From 

History of World War II: Operation Barbarossa, the Allied Firebombing of German Cities and Japan’s Early Conquests by Shane Quinn
https://www.globalresearch.ca/history-world-war-ii-operation-barbarossa-allied-firebombing-german-cities-japan-early-conquests/5763433

Chapter XVII

Fallacy of Terror-bombing Urban Areas

 

Though remaining unmentioned in official texts, the origins of the dubiously titled Cold War can be traced to policies pursued by American leaders during World War II itself. Following Nazi Germany’s calamitous defeat at Stalingrad in early 1943, Washington’s ongoing construction of the atomic bomb was implemented with the Soviets in mind.

Three months before even the D-Day landings US General Leslie Groves, a virulent anti-communist, confirmed in March 1944 that the atomic bomb was being produced in order to “subdue the Soviets”, then an irreplaceable ally of the West.

Aged 46, Groves assumed charge of the US nuclear program in September 1942, and he proved a ruthless, crafty figure who possessed huge power in his new position. Groves in fact held control over every facet of America’s nuclear project, from the technical and scientific aspects, to areas of production and security, along with implementing plans as to where the bombs would be deployed.

Less than six weeks after the atomic attacks over Japan, on 15 September 1945 the Pentagon finalized a list: Through which it expounded strategies to annihilate 66 Soviet cities with 204 atomic bombs, to be executed through synchronized aerial assaults. This ratio averages at slightly more than three bombs discharged upon each city.

However, six atomic weapons apiece were categorized to obliterate 10 of the Soviets’ biggest urban centres, that is 60 bombs combined would be dropped over the following: Moscow (Russian capital), Leningrad, Novosibirsk, Kiev (Ukrainian capital), Kharkov, Koenigsberg, Riga (Latvian capital), Odessa, Ulan-Ude and Tashkent (Uzbekistan capital). This alone would have gone a long way towards destroying the Soviet Union.

Yet it was the mere beginning. Five atomic weapons each (35 altogether) were identified to liquidate another seven large cities in the USSR: Stalingrad, Sverdlovsk, Vilnius (Lithuanian capital), Lvov, Kazan, Voronezh and Nizhni Tagil.

Continuing, four bombs apiece (28 in total) were earmarked to desolate seven more significant urban areas: Gorki, Alma Ata, Tallinn (Estonian capital), Rostov-on-Don, Yaroslavl, Ivanovo, and Chimkent.

In addition, three atomic bombs each (36 combined) were marked down to eliminate 12 other notable cities, ranging from Tbilisi (Georgian capital) and Stalinsk to Vladivostok, Archangel and Dnepropetrovsk.

Of these 36 Soviet cities outlined to be blown up – requiring between three to six atomic bombs per city – 25 of them belong to Russia, while the remaining 11 cities stretch across the Ukraine, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. The process of annihilation was to be directed not simply against eastern Europe and Russia, but extending to Central Asia too.

All of the USSR’s remaining 30 cities were highlighted as needing either one or two atomic weapons each, split down the middle: 15 cities necessitating two bombs apiece and the other 15 designated for one bomb each. Among these are yet more countries and well known places such as Minsk (Belarusian capital), Brest Litovsk, Baku (Azerbaijan capital) and Murmansk. The devastation was once more to spread past eastern Europe, and beyond Russia itself as far as Turkmenistan, where oil and gas rich Neftedag was to be hit with one atomic weapon.

A few of the above cities that the Pentagon was aiming to destroy are located in nations that have since joined NATO, a US-led military organization – like those in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, whose capital cities were listed as requiring 15 atomic bombs combined. The city of Belostok, in now NATO state Poland, was to be struck with two atomic weapons. These programs, if followed through, would have resulted in many tens of millions of deaths, far exceeding the loss of life during the Second World War.

Moreover, in 1945 some of the aforementioned Soviet urban regions were already lying in ruins following years of Nazi occupation, such as Kharkov, Vilnius, Tallinn and Rostov-on-Don. US atomic attacks over these places would largely have been hitting wrecked buildings. The Soviet Union lost more than 25 million people to Hitler’s armies, and was still reeling internally at war’s end.

Three weeks before Groves was completing his atomic plans, a late August 1945 Gallup poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the atomic bomb’s creation was “a good thing”, with just 17% feeling it to be “a bad thing”. It can be surmised these opinions would have altered somewhat, had the public been aware of what was occurring in the corridors of power.

One can but look on aghast at the sheer devious and audacious nature pertaining to the proposed demolition of 66 cities, across land areas spanning thousands of miles. In an age before the Internet and convenient handheld technology, these in depth stratagems would have required months of toil. The schemes may well have begun formulation around the time of Groves’ March 1944 confession to nuclear physicist Joseph Rotblat.

Groves was a driving force behind the plan to eviscerate all Soviet industrial and military capacity, with key assistance coming from Major General Lauris Norstad. Yet high ranking soldiers cannot undertake operations at this level without approval emanating from elite political circles.

As a consequence of America’s nuclear programs dating to World War II, it is grossly and historically inaccurate to suggest that the self-styled Cold War began in 1947 – as likewise are the claims that the Russians were to blame for resumption of hostile attitudes and policies. The masses have been sorely misled on these issues for more than seven decades.

Despite its importance, virtually the entire Western mainstream press (and most alternative media) have continued ignoring the Pentagon’s 1945 plan to incinerate dozens of Soviet cities. In isolation amid commercial media the British Daily Star newspaper, on 8 January 2018, issued a report regarding US proposals “to completely wipe Russia off the map” with “a stockpile of 466 bombs”.

Nonetheless the 466 total was then not a realistic one, and such high bomb estimates were dismissed by Groves himself as “excessive”, in his top secret memorandum to Norstad on 26 September 1945. Groves also outlined in the same letter that, “It is not essential to get total destruction of a city in order to destroy its effectiveness. Hiroshima no longer exists as a city, even though the area of total destruction is considerably less than total”.

Relating to their nuclear designs, Groves and Norstad had a most serious problem before their eyes, and one that would infuriate them both; along with, as we shall see, president Harry Truman. In late 1945, the US military held just two atomic bombs, and thoughts of decimating the USSR at this point were that of a pipe dream.

Accumulation of the necessary weapons was painstakingly slow, even for the world’s wealthiest nation. By 30 June 1946, the stockpile of US atomic bombs had increased to nine. Come November 1947 the arsenal had risen to 13 bombs, still remarkably small.

Seven months previously on 3 April 1947, president Truman, who was privy to proposals in wiping out the USSR, was himself informed of just how diminutive the US nuclear stash was. Truman “was shocked” to learn they had just a dozen atomic weapons, as he presumed the Pentagon had amassed a far greater number. Such was the secrecy of America’s nuclear program, few enjoyed intimate knowledge of the facts.

That same year, 1947, Winston Churchill implored Styles Bridges, a Republican senator visiting London, that an atomic bomb be dropped on the Kremlin “wiping it out”, thereby rendering Russia “without direction” and “a very easy problem to handle”. Churchill was hoping that Bridges would persuade Truman to effectuate this action. During the recent past, Churchill had received a royal welcome at the Kremlin and enjoyed a feast with Stalin there in August 1942, before he returned to Moscow for further meetings in late 1944. Three years later Churchill wished for the Kremlin to be turned into dust.

Meanwhile by 30 June 1948, the US nuclear cache climbed to 50 atomic bombs, and from therein the figures rocketed – come summer 1949, the US military finally held ownership of over 200 atomic bombs, heralding the era of “nuclear plenty”. Groves was since removed from his post, and even more dangerous individuals like General Curtis LeMay became prominent in American nuclear war planning.

In October 1949, LeMay expanded the plans so as to include 104 Soviet urban zones to be destroyed with 220 bombs “in a single massive attack”, and another 72 held back for “a re-attack reserve”. The 292 bombs allocated were available by June 1950.

However, the preceding year in August 1949, the global balance had irrevocably shifted, as Soviet Russia successfully detonated an atomic weapon over a testing ground in north-eastern Kazakhstan. Soviet acquisition of the bomb before 1950 came as a nasty shock to Washington. It would prove a vital deterrent to American nuclear designs, with the Russians having little choice but to follow suit and earmark urban areas in the West, relating to their own nuclear war schemes.

America’s invention of the hydrogen bomb in late 1952, quickly followed by the Soviets, dramatically altered the scope and killing estimates of nuclear war. The humble atomic bomb it seems was no longer of sufficient yield and underwent an “upgrading” as humanity took a leap towards self-destruction.

The new hydrogen weapon, or H-bomb, was hundreds of times more powerful than its atomic cousin, and by the late 1950s H-bombs were being produced en masse by the Pentagon. Come December 1960 – with the American arsenal now at a staggering 18,000 nuclear weapons – it was calculated that practically every citizen in the Soviet Union would be killed, either from the hydrogen bombs’ blast radius or through resulting fallout. As was known, much of the radioactive poisoning would likely be blown on the wind across Europe, further affecting Warsaw Pact states and NATO allies.

Since 1950, the People’s Republic of China was added to the US nuclear hit list, a country which then consisted of over half a billion people; more than twice that of the USSR’s populace; while the Chinese themselves did not obtain nuclear weapons until the mid-1960s. Communist China and her cities were categorized to be levelled in tandem with Soviet metropolises, bringing an overall predicted death toll to hundreds of millions.

Due to a combination of deterrence, mutually assured destruction (MAD), and hefty portions of luck, no such terrible programs were executed, during what has been described for over 70 years as the “Cold War”. Rather than a cold conflict, the post-1945 years were organized for humanity to witness the hottest war in human history.

Because of Soviet intelligence reports, Stalin knew as early as four years prior to Hiroshima that America was developing “a uranium bomb”. By confirming to the Russians they held a new weapon of unparalleled destructive might Washington would furthermore, as envisaged, hold greater influence in boardroom negotiations with the Soviets.

From
History of World War II: Operation Barbarossa, the Allied Firebombing of German Cities and Japan’s Early Conquests

Global Research E-Book, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

By Shane Quinn

Global Research, June 17, 2023

 

 

Jeffrey Sachs on Seymour Hersh, Nord Stream Bombing, Ukraine & the Cold War with China  https://bit.ly/3kTLbCO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu786h9wIgY&t=1681s      LENGTH:  37minutes, 37 seconds

Interview topics:

0:00 Introduction

0:55 Seymour Hersh's Article on Nord Stream

5:52 Developments around Nord Stream

8:57 Recent Developments on Ukraine

13:57 China's Peace Plan for Ukraine

16:30 Arguments against Diplomacy & Negotiations

22:04 Germany's approach towards China

25:09 Putin's suspension of the START treaty

28:01 Cold War with China

33:07 Vision & Multilateralism

Thank you, guys, for tuning in today and welcome back to another episode of The Source I'm your Host Zain Raza.  And today I'll be talking to Jeffrey Sachs about the war in Ukraine as well as the cold war with China. Jeffrey serves as the director for the Center of Sustainable Development at Columbia University where he holds the position of University Professor,  the institution's highest academic rank. He  is also one renowned Economist, best-selling author, innovative educator, and a global leader in sustainable development . Jeffries is recognized worldwide in advising governments on economic reforms and as well as his work on the national agencies on debt poverty reduction as well as Disease Control. Jeffrey and I already had a fundamental discussion about the war in Ukraine so in case you missed it be sure to check the link in the description as in this segment we will be focusing on latest developments. Jeffrey welcome back to where the show.

 

Jeffrey Sachs [JS]:

 

Good to be back with you.  Thank you so much.  

Zain Raza [ZR]:

Let’s start with the Nord Stream pipeline which was bombed last year by an unknown State actor. World-renowned investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published an article last month detailing how the U.S bombed the Nord Stream pipeline. In German mainstream media he was largely dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or someone who can’t be taken seriously.  Since the past decade or for using Anonymous sources while in the U.S he was barely mentioned. Right after that we interviewed him exclusively on our channel.

SH:

And what I've done is simply explain the obvious.  It just was a story that was begging to be told in late September of 2022. Eight bombs were supposed to go off. Six went off under the water near Bonham Island in in the Baltic Sea in a rather shallow area and they destroyed three of the four major pipelines in Nord Stream one and two. And so, the meeting was convened to study the problem: What are we going to do. Russia is going to go to War -how can we ..

 

This was three months before the war when it was the CIA, at the National Security Agency State Department and the Treasury Department. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had representation, and this is a secret group. They were meeting in the most secret place; they were meeting in a very secret offices and I'm writing this obviously from inside.  Do you want us to give you recommendations about what to do about stopping Russia that are reversible? More sanctions. economic pressure we'd already been doing that. Or irreversible, being kinetic bomb - bang bang.  Well, it was clear very early.

 

 

ZR:

And for those who missed it be sure to check the link in the description. What you make out of Seymour Hersh? Is he credible and can his account be trusted?

 

SH:

Of course he's credible. The account is correct.  It has not been actually shown to be wrong in any meaningful way.  The United States did this.  The German government should explain to the German people what's going on. Period. This is not even a mystery. The United States announced it would do it. The United States celebrated when it happened.  Victoria Newland who is the point person of the U.S neoconservatives said that the administration is delighted that Nordstrom 2 was a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea.

There are only two or three countries that could have done this. I don't think Germany did this. I doubt it,  but if the if the German government did that they should tell us.  I don't think that Sweden or Denmark did it.  It's in their exclusive economic waters. The United States did it, warned it, celebrated it,  and anyone who understands U.S politics at all knows that for many years this was an absolute cause of the right wing to stop his pipeline. Now the failure of the German government and the media to discuss this goes to absolutely foundational issues of democracy because right now the public is not informed about almost anything that is of fundamental significance for our survival.

The real issues of the war in Ukraine, the real state of the war, the U.S blowing up the Pipeline.  The mainstream media think that it's perfectly appropriate not even to cover these stories.  And by the way is this conspiracy theory?  Yes, it's a conspiracy. A conspiracy means that several groups work together to carry out an illegal action. This is a conspiracy of U.S policy leaders, probably together with the German government which probably knew about this in advance or parts of it.  I'd be very surprised if the German government doesn't know about it in detail.  Now so yes this is a conspiracy uh and uh calling it a conspiracy theory only makes clear no individual could have blown up the north stream pipeline.  This was a group. This was a very hard thing to do.  It's 70 meters below sea level;  it was delayed detonation. If anybody knows about Nord stream, it’s encased in a massive amount of concrete. This was a big operation. So a conspiracy, absolutely yes.

 

ZR:

At the end of February you held a speech at the United Nations security Council and stressed the need for an independent investigation into who bombed the Nord Stream Pipeline.  How have major countries such as the United States, Germany, the UK,  Russia and China responded to this call and what do you think the international process will be if it ever turns out we are visible or an independent investigation {shows] that it was the U.S?

SH:

 

Well the Western countries don't want to talk about facts investigation at all. The Russian government asked for an investigation.  An independent U.N security council-led investigation, not a Russian investigation.  The Chinese government supported Russia in this, and the United States said this is a distraction.  From what I'm not sure because it's a pretty Central issue to blow up a major piece of infrastructure in international waters. It's not a distraction, it’s a major issue of a threat to the peace which is the job of the U.N Security Council.  So, the Western governments right now believe that the public does not need to know and in fact should not know basic facts right now, even as we head towards World War III. This is not acceptable. Maybe I'm wrong, but the United States says no, don't investigate it, that’s a distraction.  Well, I think it's a distraction most likely from U.S culpability but to not investigate?  What kind of attitude is that?

And it is again I have to emphasize, fundamentally a threat to our Democratic institutions.  The German government doesn't speak to the German people about this. The Bundestag can't get information. The Swedish government went down to the crime scene and then announced that they would keep their investigation secret from Germany and Denmark.  Duh. That’s it's a little strange.  Or from the U.N security Council.

If people think that secrecy is safety right now, they really misunderstand what's happening.  We are at the greatest risk of nuclear war in modern history.  We are 90 Seconds To Midnight according to the “Bulletin of The Atomic Scientist” . We've not had a crisis like this since the Cuban Missile Crisis and our governments don't talk to the people like grown-ups. It's propaganda and spin morning till night.

 

ZR:

Let us now look into recent developments surrounding Ukraine.  The last time I interviewed you debate on Battle Tanks was still ongoing. Now it has become a reality and training of Ukrainian soldiers on how to operate these battle tanks is taking place on German soil as we speak. It is expected that these tanks will go into operations sometime this month.  The debate is now moving slowly to fighter jets and the UK and Netherlands have for example voiced their support for selling them.  In UK's case they already training Ukraine pilots.  During German Chancellor I've shown that at this visit last week at the White House the U.S also announced another round of military assistance to Ukraine worth up to 400 million dollars.  So far, the US has sent 30 billion dollars’ worth of military aid to Ukraine. Do you think more weapons, especially fighter jets and military aid, could change the tide of war in favor for Ukraine?

SH:

Look, there's a bottom line which is that Russia has 1 600 nuclear warheads, and if Russia were threatened with defeat- for example losing Crimea, it would likely use them. So, the idea of the goals of the war, the tide of War, what we're trying to do  makes no sense at all. I don't want Zelenski to get us all killed.  When Zelenski says they retake every bit of Ukraine as he defines it including Crimea, no thank you.  None of this makes sense. None of this is an honest assessment about the sources of this war, the provocations on both sides, the way to stop this war.  None of it, all of this Bluster not just Bluster that's the wrong word - all of this military escalation cannot lead to success. Period. It can't. Because even if it led to success on the battlefield it will lead to Global destruction, and there's a very good chance it won't lead to success on the battlefield though I'm not the right person to interview on that.  I listen to bloggers and daily commentators on all sides.

 

Maybe Russia is going to make significant advances in the next weeks. That's what many people say.  I don't know, so I can't really judge but what I can tell you is what we are doing makes no fundamental sense at all.  To have a war that threatens nuclear annihilation so that NATO can expand is beyond Reckless. To not have negotiations right now after more than a year, to know though the media the mainstream media in Germany in the United States don't cover it, that the negotiations came close to success last March until the United States stopped them is incredible. Did  anybody investigate that carefully in the mainstream media? Not at all. Not Naftali 

Bennett, who committed what we call quote-unquote a gaffe, meaning a politician that accidentally speaks the truth.  He said in his interview that they were close to an agreement.  He was acting as a mediator in March 2022 and the United States blocked it. And then he said that he thought it was a mistake but that maybe it was important for the U.S to stand up to China. Mind you this is also another Trope in Washington right now.  I don't know if people in Berlin hear it, but this is a not even a war about Ukraine. Who cares about Ukraine?  Mitt Romney says this is to show China and he says it's great, this war.  No U.S bloodshed this is what's really going on and so I don't know what these weapons are going to do except we can be sure that they will kill people. And if they are successful quote unquote on the ground, they will bring us closer to nuclear war.

And people should understand the U.S motivations. The U.S motivations is to be number one in the world and that's the beginning and the end of it and if that means war with Russia that's war with Russia. If that means war with China, that's war with China. That's what Germany has signed on to unconditionally without asking a question.

 

ZR:

You mentioned China in negotiations on the anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  China proposed a 12-point peace plan to end the war in Ukraine. The German media were quick to denounce this plan by stating that it supports Russia's position and interests and does not respect Ukraine's territorial Integrity . How do you view this peace plan?   Can China be trusted especially since the best considers China not to be a neutral actor and suspects it of supporting Russia's war with weapons?

SH:

No matter what is said Baerbock and her colleagues will denounce any talk of peace. Victoria Newland and her colleagues will denounce any talk of peace the British by the way are the most irresponsible.  They  have nothing to add but they love war because they still think they're the British Empire, I'm sorry to say. So, they're the most violent of all and they have nothing to add to this story. So, this is denunciations because the neocons are afraid that somebody will talk about peace.

 

China didn't say anything about territorial settlements. It said to negotiate.  What China said was to respect the security interests of all sides.  Horror, horror.

You know what it means? It means that China knows that NATO enlargement is a threat to Russia - as it is by the way in part because the United States is expanding NATO to Asia.  China sees it in its own neighborhood.  Why does NATO, a North Atlantic Treaty Organization, invite East Asian leaders now?  Why does Jen Stoltenberg, the Secretary General of NATO, say NATO must shift to China?  Well, when China talks about the legitimate security interests of both sides that's actually right. It's in all of our security interests by the way that NATO stop enlarging because it's bringing us to the brink of the Third World War.

 

ZR:

The positions that I usually made against diplomacy most only by a German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock or German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and I'm quoting Olaf Schultz here, “Wanting peace does not mean submitting to a bigger neighbor.  If Ukraine stops defending itself it will not mean peace but the end of Ukraine.”  End quote. How would you respond to this argument?

 

SH  

Negotiating isn't submitting yourself.  Negotiating is negotiating. Shame on confusing negotiating with submission.  Who's talking about submission?  We're talking about negotiating. We're talking about negotiating issues like NATO enlargement.  Is that submission?  No,  that's common sense.  You keep the two sides away. And Chancellor Schultz should go brush off the German archives about all the German promises made to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 about NATO not moving one inch Eastward. Well Chancellor Schultz is responsible for those commitments too. Let’s have negotiations. Let's have discussion. I'm not talking about submission. The idea that negotiations are the same is submission is truly one of the most confused misrepresentations of our time.  President John F Kennedy said it exactly right in his inaugural address in 1961 January 20^th. “ Let us never negotiate out of fear but let us never fear to negotiate.”  Why is chancellor Schultz fearful of negotiating?  I don't understand.  You go and you discuss but you discuss like grown-ups.  You don't just send tanks or aircraft or threats of escalation.  You sit down and negotiate.  Now Chancellor Schultz has said he would alk, continue to talk to Putin. Why doesn't he tell his colleague Joe Biden ” you talk to Putin too.”  We've been at this for more than a year and Biden has had picked up the phone one time.  There hasn't been one meeting between the two.  When the opportunity was broached by the Indonesians the United States rejected it around the G20 last year. The U.S is fearful of negotiating because maybe some truths would come out in the negotiating;  maybe some of the provocations would come out in the negotiating; maybe the U.S role in the overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014 would come out; maybe the failures of Germany to enforce the Minsk to agreement that it was responsible for as co-guarantor would come out; maybe there would be some truths that would be discussed at the negotiating table but they are afraid to negotiate and to equate peace with submission or negotiation with submission is a blatant falsehood.

ZR:

 

Another point that is voiced very strongly in the media here by leading figures in the European Union such as Ursula von der Leyen regularly said Russia is violating international order, law and that diplomacy that takes into consideration territorial concessions will only incentivize as when I send file signals to authoritative states that they can invade any country whenever they want without any repercussions.  Therefore they usually state no decision can be made without Ukraine's consent. How do you respond to this argument?


JS:

Well, Ukraine should understand that to save itself it should not be the cannon fodder for the U.S to try to show China how big and strong the U.S is.  The Ukrainians first and foremost should read Mitt Romney's op-ed piece, How wonderful this war is.  At a small cost and without any U.S blood we get to show how big and strong we are. The Ukrainians are the losers in this.  Ursula von der Leyen isn't defending Ukraine in this.  She's defending the United States in this. The U.S is using Ukraine.  It's not defending Ukraine. It's using Ukraine.  It gets to weaken Russia without any loss of U.S blood. Read Mitt Romney.  Senator Romney very clear. He’s explaining to the American people what a great deal this is.  We get this war, it doesn't cost us very much, no U.S blood so let's defend Ukraine. Let's stop defending U.S neoconservatism.  Let's stop defending U.S hegemony. Let's defend Ukraine and let's defend peace.

 

Z.R.:

Germany has shifted its position on many issues recently. Inside of the United States we saw a U-turn with Ukraine for example where Germany was initially skeptical about Ukraine's membership into NATO Before the War started. Now there's a split also between how to approach China.  While the U.S is starting to impose bans on Chinese trade, Germany is being hesitant as China is one of its biggest trading partners.  Goods worth around 298 billion euros were traded between Germany and China in 2022 alone.

In your assessment, should Germany also draw a red line in case China decides to support Russia militarily?

JS:

Germany should understand what's going on right now. What’s going on right now is that the U.S political class thinks that the real issue in in the world is U.S hegemony or dominance.  That's what Germany's buying into right now.  We could perfectly get along with China. Perfectly if we stop the militarism. If we respect the one China policy, if we have normal trade rather than trying to bust China's economy.  The U.S has been engaging in unilateral hostile actions to break China's economy for years now.

Does anybody watch this in Germany?  Does anybody understand what's really going on? I don't know. Maybe not. Maybe the media is just completely sucking their thumbs and absolutely brain dead. I don't know what's going on in German media. But the German people should understand what this is about. Is Germany's role to defend U.S hegemony?  That's the bottom line.  I don't think so. I think Germany's role is to defend Germany's security, European security and that comes through peace. That comes through coexistence. Are we going to wish China away like uh the media and the hardliners want to wish Russia away? Are we just going to close our eyes wish three times and China won't be there anymore.  You know people need to understand what this is about. And what this is about is the U.S leader, these neocons,  can't get it through their head that the U.S can't run the world anymore.

 

But Germany can't figure that out enough to keep its economy going, enough to say don't blow up our pipeline, enough to say we have a major trading partner with China?  I don't know.  Maybe the media doesn’t explain anything but if people would look they'd understand what this is about and what's really in Germany's interest and what isn't in Germany's interest.

 

ZR:  

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin in his annual state of nation address announced the suspension of this strategic arms reduction treaty also known as START that aimed to cap the number of strategic nuclear warheads that the United States and Russia could deploy.  Why do you think Russia is endangering the secure the globe by doing away one of the most important treaties signed in human history?

JS:

They said that they don't want inspections right now because they are at war with the United States. They said that they would abide by the treaty but that they don't want inspections under the treaty so this was a very specific thing involved with the war but there's a more General point on nuclear arms and that is the United States broke the diplomacy towards nuclear arms control by unilaterally abandoning the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 which is one of the provocations that put us on this path to war. And on other treaties as well- the Intermediate Nuclear Force agreement so this is terribly dangerous. And war is terribly dangerous between the U.S and Russia because it's the two largest nuclear weapons countries. More than 1,600 deployed nuclear weapons on each side and that's why The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has said that we are 90 Seconds To Midnight not just because they felt like it but because they're analyzing and trying to communicate with the public.

Did the German mainstream media cover that story?  I doubt it, but this is what's going on and when we look at the background to this, we can see that the obstacle to peace and coexistence is the drive for U.S hegemony.  And by the way this is if you follow it, it's all in the open. People should read, as distasteful as it is, Robert Kagan’s book” The Jungle Grows Back”,   because Kagan believes that all progress in the world is due to the U.S leadership.  Well it's worse than a cartoon. But Kagan happens to be the husband of Victoria Nuland who's the point person for all of this.

This IS the neo-context.  People should read it to understand what's going on. Is this really Germany's vocation to support this simple-minded extraordinarily dangerous point of view?

Z.R.:

Let us now switch to latest developments surrounding China.  Many analysts say that we are ready in a cold war with China. We had a recent balloon incident over the U.S which the U.S shut down and claimed was a surveillance device while the Chinese claim it was a meteorological one.

 

The U.S on the other hand is expanding its present in South China Sea by establishing four military bases in the Philippines. Both countries also hold regular military exercises amid rising tensions with China.  U.S and Japan officials have also stated that they will expand the military cooperation including improving Japan's military striking abilities as well as improving the US's Marine capability in Okinawa.  In your view is U.S protecting democracy and freedom in the region and enforcing international order or is there another agenda play here that we do not hear in the political and media discourse?

J.S.:

What the U.S is doing in East Asia is what the U.S did in Ukraine and it's going to lead to the same kind of War.  Now of course to understand that you have to follow events. Clearly the media won't tell you but the media didn't tell us about the overthrow of Yanukovych, the media didn't tell us of what Victoria Newland was doing. It took a Russian intercept of her phone and people should listen to it even till today because who was engaged in the overthrow of Yanukovych? It was Victoria Newland speaking on the phone not only with the U.S ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt but talking about her conversations with none other than Jake Sullivan and Joe Biden.  So, it was the three of them back in February 2014. Well, we took a decision in the United States.  I don't say we the American people because the American people aren't allowed to know anything or ask anything about any of this but the neocon leadership took a position in 2014 that China's continued economic rise was against U.S interests.

You can even read these texts if you pay attention. For example, there were a specific texts by Robert Blackwell a former colleague of mine at Harvard who wrote that it's no longer in America's interest China's rise writing back in 2015. I was shocked when I read it.  It was a deliberate statement okay. We now need to oppose China's growing prosperity.  Well, how you how are you going to get peace out of that?  So, the United States started to introduce unilateral trade measures in violation of every agreement that we have including the World Trade Organization which the U.S has thrown away as if it's a piece of trash. And then under Biden everything has become worse because the U.S now tries to break any Chinese Enterprise that is in technology.  The U.S has stopped the export or tries to stop the export of any high-tech Goods because it may have a military use. It may and now the US is it's going to really protect American Security.  Apparently, we're going to close down Tik Tok a dire threat to the American people and so this is what's going on.

It's mind-boggling. It is step by step the path to a war. And by the way the American neocons are quite open about it.  We need to expand.  We need to be ready for war.  We need to have the war in Ukraine to show China that we're tough.  If we aren't tough in Ukraine they'll think we're weak. You know in other words we're sending hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians to death, destroying Ukraine cities instead of sitting at the negotiating table to work out some non-NATO enlargement in Russian withdrawal so that we can show how tough we are to China.  My God.  By the way, I've been through this for more than 50 years because when I was young everything they're saying now about Ukraine and China they said about Vietnam. It’s the same story.  We have to be tough. We can’t pull out of Vietnam.  We have to in the end kill more than a million people. Why? Because of the domino effect, what would happen to America's prestige. Nonsense then nonsense today, unbelievably destructive, and really, I hope the German people can figure this out.

ZR:

 

To my last questions.  Perhaps it is possible to end this interview in a positive note that gives people a vision for the future for those that believe in a multi-polar world.They believe in multilateralism and in a world where all countries treat each other with respect.  What advice would you give to people that are watching this video and would like to realize this vision.

 

JS:

 

First, we have a United Nations Charter. We should tell the U.N Security Council which yes includes Russia and includes China and includes the U.S and includes Britain and France.  You go into the room.  We lock the door just like the Vatican locks the door on the Cardinals at the conclave and you come out when there's white smoke above the 38th floor meaning that you figured out a way to peace.  We have a U.N.  Let's use the U.N.  That's the purpose of the United Nations Security Council.  Not sound bites, not pointing fingers,  but getting down to the work of Peace. That’s the first thing.

 

Second, we have a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It celebrates its 75th birthday today. Let's honor that. Let's understand by the way those rights include economic rights. That people have the right to health, that they have the right to education, that they have the right to social protection, that they have the right to food, that they have the right to a safe environment. Let's live like human beings and like grown-ups, and let's understand by the way we don't need a hegemon, we don't need the United States, which is four percent of the world population, thinking and acting like it leads the world.  No thank you.

 

We need cooperation.  We need the European Union standing up for decency and for Europe not for U.S hegemony.  We need the United States to cooperate not to pretend or imagine that it leads; that the world depends on the U.S leadership. It doesn't. It depends on U.S cooperation.  We need to sit together with Russia and China and the African Union and the Latin American countries and talk about the real things of need to the people of this world meeting basic economic needs.  Having enough uh to have a healthy diet, having the kids in school, having people with access to Health Care.

Well, I'm an economist that has studied this for 40 years. We could easily do all of this. We're rich enough. If we would stop piling the trillions into destruction, we could easily meet everybody's human needs and economic and human dignity.

ZR:

 

Jeffrey Sachs, well renowned Economist and best-selling author, thank you so much for your time today.  

JS:

Great to be with you.  

ZR:

Thank you and thank you guys for tuning in today.  Don't forget to join our alternative channels on Rumble and telegram. YouTube is not suggesting our videos like it used to uh to new viewers a few years ago so if you want our information to reach you be sure to join our on our channels on Rumble and Telegram and be sure to donate.  Please take into consideration that there's a whole team working behind the scenes from providing camera, light, audio, and in the case of our German videos, translation voice over correction. So if you want us to give you news and analysis that is free independent and non-profit be sure to donate a few Euros or dollars via PayPal, Patreon, or bank account.

 

 I'm your host Zain Raza. See you guys next time.