Turn welcome to well support. A ticket ago when historians were revisiting the origins of the 1st world war, the term sleepwalking became very trendy in describing how divergent actors and self serving actors tangled together to produce one of the biggest catastrophes in human history. As the world enters yet another period of tribe. Are we still some be leading, or are we being deliberately lock into an obese . Well, to discuss that im now joined by benjamin abil, all federal how the was brought war to ukraine. Mr. Abdullah was great to see you. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Thank you for having me. Now. The title of your book, how the was brought war to ukraine is quite self explanatory and unambiguous. But the contrary in me wants to challenge it immediately, because after all, it was russia that launched this military operation on the ukrainian soil. And this is something that both Decision Makers and opinion shapers in the west are trying to frame as, as an act of aggression. That totally unprovoked act of aggression that goes against international law. And i have to say theres some validity to this argument. Why do you think it was the was that was the Main Driving Force behind this conflict . One of the points i make in the book is to try to distinguish between what are referred to as proximal causes. The causes that immediately proceed to war. And the deeper causes that can extend back in history for there is no natural starting point for 1. 1 tries to establish a sequence of events. So that while i make clear that the immediate cause of the war was mister, prudent decided to launch the war. He and his military staff for whoever else in the kremlin, was intimately involved with decision and less sense. They bear responsibility for initiating the war. And if the war could have been stopped and preventative is at points, then he bears responsibility. And of course, the, the russians bear responsibility for how the war is being carried out. What im focusing on the book more is not so much the proximal causes but are for the distal causes, the causes that extend further back in time. That are now kind of hidden from sight that may have been on the newspaper papers, you know, then the newspaper on the pages of the newspapers years ago. And have been forgotten. Or they may never been on the pages of the papers at all. So its, im focusing mostly on the distal causes and the causes leading up to the current moment. And you know, in your book i remind me reminded me a bit that just 1012 best seller by Christopher Clark on the origins of the 1st world war, this leap walkers and one of the reasons that book was so popular is because he tried to break the old paradigm of assigning a culprit and focusing on the who and the why. And instead, he was more interested in the Structural Dynamics of swelling, animosity when you observe on the way the, the rounds develop on both sides of that line to do you think Decision Makers are cognizant of how dangerous it could be . And perhaps of the historic lessons of the previous conflicts. Yeah, thats a great way of framing. It was sleepwalking. I, ive would make just a couple of points 1st. I think i cant speak for the inner mind of the leaders, but just going from what statements i see being made publicly on both sides. Im sure theres some cognizance of the threat of nuclear war and the danger of this getting out of control. I dont think theres enough, and thats my fear or, or one of the fears connect with this conflict. Ill also just riff for a moment on your comment about world war one. I think very often in the west and, you know, different people have different opinions. But i think the mainstream view thats coming out of washington and in the media is trying to impose the model of world war to a sort of hitler like expansionist. And unfortunately, there even some who refer to mister putin as the new hitler or whatever. And this is, i would call schoo horning a past event into a, a current event into a past model. Some people refer to the pro chris pro crusty in bed. I think that the model that people is this actually more appropriate and the greater concern is the model of world war one, where an uncontrolled arms race between, as its usually described in theres complications this, but none control arms race between britain and germany through a series of events in a series of uncontrollable circumstances. Contingencies led to the outbreak of a war that was a catastrophe. And i think theres a great danger that we may run into that kind of problem now. And its that world war one model that needs to be attended too closely in the west and also in russia, of course, what, how the United States to accumulate economic potential. And there are lots of people, not lots, but some analysts here in moscow who believe that the americans are interested in having an and not their global conflict as a way of overcome. I mean, the multiplicity of comes off crises that we are facing right now. The question is capitalism, the crisis of global governance, ecological crisis . What have you done . And i would claim that there are some historical precedents of that. I mean, i only kleins book the show doctrine clearly demonstrates how the capitalist aims could be served by the used by the sanction use of state violence. Ultimately, is this a conflict about values as the bite and administration claims, or is it a conflict about resources and, you know, getting preferential and keeping a preferential conditions that the United States has accumulated as a, as a german. Yeah, i, i dont see this conflict as being one over values. Thats not to say that there might not be differences in values between ah, you know, elements of Us Population or elements of us leadership and elements of the russian population in russian leadership. That there may well be some differences, but i dont see this conflict as having to do with that. I see this primarily as really, frankly, a proxy war on russias border that is being pursued by the u. S. Than, than it oh, powers. I. I think that there its, its not to say that its all poorly intentioned. I think there are probably a range of motivations. Some people probably are not seeing clearly, some people are probably very well intentioned, but are imposing outdated models and incorrect models in the interpretation of events. Ah, but i think so i think the g a strategic thing is very central. There are certainly people in elements in the u. S. Deletes that. Do want to weaken russia, you know, this whole question of a unipolar world. There is concern about that is the wolfowitz, dr and etc, etc. And i dont see that thats actually a, i dont like that i dont like whats going on with respect to that. As far as the financial, the monetary issues, you know, there certainly are questions built into the background about the, the role of us dollar is the International Reserve currency. Theres questions of course, about, you know, how International Markets work. On the extent to which ive really thought about the financial elements of this is, i do believe theres actually much truth to the concern about the military industrial complex. And im sure your viewers are aware that this is a term that originally coined and popularized by president eisenhower, who was a 5 star world war 2 general and hero. And in his farewell address to the American Public, his final televised address. He warned the American Public of the combination of military garak, deer, or credit power and financial interest of the army industry. And in fact, he even seemed like he was going to go so far as to bring in the question of financial conflicts of interest within congress. But was told mister president , you cant go so far. So i think that there are conflicts, financial conflicts of interest and power, conflicts of interest that have played some role in motivating the western stances towards whats happening in your book. You make the point that for 200 years of the u. S. Is defense policy. It was based, if not on the respect of done at least paying some attention to the opponents, a red lines or secure to sensibilities. And thats when it came to russia. The United States and nato disregarded this principle. Question number one, do you think they made that decision deliberately . Was it a conscious choice . And why would they do that . Given that again, russia is, is not some 3rd world countries has nuclear weapons. It has a strong army, it has multiple resources. What do you think would be the, the ultimate goal of what do what they would be trying to achieve achieve if they had their dreams fulfilled . Yeah. So let me just back up one step before i try to respond to that. Hopefully i wont lose lose the thread of your, your actual question has i do this. I just want to make a little clear the notion of the geography and the red lines. And the question of i referred to in the book the Monroe Doctrine is a doctrine course. It wasnt referred to as a doctrine initially, but its based on a statement by then present. President monroe in 182003, that really at that time had to do with colonialism. But ultimately has been interpreted in different ways. Having to do with the idea that a foreign power that places a potential opponent to places military forces anywhere near u. S. Borders anywhere in the western hemisphere even knows it is crossing a red line. One can only imagine what would happen if, for instance, russia had formed an alliance with canada or mexico foreman cuba. Is it that sense or even you, right, which is right. Yeah. Cuba right . Of course, and even thats further away than right on the border. And we could see during the cuban missile crisis, how aggressively the u. S responded, or i dont want say aggressively could be defensively. But how, what sort of intense fears of attack that aroused on the part of the united United States to recognize it as its legitimate security interest. And i think everybody else, including this obvious, actually understood it. Thats why they were a settlement. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. I think thats very true. So you know that theres a chapter in my book re call putting the shoe on the other foot by which i mean to say, how would the u. S. Respond if russia or china, its on something sort of equivalent, forming an alliance with, with canada and mexico. We saw what happened, even with respect to cooper, cuba off the coast. How about if was right on the border as ukraine or georgia or other places are right on russias border . So i think its very important to try to the treaty, my opponent as near moral equal. Thats what he has trying to say, but the United States clearly doesnt see as, as, as equals. Yeah, i think theres some truth to that among many people in, in washington. I think another way to look at also is theres the writer and blogger, robert wright, who use the term cognitive empathy. And by that, what he means is sort of your ability to mentally or psychologically transpose yourself and the other, the shoes, the other person. And i would say, you know, i think there are people who you could say they have a very they have a view of russia as intrinsically evil and they hate and they hate. There certainly are people like that. But i think there are probably others who i would simply say they lack cognitive empathy, by which i mean an inability to transpose themselves into the position of the other side and see how they would feel well, even to reverse the picture and see how they would feel, hear this, i did the st. Louis, especially if the american own security doctrine doesnt allow for that. I mean, if you actually look at the american strategic documents, there is no space for empathy of any kind. That there is a simple statement of head gemini, that needs to be protected, but which mr. Abeline, lets continue this fascinating conversation. After a short break that we have to take right now. Ah ah ah ah welcome back to wells appointment benjamin avenue. Also of how the west broad war, 2 ukraine mister abeline, when we began talking i, in the before the break about how the lessons of the world will, 1 may be relevant in considering the swelling crisis. But i think there are also many 1st that we havent seen, and one of them would be as far as i would claim, is the car for the explosion at the extreme pipeline. The act of industrial terrorism. Something like this never happened before. Even during the cold war and also the, the, the Nuclear Threat, the, im sure you follow the, i know that you, you have a keen interest in nuclear 1st used to Lobby Congress on nuclear issues. And we all know that there is a huge nuclear station, right . In the middle of this war zone that is, at least according to the russian narrative is being constantly shelby by ukraine. So lets consider this. First of all, i want to ask for your reactions on the, on the explosions of the north stream pipeline. Because it, regardless of who is to blame, i think it really shifts the frame because it introduces a new norm that though a side can one side can attack the industrial infrastructure. And 2nd of all, it also shows that in the area of need to naval control, no infrastructure is safe and could be all in fact vulnerable to industrial terrorism. Well, i have many things to say about this. Ill try to be very brief and youll keep me on track if i go stressing. Yeah, just you throw us rockin me. Ah, a 1st obviously, this is an extremely dangerous ah, movement. Im not quite sure ill call escalation, but lets tall it, a movement of conflict into another sphere where this was carried out by russia, by the United States, by other nato powers. I dont think anyone knows for sure yet, although i have an opinion of what i think is most likely. So as a starting point, i want to say that i think this is very dangerous and it could lead to a type of sort of escalation of attacks on, on infrastructure outside of the current battlefield. And this, theres no end to this where this could go on. Number 2, i want to make a comment about the reasons why i think more attention needs to be tailored to the possibility in the west of the United States is actually behind us. And then finally, i want to comment on something about the western media, which ive been extremely disappointed in. Okay, lets, lets think it one by one. Ah, why do you think the United States may have that some associations with that . Apart from a secretary of state anthony blinking at presenting that as a great opportunity. Yeah. Well i think the things are most persuasive to me are statements made by both President Biden and by the under secretary of state for political affairs, victoria newland. Both of them are in the same period before the war started. Ah, but when russia was already massing on the border, ah, both of the state is explicitly that they, that the u. S. I have the actual quotations. All she read them because i dont want to rely on whats the paper. I went back to the video, which anyone can find on line, just search. Mr. Biden. Ha, north stream to, ah, we will end this pipeline, mr. By the state explicitly. This was made on february 7th at a press conference with the cesar shawls on the, on the podium with him. If russia invades that means tanks or troops crossing the border of ukraine again, then there, then there will no longer be a north stream too. We will bring it to an end, and then a member of the press said, ah, how will you do that exactly. Since the project and control of a project is within german control . And mister biden responded in a very knowing tone, i promise you will be able to do it in a separate presentation. Victoria newland, the under secretary of state, stated, if russia invades ukraine one way or another nord stream to will not move forward. Ok. I the, i think that those statements alone, they do not prove that the u. S. Did it, ah, and i. But in an ultimate sense, i am withholding any judgment with certainty, but in medicine or something called prior probability, you look at the full constellation of data thats available before you can undertake a definitive diagnostic test. And you say, how likely is that, that one party one disease or another disease or one party or another. And i would say that these statements were explicit statements about what would happen if russia invaded. And then russia invaded. And then this did happen. I would say this place is a high, a high prior probability that the United States was behind. This does not prove it, and i remain open to new evidence, but i think there should be much more concerned. And there is that this is what happened. But i think it, i need to make an important clarification for our viewers that i, mr. Biden made that statement about, nor stream to pipeline the new pipeline that russia constructed wires, day and explosions took place. Ive been north stream one pipeline, which it still is pretty much still the same because that pipeline was intended and was, was intended to bring natural gas to germany as well as to many other countries. Now the americans like to talk about the solidity of the alliances, particularly that alliances with europe. And its pretty clear to anyone whos, who knows anything about how Industrial Power is that German Economy to a large extent and many other european economies were built on the access to affordable Russian Energy sources. Thats the very foundation or one of the foundations of the european prosperity. If we take on that hypothesis that the United States was behind it one way or another, or that it even sanctioned it that it approves of it which, you know, Anthony Lincoln said it explicitly that its a great opportunity. What do you think would be . What do you think that would say about the american attitude towards if its european allies, do you think they will be able to function to maintain the industrial capacity without having energy . Yeah, well 1st let me just comment briefly on your point about nordstrom one versus nordstrom too, and i think thats an excellent point. One that i have been focusing on, i do want to make what i think may be one small correction. Unless theres some new news today, my understanding was it, at least as of yesterday, there were a total of 3 explosions ah, affecting both pipelines, however, each pipeline has to