit in Sweden “to provide a forum where world leaders discuss paths towards a just and lasting peace in Ukraine; over 160 countries have been invited, including the U.S., although Biden has not signaled that he will be in attendance. Kyiv will also have a presence at the annual NATO summit in July, where, among other issues, existing and new initiatives to bolster Ukraine’s security will be discussed, potentially including sending troops to the region and lifting Western weapons use restrictions.

Featured image: WASHINGTON (May 15, 2024) US President, Joe Biden, delivers remarks during the 42nd Annual National Peace Officers’ Memorial at the US Capitol in Washington, DC. (DHS photo by Tia Dufour)

Continue Reading

Trending

X