Suburban Eastern Australia.

An environment that has, over time, evolved some extraordinarily

unique groups of Homo sapiens.

Despite the reputation of their homeland, some are remarkably thin skinned.

Some seem to have multiple lifespans.

A few were once thought to be extinct in the region.

Others have been observed being sacrificed by their own.

But today, We observe a small tribe akin to a group of meerkats that

gather together atop a small mound to watch, question, and discuss the

current events of their city, their country, and their world at large.

Let's listen keenly and observe this group fondly known as the

Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove.

Yes, hello dear listener, the Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove podcast.

Episode 331.

If you're new to the podcast, this is a podcast where we talk about news

and politics, sex and religion, and...

It's possible that this is live streaming onto the Hugh Harris Facebook page, so

if you're a friend of Hugh's and this has come up and you're thinking what the

hell's going on and where's Hugh, the answer is that in this special edition

of the podcast, Hugh Harris is going to come on and we're going to talk about

Ukraine and the crisis over there and In particular, a quote by Christopher

Hitchens that Hugh put on his Facebook page, and he tagged me, obviously trying

to dig me to get a response, because he knew I'd probably object to parts of

the quote, and sure enough I did, and we agreed he should come on the podcast

and we should talk about it, so here So Hugh's coming on and so with a bit of

luck this is streaming onto his Facebook page and, but Hugh, um, has family

commitments, a kid's soccer team and things like that, so he won't be joining

us till about 5 past 8, so, um, so hang on for Hugh, once he's available he'll

come on and we'll, we'll start talking.

So, um, so yeah, uh, we've got a chat which you can see, um, if you're

on YouTube or on Facebook and...

So you're welcome to make comments, and they'll appear on the screen,

and look, when it gets into the hurly burly of a debate, it's really

hard to keep track of the comments and to try and respond to them.

When I'm busy thinking about things, it's hard to do it all, so...

So bear in mind that part of making the comment is just commenting to your

other commenters and having it there in posterity, and I can't guarantee we

actually get to it, although we try to, so, so anyway, if you feel inclined, say

something in the chat room, whether you agree or disagree as we go along, and

already there's a few people in there, and there might be some new people who,

um, who join us as well, so, so hello to Chris Turner, John Simmons, Tom the

Warehouse Guy, Martin Featherstone, Uh, the other, um, people who are

on there already, Aaron Claxton, so good on you, um, make some comments.

Now, here's the tricky part.

We're going to be talking about Ukraine and a quote by Christopher Hitchens

and, but with Hugh not available till about five past, ten past eight, uh,

I've got to fill in time and talk about other stuff, but I don't really

want to enter into the Ukraine sort of stuff because, you know, Hugh's going

to hear everything that's said and.

respond to it, etc.

So, um, so yeah, we'll fill in time with some other stuff.

So if you do have a comment to make, this is an ideal opportunity, um,

because I'm scratching around a little bit as I, as I fill in time.

So, um, again, if you're new to the podcast, um, It's about news

and politics and sex and religion.

Every second week we have a little panel with Shea and Joe where we discuss

the news of the previous two weeks and every other week I try and come up

with something a bit different which might be a book review or it might be

um, some concept I'm thinking about or something like what's happening tonight.

So uh, stick with us if you can, if you enjoy the show.

And it's all on YouTube, it's all on the website ironfistvelvetglove.

com.

au

What else can I say?

A bit of intro.

So, who am I?

What's my relationship to Hugh?

Who is Hugh?

At least I can say that.

Um, so I was involved with the, uh, secular party and was a candidate in

the Senate and was, um, quick, uh, in that process became acquainted with

the Queensland Parents for Secular State Schools and Hugh Harris, I

think, through that, and because he was part of The Rationalist, and

Hugh came on for a few, um, podcasts that we've done over the years.

I mean, this podcast has been going...

Nearly six years now, pretty much every week, so there's a lot of episodes and

Hugh was on some of them, and You know what we found initially is we, we agreed

too much And he sort of thought what's the point because we keep agreeing

with things But as we've got older and grumpier, we disagree, but I shouldn't

talk too much before, um, he comes on.

So Who am I?

So yeah, running this podcast and I'm also the guy who's doing the, um, the

Supreme Court claim to teach satanic religious instruction in Queensland

schools, so just a quick update on that.

Um, for those of you who are unaware, uh, Section 76 of the Education Act,

Education General Provisions Act, has a section in there that allows ministers

of religion, uh, to enter into schools and to teach religion for an hour a week.

Now this is into our supposedly secular state schools, and, uh, provided there's

a kid of your denomination in the school who wants the lesson, then you

can walk in and teach it for an hour a week, and the principal can't stop you.

So, um, so anyway, I'm part of the Noosa Temple of Satan, and we, um,

lodged the necessary paperwork with the department to say that we had children.

We actually had, uh, Three families across four schools who changed their kids

enrolment in order to, uh, to say that they wanted religious instruction from us.

Um, we wrote to the education department, filled in the forms and said, we want

to start teaching and they said, well, we're just going to say no to that.

They gave a few fairly lame reasons.

We ended up in the Supreme Court, um, Bell versus the State of Queensland.

And that was back on the 12th of August, and I met some patrons on

the weekend at a function and I said, What's the latest with that, Trevor?

And the latest is, we're still waiting for...

So, seven months later, and the judge has still not given his response.

So, um, spoke to a barrister friend of mine and he said, that's not so

unusual, so don't read a lot into it.

Which is a shame because I was starting to get excited thinking, gee, if

it's taking seven months, then maybe I've got, um, a good chance here.

So, it'll be interesting to see how it all pans out.

If, um, if we're successful, I'm sure the government will look at changing the law.

And, um, so yeah, that's some activism that I've been doing and...

I don't think Hugh's a fan of it.

We'll talk to him about it.

I think he thinks it's a bit of a crazy idea and a bit of a waste of time, but,

um, we'll see what he's got to say.

So, um, let's see, um, in the chat room, um, uh, questions were, did you end up

looking at insiders with Stan Grant?

And, um, lots of people on Twitter are angry with Stan Grant with

his approach, uh, on the ABC.

And, uh.

On a very, very rare occasion, Stan Grant can get something right.

A bit like a stopped clock is correct twice a day, and most of the time is wrong

on things, so I'm not surprised people get frustrated with, uh, Stan Grant.

Um, uh, Aaron says, give us a hot take about China.

Um, hot take on China would be that...

Obviously what's happening in the Ukraine is to China's advantage because with

the rest of the world imposing, well, sanctions of some sort against, uh,

Russia, against Russia, you know, China could easily slip in and supply some

of that stuff at a premium price and, um, also I think gives China a bit of a

blueprint on what could happen to it when the world turns against it seriously.

So I understand that.

Some of the Russian central bank assets have been frozen, where they've

been held in, sort of, western banks.

And I'm sure China has looked at that and thought, Okay, well,

when things get, we need to make sure that doesn't happen to us.

And, um, I've mentioned before that, um, uh, things to do with the breakdown

of the US dollar could flow from this, as countries like Iran and Russia

try to deal direct with China in their own currencies and some gold.

Sorry.

Really from, you know, China's point of view, um, a positive step to

sort of strengthen their position.

And, um, you know, and there's lessons to be learned here.

Like we will be talking about the treatment of Russia by the West, by NATO.

The provocation, and Hugh is going to argue that it wasn't really provocation,

or he's going to question that.

It's all relevant when we're talking about China, eventually.

And if we can see that there were mistakes made with how the West dealt

with Russia, then perhaps we can make sure we don't make the same mistakes

when it comes to dealing with China.

Maybe that's a positive to come out of this.

So, um, all right, uh, what else we got here?

Um,

yeah.

Okay, now, one thing I could, which I have prepared and I will share with you, is

some really interesting stuff in relation to COVID in Hong Kong and New Zealand.

So let's do that and fill in for a little bit of time while I'm waiting

for Hugh, and I'm going to share on my screen, this is good for people in

the, this is a good reason to watch the YouTube video of this rather than

listening to the audio recording.

I'll do my best to describe some of these graphs, but.

Um, but they're quite interesting.

So I just saw this on Twitter, and this is from John Byrne Murdoch's

Twitter, um, account, and I think he is a writer for the Financial Times.

So this is also contained in an article for the Financial Times.

And he says, I'm not sure people appreciate quite how bad the COVID

situation is in Hong Kong, nor what might be around the corner.

What an astonishing chart.

After keeping COVID at bay for two years, Omicron has hit Hong Kong

and New Zealand, but the outcomes could not be more different.

So if you're in the chat room, you're able to look at the graph and you'll

see that the blue part of the graph shows the daily cases per 100, 000 on

the left Hong Kong, on the right New Zealand, and essentially New Zealand's

slightly higher than Hong Kong, um, um, in terms of daily cases per 100, 000.

But the, the red area underneath is the case fatality rate and, um, or the,

um, the daily deaths per 2 million.

And it's astonishing that New Zealand, hardly any deaths, um, but Hong

Kong, an enormous number of deaths.

What's, what's going on?

And just in terms of, um, the fatality rate in Hong Kong, it's

actually higher than it was in England in the winter of 2021.

The blue line there is, um, England and Hong Kong top right showing it's higher.

Um, in recent days, Hong Kong has set a global record for the highest

daily COVID, um, of the pandemic.

So seven day average of deaths per million Hongkongs.

Got that unfortunate record, higher than Namibia, who had the previous

record, and Portugal before that.

And the cumulative confirmed COVID deaths per million, Hong Kong is now

overtaking countries like Finland, Norway, Australia, Japan, South Korea,

Singapore, where it was below those.

So they kept They'd kept the virus out of Hong Kong for a long time,

just like New Zealand, and to an extent Australia, but it's really,

um, um, spreading quickly now, um.

If you're looking at, again, here's a graph showing on the blue is

the cases, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, Japan, Australia, New

Zealand, and the red is Hong Kong.

Again, the deaths are exceptional compared to the cases.

What's going on?

And the answer is in this graph here, which is vaccination status.

So you can see there on the left is Hong Kong with lots of red bars and essentially

their elderly population has an extremely high proportion of unvaccinated people.

And that's the key, um, compared to say New Zealand or Singapore who

are in the, the other two graphs.

So not only are they unvaccinated, um, but, um, this other graph shows that.

You have to also account for the Chinese vaccine not being as

effective as the other vaccines.

And in fact, um, I don't know if you'll be able to see it on that screen, but in

addition to the, to the hard red lines of the unvaccinated, are shaded areas,

um, showing that that gets accentuated because the vaccine, uh, that, um,

is released in Hong Kong, um, is not as effective, the Chinese version.

And so, of course, it's the elderly who are not getting vaccinated and, um,

they're the ones who are vulnerable.

And there's a chart here showing that they make up the lion's

share of the mortality risk.

So, um, so very interesting what's going to happen in, or

what is happening in Hong Kong.

More importantly, um, mainland China is now seeing its worst

outbreak of the pandemic.

And like Hong Kong, has large numbers of unvaccinated elderly people.

So, the, uh, the one on the left there is the Hong Kong level of

unvaccinated people among the over 80s.

And then there's China, and compared to New Zealand and Singapore, New

Zealand, Singapore, thin red lines, nearly everybody elderly vaccinated.

Significant number of Chinese over 80 who are not vaccinated.

About two thirds of the Hong Kong problem.

So, Hong Kong's got a massive problem developing with mortality, and it

looks like China could be in for some dark days, um, if the Hong Kong

experience transfers across to China.

It looks like it will, based on vaccination rates

of elderly people in China.

So, that was interesting, saw that today, and um, so, you know, it just demonstrates

that all those people, all those...

Who are arguing against lockdowns, quarantine, keeping a lid on the COVID

pandemic, while we got our act together in the world and developed vaccines.

Just the clearest argument possible that it was a great idea to lock down,

batten down the hatches and prevent the spread as much as possible until we could

hopefully get a vaccine, which we did.

And it just goes to show, um, um, how effective that was and

what a difference it's made.

And, um, and the arguments against the restrictions of personal

freedom by libertarians, the Whinge and complain that the community

wants to impose some conditions for the benefit of the community.

I mean, their arguments just, um, fall away, don't they?

So, um, uh, Tom the Warehouse Guy says, New Zealand has a

better healthcare system overall.

So, um, but 8 percent still don't see doctors over there

because they can't afford it.

Oh, that's here, that would be in China, I think.

Um, lots of Chinese medicine around too.

Hmm, could well be the case, and...

All that's likely to transfer to mainland China as well, I think.

Um, what else have we got here, um, um, John Simmons.

Too much wood medicine in China, started by Mao when they had no, uh, wood

medicine when they had no healthcare.

You know, that is a problem, isn't it?

There would be people relying on traditional herbal remedies, um, and

thinking that'll be good enough for them.

Like, uh, I can see that happening.

So, speaking of China, um, and local matters, um, just check out that picture.

So, this is a picture of a mobile billboard in Canberra, of all places.

Um, and it's got a picture of Xi Jinping, um, having ticked Labor on a voting card

and putting it into a voting box, and with the words Vote Labor on top of it.

So essentially, it's an advertisement saying if you vote for Labor...

Um, then Xi Jinping will be happy and he would be a Labor voter too, so incredible,

incredible that, that this is going on.

I mean, the McCarthyism of this anti, uh, China rhetoric is, it's, it's shameless.

I was having, uh, lunch today with one of the patrons, Paul, and if

he's in the chat room, hello Paul.

Uh, we had a, uh, Nice lengthy two and a half hour lunch and Paul

also donated some beer and also some crack and rum for you, Joe.

So that was good.

So we were discussing all manner of things and it's fun to meet up with

the patrons or the listeners for the podcast because really we sit down, we

just launch into topics without having to go through the preamble of Have you

heard about this or are you aware of the background of this or whatever,

um, because clearly listeners to the podcast and I have the same information

and, um, it's good fun that we can just launch straight into conversations

and get into the weeds on things.

So, um, in terms of, uh, China, you know, I was discussing with Paul

about how it was only four or five years ago that we struck, you know,

a free trade agreement with them.

And that the Liberal Party was trying to, to have an extradition treaty with China.

I mean, they can't go five minutes without talking about

human rights abuses in China now.

It was only four or five years ago that they were wanting an extradition treaty.

Where people would be sent back there.

You don't do that with regimes that you think are dodgy.

The UK on occasion has refused to send people back to the United States

because of fear of the treatment they would get in the US prison system.

So, um, you know, it's just like Orwell's 1984.

If you, if you read the papers today, we've always been at war with...

East Asia.

That's where we're at.

You just, you just have to be flabbergasted at the shameless

ignorance or the just the, the, the failure to recognise where we were

just such, such a short time ago.

And it was, it was the Liberal Party who were banging on about how

Labor was ruining our relationship.

with China because they questioned things like the extradition treaty, because

they questioned things like the free trade agreement where, um, where we'd

said, hang on, hang on a minute, this might mean that we have a lot of cheap

Chinese workers coming into the country.

I mean, uh, commentators and parliamentarians on the liberal side, um,

were just going hammer and tongs at Labor for the possibility that they were going

to cruel our relationship with China.

And just a short time later.

Here we are.

So, um, John Simmons says, Please don't call it a free trade agreement.

There's no such thing.

That's a good point, John.

Hang on, see, I'll just put this air conditioning on.

You're right.

There's no such thing as a free trade agreement.

Um, they just reduce some tariffs on some things.

Like even when we struck a free trade agreement with The U s a shortly after

we went joined them and going to war on Iraq, I think it was bit of a reward.

Um, bunch of different things, particularly agricultural products where

we still weren't allowed to, um, compete on an equal footing with the U S A.

But the worst thing about free trade agreements, of course, and this is

gonna really come to roost in the coming years, is they have these

investor dispute, um, uh, clauses.

So basically, Multinational companies can take sovereign governments to a

dodgy tribunal and say, Oh, sovereign government has changed its laws.

And as a result, my ability to freely trade in that country has

diminished, and that's not allowed under the Free Trade Agreement.

And that's the sort of thing that was used by Philip Morris to complain when

Australia changed the packaging on cigarettes, and they were claiming under

these sort of dispute resolution clauses.

And the problem with that stuff is...

It ends up going to a tribunal, which is the dodgiest tribunal on the planet.

They're just, they're just made up of people who are lawyers

in this, in this sphere.

Some of them acting as advocates, uh, on other cases and sometimes

acting as adjudicators.

Um, and they're not seeing your lawyers by any stretch, and the laws that the

likes of Philip Morris are relying on are, uh, you know, quite strong

in the favour of the multinationals.

Similar things have happened with fracking, so a country might, you

know, make fracking because they want to protect the environment.

And, um, oil companies will take them to these dodgy tribunals and, um, claim

it's a breach of the free trade agreement and claim all sorts of compensation.

And they've had victories for that.

So the other really incredible thing about this is we don't get to see these

agreements in their, they're kept secret.

And, uh, it's not until these things are a done deal because of sort of

commercial in confidence arrangements.

And then they're foisted on us at the very end.

Um, you know, the, the sort of, these sorts of agreements, I can

remember we talked about way back in the early episodes, number 20.

Dirty, somewhere around there we were bemoaning them and, um, and they're

still around and they're dangerous and, um, we'll see what happens with those.

So, um, so, um, just looking at the comments, um, Martin Featherstone,

the irony, China loves the Libs party privatization of flogging

ports and allowing foreign tax free investment in our bloody water, yeah.

So that's, um, so that's a short riff on where we are with.

China, and we are living in the days of just a McCarthyist type experience, and...

Orwell would be proud of, of how we've turned, um, that

we're now at war with East Asia.

Also, he'd be, hmm, concerned.

I don't think I'll talk with Hugh about this, but some of the

censorship that's coming now with, um, uh, Facebook and YouTube are

shutting down contrary voices, and...

You know, arguably the sorts of discussions they're shutting down

in relation to Ukraine are valid commentary, and, um, they've shut

down the whole of Russia Today.

Is it Russia Today, I think it's called?

Um, shut down the whole of that, which probably includes my interview,

where I was interviewed as, uh, yeah.

As a Satanist, and there's some guy from Russia Today had heard about it and I

was on there, so that's disappeared, no doubt, um, but, uh, you know, there's

a censorship going on there where, um, people who are putting a contrary view to

the mainstream view of the Ukrainian war, uh, are being censored, and, uh, Orwell

would note, also, You know, there's also discussions, you see things where they're

talking about the possibility of chemical weapons, and Western media will report

that there are concerns by the West that Russia is considering, that maybe it might

think about planning to, at some stage in the future, possibly using chemical

weapons, and this comes from an unnamed source in the government, and And that

gets printed as news, um, and people complain about, uh, Russian propaganda.

What's, what's worse?

Where you uncritically, um, repeat what the government forces you to print, or

where you uncritically repeat, uh, the scoop that the government has fed you.

So...

Um, so as you're looking at all this stuff, dear listener, um, oh, actually

I can mention this, um, will mention some videos that I watched and I highly

recommend these to you and Joe might put up the links in the chat room for you.

So, uh, if you're wanting to sort of understand the Maidan, um, rebellion,

um, revolution in the Ukraine, there's a really interesting Netflix documentary

called Winter on Fire and it, um, it gives the, it gives a positive view from

the point of view of the protesters, if you like, and it's quite shocking the

level of, um, get rid of this, we don't need that anymore, it's, it's quite

shocking the level of Violence, like it's amazing what was going on in those

squares and the confrontation with police.

Uh, so, you know, in these days of everyone's got a phone and video camera

and, you know, the scenes are amazing and it's, it's very interesting.

So if you are at all interested in this topic of Ukraine, then, um,

watch Winter on Fire on Netflix and then, and do it in this order.

Do, re, watch that one first.

And then, um, then watch Ukraine on Fire, which, um, what's

the name of the director?

Um, help me out here, Joe, Ukraine on Fire.

Um, he's a famous director and he's, um, I'm sure it'll

come up in the chat room soon.

So, that paints a different picture where it questions...

Um, some of the, whether there was sort of some Nazi elements in the protesters

who, um, who sort of massaged some of the events and, and really puts

a different spin on what happened.

And it's, if you can do it in the one session, if you can find three

hours, one evening or something.

Where you watch that first video and, and you go, Oh wow, that's terrible.

It remains terrible even after watching the second, but after watching Ukraine on

Fire, you do then think back on what you had just watched on Winter on Fire with

just a different feeling and perspective.

And it's amazing how your, your sense of justice, your feelings

about the whole matter can be By

a well constructed documentary, um, let's face it, and you're sort of

thinking, who's, who's right here?

Where's the truth?

Is it, is it at one end or the other?

Is it in the middle?

Um, what can I believe from these different things?

Um, it's an interesting exercise in the power of propaganda.

And so...

Highly recommend it.

Um, Ukraine on Fire was actually supposed to have been, um, banned as part of this

sort of crackdown, but I was able to find it fairly easily just by Googling and so

hopefully you're still able to see it.

So has anyone in the chat room seen either of those?

I'd be keen to know.

And, um, what I'm also keen to know, dear listener, is, um, um, if I remember

last week, I think it was, I was talking about the Reuters were reporting that

they had, um, heard direct from the Russian government about what they

wanted in terms of a peace deal.

And, essentially it was, the Russians wanted the Ukraine to,

number one, change its constitution so it would never sign up to NATO.

Number two, give up the Donbass region.

Number three, agree that Crimea is a done deal and, um, give

up all claims to the Crimea.

Now, I, as you know, am reading widely, everything I can on these

things, relentlessly, more than any normal person could possibly.

Um, it's, you know, my curse that I get, you know, fanatical about these

things and I've got a podcast to do.

I haven't seen anything reported by anybody about...

that proposed deal and a discussion on whether the Ukraine should take it.

All I've seen is that different teams of negotiators are meeting

at different times, sometimes with the assistance of the Italians or

the French or, or the whatever.

Tell me in the chat room, has anybody ever seen any other media

other than this humble podcast refer to that, that offer by Russians.

I haven't seen it.

Okay, in the chat room, and this must be, um, in March 2022 it was

reported that the documentary had been removed from YouTube, with the

company explaining that they removed this video for violating our violent or

graphic content policy, which prohibits content containing footage of corpses.

Uh, um, uh, okay.

with massive injuries such as severed limbs.

The film was then uploaded to Rumble for free.

However, as of 12th of March 2022, the documentary is still available on YouTube

with a warning placed on the video.

Yep.

So there's some graphic scenes in both of those.

Um, documentaries and, you know, one of the things that comes across was, um,

the practice that the Ukrainians had for building barricades and shooting at people

and defending themselves and, um, And sort of getting used to a bit of a wartime

situation, so it's not surprising that they've put up some half decent resistance

in this initial part of the war with Russia based on the practice they were

getting as a community, um, uh, in that, uh, what you see in that documentary.

So.

John Simmons says he's, uh, it's still on YouTube.

YouTube, he just found it.

So, apologies, I'm still filling in time, it's eight minutes past eight, and with

a bit of luck, Hugh Harris will, um, have a microphone in front of him and some

headphones, and we'll get going on the Ukraine, um, I've sort of just covered

some things that I don't think we would have covered, and, uh, I'll see you

And, um, chat room, what do you want?

Anything at all that you want discussed?

Um, um, no.

I mean, we've been banging on about Ukraine for a number of

weeks now, but it is important.

Like we could have a nuclear war, we could have a third World War come out from this.

So, you know, it is worth repeating Ukraine ideas and discussing them and,

um, So, you know, we, some of the other topics that have been going on, um, you

know, this all white jury in the Northern Territory, um, um, coming down with an

innocent, or not guilty finding, um, raised tone, anything Scott Morrison does,

um, These issues, just at the moment, seem a little lightweight compared to

the major things that are going on.

Um, Eric says, any update on the Temple of Satan court matter?

Eric, you've tuned in a little bit late, I gave it in the initial part.

Short answer is, seven months, still waiting, fingers crossed.

So um, um, yeah, MH17 is that aircraft that was shot down.

over what is that sort of Donbass region.

And it seems like there is court action now or some legal claims

being made against the Russians.

I think it is.

And why now?

Uh, the Dutch have been arguing for action for years, uh, says Tom the Warehouse Guy.

And probably the Dutch feel safe in taking the Russians on at this stage.

And I feel I might get some help from the system perhaps.

So.

Um, yeah, I saw something and I don't know where it was, but it's tricky to know

where the, well what was it suggesting?

Okay, clearly it was shot down.

It was from a missile that, rather than striking the aircraft,

exploded just outside the aircraft.

And one group is saying that the nature of the explosion, actually I

think, I think this might have been in that Ukraine on Fire documentary.

I think that's where I saw it, um, so they were giving one argument that the

missile and the nature of it meant that yes it was a Russian missile, or Russian

made missile, but it was an older version.

And they could tell by the fragments it was the case, and the Ukrainians

own old versions like that.

Um, so it's tricky, isn't it, when you've got the Ukrainians owning

Russian missiles of the type that were used, and you've got it where it could

have been, um, brought about from either side of the Donbass region.

And Hugh Harris, I can see him in the green room, is...

Uh, I'll let him in now and hopefully Hugh Harris.

Can you hear me?

I can hear you, yes.

Excellent.

Hugh, we're live, we're even live on your Facebook page?

I believe so, yes.

I've, I've tried that.

So let's see what, uh, what sort of comes back from that?

Yeah.

Anybody in the chat room who's here because of the, uh, of the feed

through Hughes, um, Facebook page.

Could you say hello please?

So, Um, and it looks like we might have a troll there, Joe.

Joe, for those of you who are new to this podcast, um, when we, uh, Joe the

tech guy helps out in the background bouncing out trolls and chipping

in with assistance where necessary.

So, so it's good to have Joe and he will, he will do that.

Oh, the host says, um, there's three people watching on Hugh's feed, but

they can't comment and vice versa.

Oh, that's a shame.

Well, you could leave if you want to comment.

Go onto the Iron Fist, velvet Glove Facebook page and you'll be able to

comment there or go onto YouTube and find us, and you'll be able to comment

there if you would like to comment.

So, um, if you wanna support Hugh as he battles away, with,

with his lame arguments, you wanna give him a bit of support.

Here we go, . So, Hugh, you've, um, safely negotiated the Rodale Soccer

Club and you've made your way back.

Good on you way back.

Thank you for that.

Longest training, longest training of all time.

So I thought I'd be home with half an hour to spare, but no.

Right, I've been babbling on about a bunch of different topics.

I have been listening.

Oh, have you?

Oh, okay.

Oh, there we go.

All right.

So you're up to speed on that.

Did I say anything?

Did I say anything that you want to contradict at this point or not?

We're okay with everything I've said?

No, I just, I saw a little bit of irony in you talking about Censorship

in Australia and how outraged you are by the censorship we have here.

Um, but, um, yeah, let's, let's, uh, Let's go forth.

Okay, so, um, so, um, You, I mentioned that when we first met and we had some

dealings, um, and you came on a few times but we kind of stalled a little

bit with you because you said, look Trevor, I agree with you too much.

It's not an, it's not really, not worth coming on.

We disagree though, we can have a, we can have a pretty good argument.

That's right.

We had a pretty good argument about Venezuela which was evidently, it was

probably a little bit too dry to publish.

Hopefully we won't descend into the Venezuela.

Fiasco, and we'll keep it above that.

But, okay, so, uh, you're very naughty here because you, you

tempted me and you put up a, um, a quote on your Facebook page.

And not only did you put up the quote from Christopher Hitchens, but

then you, you know, you put my name in there, more or less teasing me

because you thought I would disagree.

Is that right?

Why did you put my name?

Oh, I did, I watched, I sort of watched, um, I listened and, uh,

watched the one that you did.

Oh, the couple of the, you did two about Ukraine, didn't you?

Um, I think it was Chris, Chris Hedges that you quoted at length.

Um, and also, um, Cameron, his last name escapes me, um, um, Cameron.

Cameron Riley.

Yeah.

It chimes in, um, fairly regularly on Facebook on the same topic.

And so, yeah, I'm just, uh, and I look, I just thought it was a very prescient to,

to read that statement, which was made in 2008 based on where we are in 2022.

Um, Doesn't mean that I absolutely agree with everything Christopher Hitchens

ever said, or his views on, on other conflicts, but I think he had a pretty

good, a pretty good understanding of, of politics, having been to most of these

war zones, reported on them, written at length about them, and spoken to people in

depth, and he hated Uh, totalitarianism.

Absolutely detested it and, uh, I think that's reflected.

The other thing about this statement is that, as you know, part of an interview

that he did and, um, one of the most beautiful things about him is the way

he can talk better than what most of us can write, uh, in, in just the way the

words come out of his mouth so, um, and I think he's, I think he's described the

situation probably fairly extravagantly but, um, essentially in a true way.

Yes.

Which I thought you would disagree with.

Yes.

So you're right there.

You know me too well.

So, um, so I'll read out, um, the quote and, um, and then we'll

sort of work our way through the issues, see where we end up.

So, so the quote is, the Russians are going to be expansionist, whether,

actually, what I might do here is I might.

Read the lead up question to it.

So it's in its full context is that yeah, I Yeah, so let me um Let me see

See so he's on a program NPR in National Public Radio in America,

I think it was and I had a sort of a call in Talkback type thing.

So, this guy Matthew calls in and says, Hi, I'm Matthew from Atlanta.

Now this is actually, and we've got to get the date right too, this is 2008.

August 2008.

And in context, that is just after, um, Russia.

Uh, was involved in Georgia, I believe, so, okay.

So the, you know, this guy rings up and says, Hi, I'm Matthew from Atlanta.

It seems that with so many issues causing concern for American voters this year,

it's kind of difficult to pinpoint a single defining point, but for me, it

seems that as Russia has just openly stated that it has no fear of another

Cold War, we have a choice ahead of us, especially among conservatives.

You had encouraged conservative voters to comment, and the question it seems

to me is, do we bargain with Russia, do we play ball with Russia, in order to

obtain their cooperation with the Iranian problem and the North Korean problem?

Or, on the other hand, do we draw a, you know, a thick red

line around the eastern bloc?

Ex Soviet states that we've, you know, sort of pledged our

support and our protection of.

So, question was, do we play ball with Russia to get concessions on

other issues, or do we draw a thick red line around the Eastern Bloc?

And his response was, yes.

Well, there was a big argument about this about a decade ago under the Clinton

administration, about NATO expansion.

And the underlying principle difference was this.

Some said, if you expand NATO, you will provoke the Russians.

They all think they're being encircled.

And the other, opposite case...

was they're going to try and regain their temporarily lost influence in

Eastern and Balkan Europe in any case.

So the quicker we can get as many members as we can under the protective

umbrella in this period of Russian, what shall we call it, eclipse, the better.

Now that's all the lead up to the quote that you then put up which was Uh,

here's the quote, I think the second view was the more intelligent one.

The Russians are going to be expansionist whether we provoke them to it or not.

For example, the Russians keep saying that we're trying to encircle them.

In what sense does the independence of Kosovo, a landlocked province, former

Yugoslavia, with no common border with Russia, threaten Russia with encirclement?

In what sense does the independence of the Baltic states, which the Soviets gained

as territory in a deal with Hitler, a direct bargain between Stalin and Hitler,

would it constitute an encirclement?

This is insulting.

In what sense does the independence of Georgia constitute an encirclement?

What we are facing, and we may as well give it its right name, is what I called

it earlier, a chauvinistic, theocratic, In part, xenophobic Russian imperialism.

So if I can summarize, he's saying that this talk of encirclement is nonsense.

And what we're really looking at is, um, chauvinistic, theocratic,

xenophobic, Russian imperialism.

So, um, any comment at this point, Hugh?

He's probably described it in a colourful way.

But, um, yeah, I think he's, he said in comparing the two views, the second

view was the more intelligent, that the Russians are going to be expansionist,

whether we provoke them to it or not.

Um, and so then.

I guess you might, you might want to outline where your disagreement with

it is, because on my Facebook page, I think I know why it is, but I,

maybe you should outline that first.

So I would say that there's been any number of well credentialed experts who,

of the highest credentials, Who have warned that expanding NATO would, uh,

that Russia would feel threatened by that.

And in fact, was some not only would they feel threatened, but it was

something that, that NATO shouldn't do.

So, so they said it wasn't a nonsense to think that Russia would

feel threatened by expanding NATO.

And in fact, it shouldn't.

And there's a lot of well credentialed experts.

You know, these aren't lazy left wingers.

Do you mean like, is it Chris, Chris Hedges?

Uh, so, well, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Cohen, Stephen Walt, George Kennan.

Stephen Cohen is quite an extremist.

Okay, George Kennan.

George Kennan said something to the effect at the time.

That's what I, what I understand.

Yeah, so, so.

He warned Clinton about saying that.

Yeah.

And so George Kennan was like the architect of, of the Marshall Plan.

Like he was in the thick of it from, from that time, from the earliest of times.

So he's, he's as well credentialed.

As you could get, I would have thought, no, I don't, I don't know a lot about him.

I understand he's well credentialed.

I understand well credentialed who hold the same view that you do.

Okay.

Oh, perhaps I'll give, I'll give one more.

My key one would be the diplomatic cable.

From the U.

S.

Embassy.

So, I've talked about this previously.

The U.

S.

Embassy in Russia.

Yes.

You aware of that cable at all?

I have read it, yeah.

It says something to the effect of that Bill Clinton's remarks

will inflame the Russians.

No, this is um...

This was when they were doing the, the peace, P4P

agreement, and then Clinton went on to say that we should have some

more countries that join NATO.

Clinton isn't mentioned in this.

Um, so this is a classified diplomatic cable obtained and

released by Wikileaks from 2008.

And it's written by the US Embassy in Moscow.

And it's addressed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the NATO European

Union Cooperative, the National Security Council, Um, the Secretary

of Defence and the Secretary of State, and I'll quote from it.

Not only does Russia per so this is the American Embassy.

Not only does Russia perceive encirclement by NATO and efforts to undermine

Russia's influence in the region.

But it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences,

which would seriously affect Russian security interests.

Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong

divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic

Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving

violence or at worst, civil war.

In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene, a decision

Russia does not want to have to face.

Dmitry Trenin, Deputy Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, expressed concern

that Ukraine was in the long term, the most potentially destabilizing factor

in the US Russian relations, given the level of emotion and neuralgia triggered

by its quest for NATO membership.

Just one final bit, which is really important.

Because membership remains divisive in Ukrainian domestic politics, it created

an opening for Russian intervention.

Trenin expressed concern that elements within the Russian establishment would

be encouraged to meddle, stimulating US overt encouragement of opposing political

forces, and leaving the US and Russia in a classic confrontational posture.

It's pretty compelling that it's not fanciful to think that Russia

was threatened by NATO expansion.

Yeah, I don't, I don't think I disagree with that Russia is

threatened by NATO expansion.

But hang on.

I'm not, I'm not disagreeing with that.

Okay.

And neither, neither is Christopher Hitchens.

I think the fact is, Russia is threatened by it, but for illegitimate reasons.

But, but hang on.

So the bits where, where Hitchens says, um, in what sense

does the, do these things...

Threaten Russia and saying it's insulting.

Is, is he wrong in, in, in that?

He, I, I think when you say threaten Russia, it's not, I don't think anyone

seriously thinks that NATO is going to land, launch bombs onto Moscow.

NATO is not going to invade Russia.

Everyone knows that.

We know that.

So it's ridiculous to think that Putin is, um, hunkering down in his

bunker in fear of NATO invading him.

It's not, it's not NATO invading Russia.

It's Russia invading its smaller ex, um, parts of the Union.

It's, uh, Russia has invaded, uh, Russia's been at war with, uh, Chechnya.

Georgia.

It's marched troops to the border of Belarus.

It's annexed Crimea, and now it's fully invaded Ukraine.

Russia is not the one worried about NATO bombing Russia.

Russia is, um, by, um...

But we've got the U.

S.

just...

We've just got the U.

S.

Embassy in Russia saying Russia is worried.

Yeah, Russia is, Russia is threatened.

Yes.

By ex Soviet Union countries joining NATO.

Right.

Because, um, of Putin's stated ambitions for Russia and because, um,

he, he wants to be, um, it's, it's to do with the nationalism in Russia.

That's, um, his initial popularity.

Um, he was a hero to Russians for his, um, The war in Chechnya when Yeltsin was

getting pummeled, um, they lost the first war and then won the second war, um, when

he was Prime Minister then, um, so his popularity was, um, sky high with that.

Um, there is a strong, uh, sentimentality amongst Russians.

I rec I think that the, uh, a considerable amount of the population

which would support, Uh, Russian action to recover the empire.

And, um, Putin's statements, uh, indicate that he is a man who wants

to, who wants to recover the empire.

He's, he's said, let's just have a look at this, some of the

statements he's made in 2004.

It is my deep conviction that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a

national tragedy on a massive scale.

In 2005.

I've just got three, so it won't go on forever.

In 2005...

Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major

geopolitical disaster of the century.

As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama, and so on.

He also said in 2007, Russia is an ancient country with a

historical profound traditions and very powerful moral foundation.

And this foundation is a love for the motherland and patriotism.

Patriotism in the best sense of the word.

Um, He's, he has, uh, it's said that he models himself on Tsar Peter the Great.

He has busts of Catherine the Great and all the great, um, the great Tsars, the

conquering Tsars of Russian history.

He's, he wants to recover the parts of the Soviet Union as far as he can, and

he wants to be a great man in history.

That's what he's said.

I absolutely agree with you 100 percent that he's a nationalist and he has a sense

of history and if he goes down in history as having recovered, uh, territory for

the motherland, um, that's absolutely, uh, part of his DNA and his thinking.

Don't disagree with you at all.

But, people can hold more than one reason in their head and have, uh, and have that

desire for, you know, that nationalistic desire, but at the same time, hold a, a

concern about a threat from a buildup of NATO allied countries on their border.

You could do both, couldn't you?

I accept what you're saying, but what, no one has a right to have a zone of

neutrality around their own country.

No matter what sort of great power they are, there isn't a right to have that,

and that's what Putin is suggesting.

Putin, what he's doing when he's suggesting that, is he's denying

the sovereignty of countries like, um, Ukraine and Georgia.

Those countries can, cannot move.

They can't go into NATO, they can't join the EU, according to him, and they

have to maintain puppet regimes that are loyal to the Russian Federation.

And so JFK was...

That's what he's saying, and we have to appease that.

And when, when you're going to go into what if, what about ism in terms of

Cuba, yeah, I think the American invasion of Cuba was a monumental blunder.

Okay, so that's good.

So for consistency then, where you said that no country has the right to...

Um, demand a neutral territory around it, and therefore, are you

saying that Kennedy was wrong for...

Insisting that Cuba not have missiles, because that's kind of the same thing.

Is that, is that the consistency?

It's not really the same thing.

Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal to Russia.

They do not have, uh, nuclear weapons pointed at Russia.

Okay, but surely Russia's entitled to say, we're worried about NATO missiles.

Being pointed at us, and as NATO moves closer to us, there's less

distance for missiles to travel.

They're entitled to say that.

And that wouldn't strike me as, as an absurd theory on Russia's part.

I think, um, yeah, well, I think part of it, I was listening to

a podcast with Fiona Hill, who was an ex advisor to, um, U.

S.

presidents.

And she was saying that he has these, um, busts of all the famous...

Leaders of Russia, you know, mostly totalitarian, uh, leaders.

He was obsessed with the video of Gaddafi.

He was obsessed with the video of, um, Saddam Hussein getting killed.

Right.

This is what he fears.

So I don't disagree with you that the expansion of NATO is going to

be a hell of a worry to him and that perhaps he might have an irrational

fear that, you know, someone's going to start shooting missiles at Russia.

But on the other hand, he holds a significant ambition to, um,

improve the stocks and recover what the, what was the national tragedy

of the loss of the Soviet Union.

So much so that when you look at his behavior, Trevor, it's not others

that are going to invade Russia.

It's Russia that is bullying its neighbors.

Russia invaded Chechnya, two wars in Chechnya.

It couldn't stand for any independence from its ex states.

It invaded Georgia, and now it's annexed Crimea.

Um, and what it's done when it's, it's, um, backed separatists in, in these, um,

former Soviet Union countries, it's given them weapons, and then when, uh, surprise,

surprise, the conflict has got out of hand, it's sent in the, um, Peacekeeping

force, which went in and brutally crushed rebellions, tortured, um, uh, people.

There's plenty of stories of men getting taken from their homes and

then getting wrapped in carpet and dropped into a mass grave later.

Before we explore general issues, can I just try and get this

Kitchens quote done and dusted?

And the parts, because a lot of what you've said goes beyond.

Sort of the hitchins quote.

Yeah.

But I think really the, the main truth of it though is what,

that's what I'm talking about.

I, I, okay.

So, um, lemme just see here.

Um,

so let's just deal with the parts of the, of, of the hitchins quote

where he's poo pooing the idea.

That Russia could feel threatened by a build up of NATO.

Can you put it up on the screen or is it on the side screen?

Uh, yeah, I can put it up.

So, he's, he's poo pooing the idea that Russia could be threatened because he's

saying these countries are, he's saying these countries are landlocked and how

could they possibly encircle Russia?

It's, it's...

It's insulting.

That's the nature of, of what he's, the middle part of his paragraph

there, and, and that, that is just wrong to say that Russia...

Is that wrong because Kosovo is not going to be launching missiles at Russia?

It's, it's wrong to say that the build up of NATO forces...

Cannot be taken as a threat by Russia.

I mean, it's wrong.

It's wrong.

I think Hitchens is correct to say that it is not a realistic threat

of military action against Russia.

If you are an irrational, um, megalomaniac, kleptocrat, dictator,

tyrant like Putin, um, perhaps you can take it as a threat.

What I mean when I agree that it's a threat, it's a threat to the, um,

it's an insult to the great, um, what's, what's the words for it?

Uh, for the Russian Empire, for what Putin sees as the greatest empire on Earth.

It's an insult to that.

What's the purpose of NATO?

It's defense.

Against?

Well, did you listen to the Warfare podcast I shared with you?

Yes.

What was the purpose of NATO?

The purpose of NATO is to collaborate, to maintain the peace in Europe.

Um, uh, can I zoom in on the quote?

Um, no, but, but against who?

NATO, according to the podcast that you sent me, was to keep the

Germans down and the Russians out.

Yeah, that was the quote from the first, um, from the first head of NATO.

Yes.

And.

It's to, to keep, well it was, more than that, it's to keep the America in.

Yes, and Germany down.

And keep Germany down.

Yes.

This is in 19, this is 1948.

Yeah, but realistically, what has been the purpose of NATO, is

been to, to protect, Countries against a possible Russian attack.

I mean, that's the purpose of it, isn't it?

Isn't it?

Well, it was initially also Germany, because France particularly

feared a German, uh, you know, a German fight back because France

had defeated them in two wars.

Yeah, but everyone knows it's about taking on Russia collectively if necessary.

It's a, well, it's about stopping countries from being invaded.

And the most likely invader everyone was thinking of was Russia.

Well, yes.

Why do you think that is, Trevor?

Well, the point is...

Who has carried out the most invasions...

So has that country...

in the last 20 years.

Yeah, well, let's...

I don't...

I'll...

Hang on.

If we're going to start adding up invasions, you're

on shaky ground there, Hugh.

Yeah, but in Europe.

I mean, it doesn't matter who they're who they're worried about.

It was, it was Germany.

It was more Germany than Russia at the um,

significant amount of territories for themselves.

Okay.

I mean, they expanded, they went to expand the, um, The Communist

Empire as far as they could.

Okay, I'm not going to get anywhere with you on that one, but I'll leave

it up to the dear listeners to...

Well, you are also, you are also entitled to change and modify your own opinion.

Uh, yeah, so...

We're both entitled to do that.

Yeah, yeah, so I've sort of explained why I think...

Um, the Russians had a legitimate reason to feel threatened and you've

given your answers and so we, rather than going on and on and on on that

topic, the other part about, um, in the quote, he begins with, um, the Rush, the

Russians are going to be expansionist whether we provoke them to it or not.

So this was said in 2008, and, um, Gorbachev came to power in 1985, and,

um, I think it was Posner, who you don't like, who's the Russian propagandist,

who I acknowledged was a propagandist, but he made a point, which was...

After Gorbachev, from 1985 to 2007, what did Russia do that

was expansionist, that the U.

S.

or any other country could complain about?

And he said, you won't find anything.

Now...

Not Chechnya?

Sorry, what...

What did they do?

And when was that Brutal, brutal crackdown?

Uh, it was around 1999 to 2002, I think.

Something like that.

Was that, um, was that within its own borders or was that It

was, um, che it was Two Wars.

It was Chechen, separatists, uh, it was the Tartars and the, the Muslims.

You, you, you might recall there were supposed terrorist attacks

by the Chechens in, I think it was Moscow, with buildings being.

Um, Miss, Missile and things like that, which were also suspected

of being false flag attacks.

Was this within the borders of Russia?

Chechnya, um, Chechnya, uh, sought independence.

They declared independence.

They had an election, and they, uh, elected their own leader.

Then they were defeated in war.

They, they, the elections were, um, Regarded, declared illegal by

Russia and the Chechen candidate won with 90 percent of the vote.

I don't, I have to confess.

And then they were crushed militarily by Russia, and, you know, I'm not

a history expert or at all, but that's what I was reading about.

I think Russia's shown enough of, and Putin's made the statements,

he's, um, he's been involved with several, several other countries.

He was involved in Syria, to add to that.

Um, so there's...

You know, there's plenty of, um, and it's not, it's not the same as sending

in a genuine peacekeeping force when you go in there and keep the territory

or install a puppet regime to suit your own, um, to suit your own government.

And I think, I think the actual, the, the thing that I would like people

to consider in the chat is that when you're considering what Russia does, We

need to just consider what Russia does.

This, it's, we're not in the Cold War anymore.

It's not a comparison between who is better, the US or the Russians,

and it's not a comparison of political systems as to which is

better, communism or capitalism.

It's Russia is in the wrong here.

Russia has invaded a sovereign country for no good reason.

Um, the, the thing that I wanted to, to, Discuss with you, Trevor, is that

in your last podcast, you suggested that Ukraine should accept Russia's terms and

to, um, to stop, to stop the bombing.

Um, do you think the Russian invasion of Ukraine is actually legitimate?

No, but Putin is a bad man.

And it's not legitimate for them to invade Ukraine.

Yeah, so it's sort of similar to the Chomsky arguments at this time.

Why are we spending so much energy debating what the US is doing or

what NATO is doing, rather than discussing what Russia is doing?

Because in order to understand how we got to this position, we need

to understand the mistakes that were made in the lead up to it.

So, the, um, the analogy I would use is that after the First World War...

The West and its treatment of Germany was a mistake, and the, um, the

reparations and, um, the difficulties for the Germans to get back on their

feet, because they weren't allowed to, caused a resentment and a situation

that More going to lead to a nationalist movement and a Hitler type character.

So, arguably, the treatment of Germany after World War I brought about

forces that made Hitler more likely.

Now, after World War II...

There was a completely different treatment of Germany and it was brought

into the fold and a lesson was learned.

So, so it's possible to talk about the forces that, that

lead to historical events.

The Hitlers, if you like, and still find fault with with the West and say,

you know what, the way you did that mightn't have been the best way to do it.

And, and while that's not excusing Hitler for what he

did, a lesson had to be learnt.

So that's what we need to do with Russia and the Ukraine.

It's easy to say, there's any number of people out there who are saying

Russia's evil and bad and what they're doing in the Ukraine is terrible.

And I mean, we could repeat that ad nauseum and that wouldn't add to anything.

But what we're trying to do is say, are there things, are there lessons that

we could learn in this and maybe they will be applied to China down the track?

Is it, is it, are there things we can learn through this?

So that's why.

We should look at the actions of the West and the historical buildup.

Because it's instructive to maybe avoid this happening again.

Sure, I agree with all that, without dwelling on it.

But I don't think, um, I think there's, I think there's an overt focus on

the left of blaming everything that happens that's bad in the world.

The US in a Chomsky type way.

Mm-hmm.

, um, I read you a little bit of, um, I don't, I wonder if you've

seen this, but we should, we should also get on to talking about what,

um, what, um, what the West has to do now rather than the mistakes

it's potentially made in the past.

Mm-hmm.

, this is, um, this is a letter from, um, Chomsky's Translator.

I dunno if you've ever heard of him, but, uh, his name is Artem Chape.

And this is his, this is his letter.

A short letter to some Western intellectuals.

Please share it to whom it may concern.

I can't write anything long because we're still on the run, with my

kids who are right here next to me.

So, in brief.

Ukraine was not dragged into war, it was attacked, without even a pretext

like Hitler's attack on Poland.

I know other countries have faced their share of foreign intervention,

and right now you're witnessing overt Russian imperialism.

I don't want to make any flawed historical comparisons, but empires

have lost wars against smaller peoples before, and in the end, the Russian

imperialist government must lose.

Well, when you're being bombed, when you're thinking of ways to evacuate your

kids, you have a different perspective than when you're sitting there cosy

in an office somewhere in Arizona.

Yes, no, I'm Chomsky.

I'm looking at you, amongst others.

So don't talk about the forces that are led to this because we're

busy, we're busy staying alive.

Yeah, well, even Chomsky said this is a criminal war.

Chomsky said, has a tendency to do this.

He says one sentence, this is a criminal war, but it's no, it's no better nor

worse than America's invasion of Iraq and then talks about American mistakes for

about three quarters of an hour before going back and repeating the obvious.

But, um, really the situation here is it's, it's a horrific situation

and it's a, it's now a difficult one.

A situation of brinksmanship that is very, very difficult to see a way back from.

The other argument would be, if you don't talk about how we got here, you're

being disrespectful to the victims.

If you're just saying, oh it's a mad crazy Putin, and that's it, without examining...

The other forces, then you're, you know, you're being disrespectful to

the victims, is the other argument.

They, they deserve to have this, this examined.

That's true, but I think the, the only argument we're having is

that Hitchens is saying that this was not caused by NATO expansion.

NATO expansion is a symptom of the problem, not, not the, not the root cause.

It's something that's obviously made Putin angry, but it's made him

angry because he doesn't care about the sovereignty of these countries.

He's said as much that the only sovereignty he respects about Ukraine

is when it's under the Russian banner.

Hmm.

So we, we, in the West, we have to make a choice based on values here, whether the

sovereignty of those, um, of those nations matter enough to us, or do we just appease

Putin to avoid nuclear war at all costs?

And then how far does Putin go?

It has a very similar feel to the appeasement of Hitler

before the Second World War.

So, um, so I mentioned what I had heard as the Russian demands, which

were reported by Reuters, which was Give up the Donbass, give up Crimea,

and change your constitution so you never join NATO and it's over.

Now, would you accept that?

Well, I, I, I honestly don't know what, what you could say to

Ukraine without being, without being involved in it intimately.

They've also had ceasefires, when during ceasefires, Putin has, or

his, his army has bombed hospitals.

And then he's had the media put up, um...

articles that say that these are fake images of a pregnant woman being

carried out of a hospital who, who, um, incidentally died yesterday.

Yeah, but would you accept, did you accept those terms or not?

Well, you're just saying you don't know.

Well, I don't know that those terms have been put to, to, um, to the Ukraine

and I, I don't honestly know whether you could say that you could accept

them or you could trust them because really you're just, you're just really,

what's going to happen next year?

Is Putin, is there going to be unrest in other...

Sort of Russian speaking parts of the Ukraine, where then Putin's going to send

in some arms to help the separatists, then there's going to be a bit of a

conflict, and then Putin's going to decide he has to send in another peacekeeping

mission to bomb Ukraine again.

The reason, I think the thing about NATO and NATO expansionism, which is

really the crux of this whole debate, is that, yes, Putin was aggravated by

the West saying that countries, that NATO should expand and take some of

these Soviet, ex Soviet countries, but the fact is, the key issue is that the

ex Soviet countries want to join NATO.

They want to join the EU.

They're desperate to, and why is that?

Because they're afraid of being bombed by Russia, and because they

want to have a prosperous society.

They want to get out of the malaise that they've been in, um, under

another country for so long, and I think they should be allowed to do so.

That's what I think is the right thing, and whether it's right that Ukraine

should accept a really bad situation for their country because they're currently

being slaughtered by a far bigger country whilst, let's face it, the U.

S.

is doing very little to help them.

You know, in my opinion, uh, the U.

S.

should have done a lot more.

Once it knew that Russia was going to invade, and we knew Russia was going to

invade, um, they could have been given more, uh, anti aircraft, um, weaponry

and, and all of that, and now they're just sitting there getting slaughtered

until Russia runs out of money.

So, what the alternative could have been was to these countries,

um, you can be part of the EU, you can't be part of NATO, and...

But, uh, Ukraine tried that, um, in 2014, that was what the

whole Euromaidan was about.

Yeah.

They were just about to join the EU, and then their kleptocratic

Russian puppet president, um, changed his mind at the last minute.

And then as you know, the whole, the whole thing, yes, but, but NATO for 80

days or whatever, but NATO and Europe should have said, look, economically,

you can be part of our trading block.

There's a problem in having you part of nato as a military partner, we

need a buffer zone between us to keep the Russians who have legitimate

concerns about having missiles on their doorstep just as J F K did when.

They wanted to put missiles in Cuba, and while you might want to

be part of NATO, it's up to NATO to decide whether you can be in or not.

And strategically, strategically, um, for the safety of the planet,

even though you really would like to be part of NATO, unfortunately,

you're on the border with Russia.

And it makes sense, strategically, that we have a buffer zone of countries

that are not part of NATO with...

Military capacity sitting on them, so you can join us

economically, but not militarily.

That's what should have happened.

That's what the architect of...

That's what the architects of...

That's what...

You sent me a podcast and you said, listen to this, Trevor, and if you're

not convinced by it, um, I don't know what to say, and the guy on the podcast

said we need another George Kennan, and that's what George Kennan says.

I don't know what George, I don't know what George Kennan says,

but why does the Ukraine have no sovereignty over what it does?

It can ask for things, but just because you want to be part of a group.

It just can't have them.

Yes.

It can't have them because Russia says no.

No, because of the unfortunate geographical position they're in,

where NATO says, look, you guys are good guys, but it's unfortunate

that you are where you are.

And if we put, um, you into NATO.

This is going to cause a problem.

But the, the, the actual...

NATO is not the issue here because Ukraine has not joined NATO.

But it says it wants It takes a long time to, to join NATO.

It's, it's the threat of joining NATO.

It's a threat that's, but it's, but it's Putin has said it's

because they want to join NATO.

It cannot be because of NATO that they're taking such an extreme, they're, they're

blowing up the whole, whole of Kiev.

But BC, this gets back to your non acceptance, this is, this comes back to

your non acceptance that Russia could feel genuinely threatened by NATO expansion.

You just don't buy it, because you think, are they seriously

worried that NATO is going to...

Attack.

It's, it's bullshit.

Russia couldn't possibly feel militarily threatened by nato.

Is, is really what it comes down to.

You don't accept it's a genuine fear or a, or a threat.

I don't think anyone does Trump well, who does?

Look, who thinks that NATO is from Russia and invade Russia?

Okay.

When Germany.

was, um, um, leaving the Soviet bloc.

And we had this discussion about, um, not one inch further eastwards,

right?

About NATO.

So assurances were given that, that NATO would not move one inch eastward.

Now, Russia says that does not apply to, um, that only applied to Germany, okay?

Correct.

Now, if you accept that that's the case and you're reading those documents,

The negotiators on the part of the West fully understood that Russia felt

threatened by a NATO expansion into East Germany and said, of course, we

won't move NATO into East Germany.

We understand that's a problem for you.

So were they just pulling themselves or were they genuinely

believing it at the time?

Because when you read the documents and you read the

meeting notes between Gorbachev.

And the US counterpart, the tone of it is, of course, we understand,

we agree, we would not move NATO an inch eastward, even within Germany.

Now, why would they say that if it was completely nonsensical that that would

be a threat to Gorbachev or the Russians?

They knew it then that that, simply moving NATO...

That was a discussion over the division of Germany from East and West.

Gorbachev has said himself the topic of NATO expansion was never discussed.

Beyond Germany.

It was not, it was not raised in those years.

Beyond Germany.

Yeah, beyond Germany, beyond that.

But it was discussed, but it was discussed about East Germany.

And NATO not moving into Yeah, but in those days there was the Warsaw Pact.

I agree.

So my point is So it wasn't even a consideration when

that conversation happened.

No, it was in relation to East Germany.

So if you accept Hugh is putting out mythology when he's saying No, no, no.

I'm not He's been saying Hugh, I'm purposefully not arguing That it

was a reference beyond Germany.

I'm purposefully not arguing...

I know, that people listening are hearing what you're saying and...

No.

Because Putin's mythology about this is that the West has promised that NATO

would never expand into the eastern areas and you and I both know that that

was never asked for and was never given.

So there's...

So it's not an issue.

So, okay.

For the people listening...

In the, in the meeting, basically, the West said, we agree that NATO

won't move one inch eastwards.

Russia says, that refers to all parts of Europe, where NATO currently was.

And the West says, no, no, no, that related just to Germany.

That the promise was that NATO would not move into the newly freed up East Germany.

Okay.

So even if you accept that the West's, um, position on that, you

still have to accept that the West acknowledged in that, that Russia was

worried about the expansion of NATO.

Merely into East Germany.

So if you want to argue they, it's foolish for anybody to worry about NATO expansion.

The Western negotiators recognized and understood that at that time.

Yeah, I think, you know, I think I've acknowledged that though,

Trevor, in our discussion.

So perhaps we can be a little bit less adversarial and

agree on a couple of things.

Like, I agree.

That Putin is threatened by NATO expansion in, but I don't agree that

he has any right to be threatened.

of a potential military action against Russia by NATO.

Okay.

And I don't think the West or any of his, um, Soviet satellite countries

that are now independent should feel burdened by an irrational fear of,

of, of him if he indeed holds it.

I don't think he does.

I think he's threatened by the loss of power.

And the loss of esteem and the humiliation to the great Soviet empire.

It's certainly a driving force.

I've kind of acknowledged your side of the argument here.

Okay.

So I think you should acknowledge that Putin's nationalism, his wanting

to, you know, get the empire back.

That's got to be one of his key motivations here.

I admitted that from the beginning.

I admitted that from the beginning.

And therefore Hitchens point stands because whether NATO expanded or

not, he would still be invading them.

He'd be creating disturbances on their borders, he'd be having

separatists create conflicts, and then he'd be annexed in Crimea.

He didn't annex Crimea because of NATO.

He didn't invade Georgia because of NATO, and he didn't go

to Chechnya because of NATO.

No, he went there to get his territory back.

Uh, no, he was worried about, um, Crimea was part of Ukraine and looking to

join NATO, so it was part of the NATO.

It hasn't joined NATO.

But he was getting in before they did.

That's what he was doing.

Yeah, I know, but even making that argument legitimizes what he's doing,

and I don't, and it's not legitimate.

It's not a legitimate, it's not even a legitimate pretext for war.

It's a pretext which he's putting out there for war,

but it's not a legitimate one.

It's a pretext so that he can get what he wants.

Well, so Hugh, let's see where we agree on this.

So, yes, I agree on the nationalism.

I agree it's a driving part of him.

Like, he knows his place in history.

And, um, and, um, So what, what, where nationalism can drive you

to take territory, it can also drive you to protect territory.

So, um, just, I just want to explore one part of this, which

is, um, um, the, the timing of it.

Uh, Gorbachev, 1985.

And I have to admit, I don't know anything about Chechnya, but it

sounds to me like it was internal within Russia and not external.

No, they declared independence and then they fought a war with Russia.

Okay.

So

what we had was, um, uh, the, the, uh, former Yugoslavia

and Kosovo, uh, around 2007.

And, and at that point there was a separatist movement, Kosovo.

And there was sort of an ethnic cleansing by the Serbians

of the Albanians in Kosovo.

Genocide.

Yep.

And so what we had there was NATO coming in.

And, um, getting actively involved militarily in Kosovo.

Bombing, fighting, etc.

So, and, and then not long afterwards, uh, well, there was a

ceasefire period and then eventually Kosovo claimed independence.

And, and really, from a Russian point of view, You could look at that and go, well,

gee, if there's a separatist movement in a European country, then it's okay

for NATO to come in and fight on behalf of the separatists, um, in a, you know,

previously NATO was all about presumably defence, but, um, the problem with that

is it opened a Pandora's box where Russia could look at that and go, well, gee,

what if there's a separatist movement Somewhere on our border at some point.

Was NATO going to feel like they can come in and do what they did in Kosovo?

I think that's the purpose of NATO though.

Like, do you disagree that NATO should have done anything about Slobodan

Milosevic committing genocide?

Um, I, I don't...

Should they have just stood there and done nothing when that's their role?

I, I don't know, is the short answer, but what I'm saying to you is...

Why?

Should we just have done nothing and let people die just to placate Russia?

I don't know enough about it, is what I'm saying.

I don't know, I don't know who should have if something should have been done.

So...

Here's the point though, um, if you've said, you just said, well, that's one

of the reasons for NATO, isn't then that also, when you say, well, what

was, what's, what is Putin scared of?

It's not like NATO's ever gonna bomb Russia.

If you take the Kosovo example and you end up with some separatists in a

Russian border area, maybe they would.

If

Putin commits genocide, Then I'm sure there'll be consequences whether

people have joined NATO or not, but if you join NATO There's an, there's

There's part of the agreement.

There is an entitlement to expect some level of protection.

That's why it exists.

That wasn't even in NATO.

So that was when Yugoslavia wasn't part of NATO.

So It was just an independent, non NATO country that NATO moved

in on and started dropping bombs.

Now, from the Russian point of view...

Surely it should have done so, though, regardless of what Russia thinks.

Why is Russia so worried about it?

If we say that's...

Why is Russia the biggest supporter of...

It seems like, um, it's Russia and China seem to always, um, side

with the totalitarian dictators.

Like Mugabe and Gaddafi and Slobodan Milosevic.

Um, and, and then there's this general equivalence that we, that we have to

accept that, um, yeah, we should just sit back while people, um, commit genocide

against the Albanians or, or whatever.

You don't accept that, Trevor.

I know you, you wouldn't accept that one bit.

Yeah, but here we go.

From the Russian point of view, they say, well, if the West thinks that the dictator

is bad enough, They'll enter a country and vomit to protect the separatists.

So it's, it's, you know, it just adds weight to what I'm saying about, um,

the Russians genuine sense of fear of having NATO move right up to its border.

I think, yes, they do, but I think they want to, I don't think

that's their primary motivation.

I think it's part of the motivation, but I don't think it's the primary one.

And the fact is, um, I think what we need to agree on is whether it's

a legitimate motivation or not.

It's not a legitimate motivation.

If Stalin doesn't want NATO there because Stalin intends to commit genocide on on

parts of his countries or neighbouring countries then that's um, that's

not something that we can tolerate.

Well, we have to bear that in mind.

That's what NATO's for.

But we have to bear that in mind when we're, when we're providing entry

into NATO by neighbouring countries.

And we have to bear in mind, you know what?

That guy's an evil dictator, likely to.

Um, likely to, um, ethnically cleanse a, um, a separatist movement and

likely to feel threatened therefore by, uh, a NATO build up on his borders.

So for those reasons, even though we like you a lot.

For the security of everybody, it's a good idea to keep you out of NATO.

Well, Hugh, we're nearly done with, well, um, with the Hitchens thing.

What else have I got here on, um, uh, in my notes here?

What else would you like to say about Ukraine and, um, Hitchens

and, uh, is there anything?

Oh, I don't know.

I don't know what I can say without getting into an argument with you.

But, uh, I thought you might have brought up the whole, um, that the US

installed You know, a lot of people on the left wing on, you know, uh, Cohen

and so forth think that, uh, the U.

S.

installed a puppet regime in the Ukraine following the, um, ousting of Yanukovych.

Hmm.

Um...

Um, and, um, yeah, I think...

Do you think there's any meddling at all by the USA in that?

Yeah, I think definitely there was, but not nearly as much as there

was by, obviously, the Soviet...

Obviously by Russia, I should say.

Um, I think it was interesting that...

I'm not sure how many people know, but Yanukovych, who, um...

The main, the problem with Ukraine was they wanted to join the EU.

There was a large amount of the population that wanted to join.

I think a survey had 43 percent or so.

And Ukraine is obviously, it's got a lot of ex, it's got a lot of Russian speaking

different ethnicities in, in the country.

And it was going to join the EU.

It was all agreed.

It had gone on for quite some time.

And then there was a whole lot of complex financial arrangements, the

Ukraine economy was in terrible trouble, um, and Russia had agreed to give a

loan of something like 15 billion.

To try and to get them not to join the EU and the and then there was the whole

outcry and I think I heard you previously mentioning the couple of documentaries

that you can watch on the whole situation which kind of disagree with each other.

There's um, allegations that US spies were involved and there's certainly

a lot stronger allegations that, um, that Russian security forces were, um,

Snipers were involved as well in, in, uh, drumming up the violence in that

whole, um, Euromaidan, uh, protest.

Um, but, um, it's interesting that Yanukovych was a, uh, kleptocrat of quite,

um, substantial, quite amazing capacity.

He had a net worth 12 billion.

Yep.

He had a property worth, can I just finish this a little bit?

Yep.

He had a, property worth, um, uh, Something like 170 million.

It had its own private zoo in a, uh, in an interview, he humorously claimed that

the ostriches just happened to be there.

Native Ukrainian ostriches.

He was a kleptocrat.

The thing that we didn't get onto was that sort of thing and how Putin, how the

whole country and the whole government of Russia is completely corrupt.

The media has been shut down.

It's not democratic.

It's an authoritarian regime and, um, he's worth about 80 billion, having

got all the money from the oligarchs.

Did you see the voting records for the vote for Yanukovych?

Did you see the geographical breakdown Yanukovych?

I didn't say that, no.

Right.

In the, in the second election that he won?

Yes.

In the election that he won before he was ousted.

Yes.

Yeah.

Yep.

If you, you know, when you look at the election, and I think probably it maps

up with previous ones as well, it's obviously a divided country in the sense

that there is a significant proportion of the people Who are, um, pro Russia, and a

significant proportion who are pro West.

Like, it is a divided country in that sense.

And, and it might be that, um, that the future resolution is to recognise that.

I mean, we talk about separatist movements being legitimate.

Kosovo or Chechens or whatever, that if you've got enough people of, who

are willing of the same mind that they want to separate from the sovereign

country, then we should allow them.

When you look at the Ukraine, it's, it's quite arguable that a

significant proportion to the, uh, East would want to be part of Russia.

And the ones on the West want to be part of the West and maybe it is a

country that should be split because there is a strong divide within it.

Yeah, I agree.

I think that might be part of the potential solution and I, and that was

an argument, that was a point that I was going to raise as a potential cause of all

of these disputes that Russia is having.

with its neighbors in that they do have, it's also the case that the older

demographic in most of these countries has a higher percentage of people who

support the Soviet empire and their Russian history than the younger ones do.

Um, but it's also the case that there's a fairly strong, uh, you

know, it was the political will of the people in the Ukraine to join

the EU and no doubt it'd be their political will to join NATO if they can.

And the key thing from this Whole, you know, the whole discussion is that the

reason these countries want to join NATO is so that they are protected from Russia.

That's the key thing.

That's what rules out Russian offence or Russian threat or, you

know, you know, the kleptocratic tyrant who's there, who's just ready

to, ready to pounce on any insult.

That's why we can't give any, um, credence to his...

Oh, it's NATO, NATO's enlargement that's caused me to brutally invade Chechnya,

Georgia and Ukraine and to annex Crimea.

It's not the case.

It's not the case.

All right, I think we've made our point, Hugh.

The chat room's been going off.

Has it?

It's impossible, dear listener, to, to, um, uh, it's impossible to keep track of

the chat room and listen to somebody, uh, debate and try and work things out, um.

I saw some comments that were asking me to say, you know, why, you know,

to justify whether the US invasion of Iraq was imperialism or not.

I purposefully didn't want to get into comparing the US actions.

I mean, we'll be here forever, I wouldn't, yeah.

That's right, um, we would be.

Yeah, so,

hey Hugh, what I'd like to do one day.

Dear listener, you may not know that Hugh Harris is an ex professional poker player.

Are you still playing poker?

Occasionally, semi, semi professional.

Can we do a podcast where you just explain to us how to win at poker?

Oh yeah, I can, I can explain pretty quick.

Okay, all right.

You want to, I can do that now.

Yeah, yeah, yep, yep.

You want to win at poker, you go to the casino, uh, you, you google

the top 10 percent of hands.

You Google and you get in, in, in poker.

Poker.

Uh, so Texas No Limit Hold 'em is what people play mostly now.

Mm-hmm.

So you get two cards.

So you only play the top 10% of hands.

Ah, yeah.

As, as in, as you, when you get your first two cards, you only play the top.

When you get your first two cards, you fold for the night.

The bottom 90% is that you're saying?

Yeah.

You might fold your hand for an hour.

If you're unlucky.

Right.

The reason, the way you can win, particularly at a live casino, it's

much harder online, so don't play online poker, it's supposedly illegal, but

you know, I think it still happens.

Yeah.

Um, but at the casino, you just don't play, you only play when you

get good cards, and in the long run, you can win big, because most people

go to the casino for one or two hours, they play every single hand.

They play all the garbage cards.

All you have to do is have a good strong hand and then you just keep betting and

put all the money in and then you win.

Ah, okay.

But if you're at a table with pros, in a competition, like you used to...

That would take you a few hours.

Like you used to do, that wouldn't work because they would know

every time you played you had a strong hand, they would just fold.

So that wouldn't work in that, in that tournament play, would it?

No, then it becomes a complex, complex strategy.

Right.

Okay, you can't do that in five minutes.

No, I can't do that in five minutes.

All right, Hugh, well, it's been good chatting.

What have you been doing, um, um, atheism, rationalist, um, secular stuff?

You're still batting away at the Facebook page of John Dixon occasionally.

No, he's, um, I, I have to...

Confess that he's blocked me from his page.

Right, okay.

Finally.

I, uh, probably made one too many comment about, uh, the Gospels, no

one knowing who authored the Gospels, because it's one of those things, you

know when you converse with someone for a long period of time, you can tell

when something really bothers them?

That really bothers him.

No one knows who wrote them.

He can't stand it, he doesn't want to debate it, so he just

blocked me, so there we go.

Right.

It's been, it's opened up a bit of time for me, but uh...

Good.

I'm very busy with uh, with work and kids and everything else, so I'm occasionally

writing another call here and there, but not doing any anywhere near as much.

Right.

I'd comment on Facebook.

Right, okay.

I know you're a bit sceptical about my satanic activism, but if I have a victory

here, you will be invited to the party?

I will, I'll be...

Delighted to come to the party, if you have a victory.

I hope you do.

Thank you, very good.

All right Hugh Harris, I think, um, I think everyone in the chat room

enjoyed it, uh, they appreciated the debate and um, um, and Tom, the

warehouse guy, found in your favor.

Um, Hugh, so...

I like him.

Yeah.

He's obviously a good bloke.

Yeah.

I like him.

So, Tom was by my side at the bar table when I made my appearance.

So, um...

LAUGHS So he didn't like my arguments much.

Anyway.

All right, guys.

We won't hang around any longer.

Thanks, dear listener, for that.

I hope you enjoyed it.

We'll be back with something else next week.

Thanks, Hugh, and we'll talk to you another time.

Thanks, everyone.

Bye.

Thanks, Trevor.

Cheers.

Bye.

Hi, I'm Matthew from Atlanta.

Um, it seems that with so many issues, uh, causing concern for American voters

this year, it's kind of difficult to pinpoint a single defining, uh, a point.

But, uh, for me, it seems that, um, As Russia has just openly stated that it

has no fear of another Cold War, we have a choice ahead of us, especially among

conservatives, and you had encouraged conservative voters to comment.

And the question, it seems to me, is do we bargain with Russia?

Do we play ball with Russia in order to obtain their cooperation with the Iranian

problem and the North Korean problem?

On the other hand, do we draw a, you know, a thick red line, uh, around the, uh,

Eastern Bloc, uh, ex Soviet states, um, that we have, you know, sort of pledged

our support and our, our protection of?

Chris Hitchins, what do you think?

Yes.

I mean, well, there was a big argument about this, uh, about

a decade ago under the Clinton administration, about NATO expansion.

And the underlying principle difference was this, uh, some said if you expand

nato, you will provoke the Russians.

They'll think they're being encircled.

And the other opposite case was they are going to try and regain their

temporarily lost influence in Eastern.

And, uh, Balkan Europe, uh, in any case, so the quicker we can get as

many members as we can under the protective umbrella in this period

of, of, um, Russian, what shall we call it, uh, eclipse, uh, the better.

I think the second view was, was the more intelligent one.

The Russians are going to be expansionist whether we provoke them to it or not.

For example, the Russians keep saying that we're trying to encircle them.

And in what sense does the independence of Kosovo?

Landlocked province, former Yugoslavia, uh, with no common border with Russia,

threatened Russia with encirclement.

In what sense does the independence of the Baltic states, which the Soviets gained as

territory in a, in a deal with Hitler, a direct bargain between Stalin and Hitler,

what, it constitutes an encirclement?

This is insulting.

In what sense does the, does the independence of Georgia

constitute an encirclement?

What, what we are facing, and we may as well give it its right name,

is what I called it earlier, a chauvinistic, uh, theocratic, in part,

uh, xenophobic Russian imperialism.