Why is Biden Pushing Putin on Ukraine? – Larry
Wilkerson
Video and Transcript
December 30, 202:
Information Clearing House--- "Real
News" -
According to a New York Times
report, “Russia demanded on December 17th that the
United States and its allies halt all military
activity in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. In a
sweeping proposal that would establish a Cold
War-like security arrangement, posing a challenge to
diplomatic efforts to, quote, defuse Russia’s
growing military threat to Ukraine.”. Now that’s
New York Times language, not mine, but at any
rate, back to the New York Times piece.
“The Russian proposal, immediately dismissed by
NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] officials,
came in the form of a draft treaty suggesting NATO
should offer written guarantees that it would not
extend farther east towards Russia and halt all
military activities in the former Soviet Republics.
The vast swath of now independent States extending
from Eastern Europe to Central Asia.”.
Further down, the Times piece reads,
“They included a request for a NATO commitment that
it would not offer membership to Ukraine
specifically that NATO officials emphasized that
NATO countries will not rule out future membership
for any Eastern European countries, including
Ukraine.”.
Now joining us to discuss the Russian proposal
and the current tensions on the Ukrainian Russian
border is Larry Wilkerson. He is the former Chief of
Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell. He’s a
retired professor and a regular on
theAnalysis.news and many other news and
academic platforms. Thanks very much, Larry.
Lawrence Wilkerson
Good to be with you, Paul.
Paul Jay
So, what do you think of these Russian proposals
and maybe put them in some context for us?
Lawrence Wilkerson
I think [Vladimir] Putin’s doing what he feels
like he has to do, at least in the verbal sphere,
counter the things NATO and, principally its major
member, America, are doing. I don’t think they make
much sense. I don’t think they make a whole lot more
sense than what we’re doing. Both sides, now, are
acting a lot like little boys in a sandbox, but we
started it all. As Ambassador Jack Matlock made very
clear recently, we started it all, and we’re paying
the piper now for having started it. And rather than
diplomatically and otherwise, back down slowly and
surely, and maybe do a few mea culpas, we just keep
exacerbating the situation. As long as we do that,
Putin will exacerbate it equally from his side.
Paul Jay
Define we started it all.
Lawrence Wilkerson
Well, we started it all when we made a very
verbal agreement. When I say very verbal, people are
criticizing it because it was verbal and not written
down on a piece of paper. But I always thought a
diplomat’s word was his bond, especially when it was
Secretary of State, as it was Jim Baker for [George]
H.W. Bush and President H.W. Bush himself.
When we told Mikhail Gorbachev and, by extension,
Boris Yeltsin and Eduard Shevardnadze, who was then
the Foreign Minister for Gorbachev, that NATO
essentially would not go any further east and
implied strongly that it would not gain any
significant membership beyond its current members.
At that time, if Gorbachev agreed to the
reunification of Germany and its retention as a
unified Germany, the Soviet Union, Russia’s worst
enemy, worst nightmare. If he agreed to that,
putting them back together and letting them be a
member of NATO, we would not move any further east.
That was a sacrosanct bargain as far as I’m
concerned, and I think H.W. Bush, were he still
alive, would say the same thing. So, would Eduard
Shevardnadze and Mikhail Gorbachev.
Paul Jay
Now, there’s some people─ that is being disputed
in certain quarters, but when you worked for Powell,
either at the Joint Chiefs or you worked for Powell
at the State Department.
Lawrence Wilkerson
That was our understanding.
Paul Jay
You never had any doubt that that was the
understanding?
Lawrence Wilkerson
No doubt whatsoever. In fact, I remember a really
animated conversation with the Chairman of the Joint
Chief of Staff in his office about, wouldn’t it just
be unbelievable if Russia were not just─ because we
had assumed observer status was a given if Russia
were not just an observer at the political and
military meetings of NATO. She became a full-fledged
member of that alliance in both its manifestations,
political and military. And I think he was very
serious in his joy at the prospect of that
happening.
He’d just come back from Warsaw, where he’d
spoken to all the heads of the former Warsaw Pact
countries’ militaries. He had told them that he
served a country. He was very elated about having
done this. He served a country whose Constitution
hated him, hated the military. The founders of the
country did not like the military. They did not want
a standing military and so forth, and that they, as
they became non-Communist and or absorbed into the
more healthy fabric of Europe, would have to learn
to live with leaders who probably didn’t like them
either. I mean, this was a euphoric time. This was a
time─
Paul Jay
What year are you talking about?
Lawrence Wilkerson
We’re talking about ’90, ’91, ’92, all the way up
to ’92 when even H.W. Bush begins to cool a little
bit because I think he perceived that Gorbachev was
not as forthcoming as he had sort of promised to be.
But it was easy, and Powell and I, I think, saw
this. It was easy to ascertain why Gorbachev was
having real problems. You can’t go around emptying
the honey cart as it were and not expect to have
problems from some of the bureaucracy around you who
lived off the honey cart.
Paul Jay
So, why didn’t the Soviet Union then Russia, why
didn’t once it’s a capitalist country, the supposed
raise on debt and I say supposed because I want to
explore what the hell the real point of NATO was and
is. But the supposed rationale for NATO was that you
have this Communist threat, so, either why didn’t
Russia enter NATO or why not get rid of NATO?
Lawrence Wilkerson
We began immediately doing things that made
Russia, even under Yeltsin, doubt our word. I think
probably the crusher for Yeltsin came when we were
operating in the Balkans in such a way that Russia
felt it needed to get in there, at least, to put
some troops on the ground and counter our military
weight because, after all, that was their near
abroad. That’s the way they looked at it. Those were
Slavic Peoples, and he couldn’t even get overflight
rights from the countries that were between him and
Russia-proper and that infuriated him. We even went
out of our way, so to speak, trying to expedite the
way they could get in there, and so forth even
though we did have a contretemps on the ground when
General [Wesley] Clark very unwisely said that he
would probably have to oppose the Russians coming
into Pristina. We suddenly opened up an airway and
let them come into Pristina.
Those were times when the end of the Bush
administration and more so than anything H.W. Bush
ever did, Bill Clinton became a creature of the
military-industrial complex. He already was. I think
everybody knew that who knew anything about the
governor at all and began to promote this, not just
come into the NATO preparation plan. Come into the─
what do we call it? The alliance for peace or
whatever. I can’t remember the term we used, but get
ready to be a member of NATO, and by God, we could
sell F-16s to 10 more countries and things like
that. Suddenly, we were Russia’s enemy again. We
were not only Russia’s enemy again; we were very
front leaning in the foxhole enemy.
When you talk about my President, for example,
George W. Bush going to Tbilisi and announcing
publicly that Georgia would be a member of NATO in
the future with Shevardnadze right beside him, the
young President of Georgia at the time. Smiling to
the cameras because here was the President United
States saying Georgia would be a member of NATO.
Well, what did Mr. Putin do? He carved off a little
section of Georgia in the next month or two, and he
still owns it as far as I can tell.
That was stupid, that was idiotic, and it was
moronic. It truly was, and yet we did it. Look at
now we have 30 members, I think, in NATO, including
Montenegro, Lapia, Estonia, Lithuania. This is an
untenable alliance. It will fall of its own weight.
It’ll topple of its own weight. But I’ll tell you
this right now when you tell a Texan, or you tell
Coloradan, or you tell a Montanan or, in fact,
almost any American that they are going to risk
nuclear war over Rica or Montenegro? The first thing
they’re going to do is ask it where the hell they
are, and the second thing they’re going to do is
tell you, you’re nuts, and yet that is what we have
done. Article five extends to these countries.
Paul Jay
I think there’s a lot of people in the American
elites and even in the military that must be
thanking the gods of war that Ukraine is not in NATO
right now because the last thing on Earth the
Americans or the British, and they’ve made this
clear, is they want some obligation to go send
troops into Ukraine.
Lawrence Wilkerson
Or, as I said, ultimately, to give them a nuclear
umbrella. This is nonsense. This is absolute
nonsense. This business of the rumours that were
circulating around last week, which is what the
Deputy Defence Minister of Russia really reacted to
that we’re going to put something like GLCMs back in
Europe. Do you remember ground launch cruise
missiles from Ronald Reagan’s days and the fury even
amongst some Europeans because the Germans were
saying, you’re going to put those things on our
territory? Well, we know where the nuclear weapons
targeted at them are going to hit. We’re talking
about that again. We let some new rumours out that
we’re going to counter their tactical nuclear
weapons with on-the-ground tactical nuclear weapons
of our own. Submarines aren’t enough. We want to
tackle it that way. This is nonsense. It’s not
nonsense. It’s utter crass stupidity. It’s deadly
and dangerous.
Paul Jay
Yeah, it wasn’t that long ago when the U.S. war
strategy was if there was any─ maybe it still is.
Probably it still is, that if there was any real
direct, on-the-ground military confrontation of any
size, I think it was one battalion or something
between American and Russian troops. It would
actually trigger a full-scale nuclear attack on the
then Soviet Union. I’m guessing still on Russia and
China, for that matter.
Lawrence Wilkerson
That’s a little bit of an exaggeration, I think.
Paul Jay
[Daniel] Ellsberg says at least back in the day
he was working for RAND [Research and Development]
and advising the Air Force and Pentagon, that was
the war strategy.
Lawrence Wilkerson
That wasn’t the war strategy. That was the
ultimate fallback position if the war strategy
didn’t work. Powell’s Fifth Corps was on the Fulda
Gap, facing 10 of [Vladislav] Achalov’s most deadly
armoured divisions, which would slice through the
gap and be in Western Germany very quickly. The plan
was an act of defence with conventional weapons and
so forth, but many people, probably including
Powell, though we never talked about this particular
issue, thought that that would inevitably not be
elastic enough and not be because we’re, again,
we’re operating on exterior lines, and they’re on
interior lines. It would not be very successful, and
then the ultimate plan was, yes, to nuke the
spearhead, at least of the Soviet forces. And that
was it. Nuke the spearhead with tactical nuclear
weapons. Hope they stopped. Indeed, a reflection of
the very strategy that in the latest maneuvers of
the Russians is theirs now were NATO to invade, the
situation sort of turned around. Were NATO to
invade, they have said, and in doctrine, they
officially announced now, that they’re going to hit
the points of the invasion with tactical nuclear
weapons.
Paul Jay
You said just a few minutes ago that the NATO
expansion opened up all these markets for American
weaponry. I mean, is that really what the hell the
point of NATO is because─
Lawrence Wilkerson
That’s half of it and, you know, this is so
ridiculous, too, because in many respects, the
American taxpayers paying for those weapons because
Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Czech Republic,
Slovakia, and others are so heavily subsidized in
order to be able to buy the weapons because the
weapons are so damned expensive. So, you’ve got the
American taxpayer in there not just paying for the
U.S. forces but also paying for at least a portion
of the other NATO forces and what they get.
Paul Jay
So, it’s a way of raising the military
expenditure without it showing up in the military.
Lawrence Wilkerson
Exactly, and Lockheed Martin doesn’t care whether
they get paid by the taxpayer through Polish
hospices or directly by the taxpayer. They still get
the money.
Paul Jay
At the start of the interview, you said you
thought both Putin and the Americans or the Russians
and the Americans were like playing in the sandbox
here. But don’t you have to parse the Russian
position, like, Russia’s demand for the
non-expansion further east of NATO, not including
Ukraine and NATO. Do you not think that’s a
reasonable demand?
Lawrence Wilkerson
Oh, I think they have the lion’s share of
rationality, and Putin is operating basically the
way I would operate on a grand strategic scale. I
would not tolerate this. I would say I would not
tolerate it, and I would try to come up with ways to
make my word believed, but he’s operating from a
very difficult position. He really doesn’t have a
whole lot of cards to play other than Gazprom and
his gas station and Germany and other dependents on
that energy source. All that is morphing and
changing so fast that I wouldn’t count on that being
as volatile and as important as it is today, five
years from now, seven years from now, whatever. And
you got other pipelines being built, and other
pipelines are going to be pumping, too. I was
looking at the sketch of them the other day. So, he
doesn’t have a whole lot of cards in his hand. And
so, he’s got to be a little more bellicose and a
little more frightening. I suspect he feels that way
when he does do things because he doesn’t have a
whole lot of power.
If you listen to Admiral [Arleigh] Burke’s
webinar. I think I mentioned this on one of your
other podcasts. When he was talking about how many
naval forces he commands and how much, really
military might he has. He commands all the naval
forces around that area, the standing Atlantic
Forces, the U.S. Atlantic Forces, all the NATO
forces, standing Force, Naples, and so forth.
Probably more naval power in relative terms than
anyone since the French fleet and [Horatio] Nelson
met at Trafalgar. Incredible. And he said it. He
said that Russia has no allies. I have lots of
allies.
Paul Jay
How much do you think all this has to do with the
Nordstrom two oil gas pipelines? The Americans have
made it very clear they don’t like the fact that
Germany has made this deal with Russia. If I
understand it correctly, the pipeline circumvents
the Ukraine, which is a big deal, I guess, to the
Ukrainian economy. Also, Germany is doing this in
defiance of the United States. Sorry. Go ahead.
Lawrence Wilkerson
No, it’s not just the energy coming to you. If
you transship, you get transshipment fees, too. So,
that’s one of the things that was being looked at in
Afghanistan. For example, to increase Afghanistan’s
economy. This is really nonsense, too, because─ and
Trump did this. President Trump did this. He
cancelled one of the most powerful reposts to
Nordstrom two. In fact, to the whole business of
Gazprom and Russia having so much power over Europe,
especially Germany. Dominion power here in Virginia,
second only to Duke Power on the East Coast is the
largest public utility, was building a 12 plus
billion-dollar facility on the East Coast. It was
their largest future investment that was going to
produce the liquid gas. And it would go basically
for the first decade or so overseas and make a lot
of money for Dominion, a lot of money for
stockholders, shareholders, and so forth and began
to diversify East Coast power, at least in the
interim fuel of natural gas. Trump cancelled it. He
cancelled it just right out of the blue, and
environmentalists, of course, and others just leapt
on it and said, oh, wonderful. This is terrific.
This is splendid. And Congress leapt on it said, oh,
this is splendid because they were going to sell to
Europeans. Like the Jones Act says, you can’t build
something that you’re only going to sell to
Europeans. That’s terrible. That’s terrible. So,
Congress will all be─ they’re brain dead, Paul.
They’re stupid, or the G.R.U. [Glavnoye
Razvedyvatelnoye Upravlenie] and the NKVD [People’s
Commissariat for Internal Affairs], the two Russian
intelligence entities, have a lot more influence and
power than I thought in this country.
Paul Jay
Why would Biden pick up this opposition to
Nordstrom to? Germany and Russia have a perfect
right to make a deal together. Why make such an
issue out of it? The whole American position seems
to be so provocative, and to what end?
Lawrence Wilkerson
And another item you might bring up is that if
Iran were allowed to finish its oil pipeline and its
gas pipeline, you could relieve a lot of the
pressure that way, but oh, no, because that would be
the Ayatollah making money. This is the way we do
business, Paul. We have no common sense, and we
certainly have no international sense. Look at
China, the base road initiative in all its
configurations. Whether you’re talking about Central
Asia, you’re talking about the maritime road, or
you’re talking about the sort of tributary road in
South America or whatever. That initiative should be
encouraged, it should be helped, it should be curbed
where it becomes vicious or predatory like us, and
it should be that Chinese money, which now tops
everyone else’s money in the world, is put to good
use. Doing things in the world that develop people
or States economically and help them to create a
good situation for their now, in most cases,
poverty-stricken people. That’s what the base road
initiative is— the Marshall Plan on steroids.
Now, what do we do? We treated it as if it was a
vicious attempt to challenge our superiority in the
world economically and financially. In other words,
we lost our superiority in the world, almost in
every respect, a long time ago. But it is that it’s
trying to hold on to the status quo and challenge
the person who is, in fact, challenging the state
that is challenging that status quo. But we should
be working with them. We should be making the base
road initiative as positive and effortless as
possible because it has just incredible money behind
it.
Paul Jay
Alright, let’s go back to Ukraine, and then we’ll
do another segment on China. Just straight, one
simple question, should the United States, should
NATO, declare that Ukraine will never be part of
NATO?
Lawrence Wilkerson
I believe that vague— I wouldn’t go that far.
It’s kind of like the strategic realities with
Taiwan. Clarifying things like that in diplomacy or
even President to President or Foreign Minister to
Foreign Minister is almost never a good policy. You
let things be understood, and you let things be
clearly understood, but you don’t promulgate them
like that. I just think Putin should back down after
we assure him diplomatically behind the scenes that
Ukraine will never be a member of NATO.
Now, a long time ago, we had an opportunity, and
maybe we still do, but I said when Victoria Nuland
was saying F-U-C-K to the Europeans and so forth. A
Brilliant woman that, I said, the situation in
Ukraine is really getting out of hand. This was
right before the attempted coup. I said we should
have studied neutrality in Ukraine. And what I meant
by that was neither the Russians, nor the Americans,
nor the Europeans muck in Ukraine. Leave it alone.
Let it be neutral. We drop the adjective or the
article the Ukraine. It’s no longer that; it’s
Ukraine. Ukrainians are very specific about that.
It’s Ukraine. It’s not the Ukraine. So let it be
Ukraine. Let it be neutral. Leave it alone,
everyone, and let’s get some things like the MIST
agreement. I thought it was going to do a little bit
of this but get some things in writing where we can
more or less assure that the major effort on the
part of principal Europe, America, and Russia will
be to leave Ukraine alone. Let them decide on their
own path.
Now, here’s the problem with that, of course.
They are the most corrupt government on the face of
the Earth, and they show no signs of getting out of
that corruption anytime soon. So, you’re going to
constantly have the corrupt leaders saying, oh, I’m
with Russia. Oh, I’m with Europe. I’m with the
United States and so forth because they can make
political hay out of that with a certain portion of
their electorate. You’ve got to be able to tolerate
that, and you’ve got to put some, I think, combined
effort in there to teach them how to govern
themselves.
Paul Jay
How dangerous is all this if the United States
doesn’t do what you’re talking about, and it sure
looks like they’re not going to?
Lawrence Wilkerson
I think you cannot find any major strain of
foreign policy for the last 20 years in this country
executed by this country that looks sane. I’m
serious. We have not done anything that looks sane.
Paul Jay
Well, the only rationality to it is there’s a lot
of money being made.
Lawrence Wilkerson
A lot of money is being made by very few people.
Paul Jay
Yeah. All right. Thanks for joining me, Larry,
And thank you for joining us again on
theAnalysis.news. If you can, please donate to
support what we’re doing. It certainly costs money
to do all this. Subscribe, share, tell your friends.
Thanks again.
Reader financed- No
Advertising - No Government Grants -
No Algorithm - This
Is Independent Media
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)