Misunderstanding History, from WW2 to Ukraine and Russia

Our guest this week is Radhika Desai, Professor of Political Studies and Director of the Geopolitical Economy Research Group at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg Canada.

You can find me and the show on social media by searching the handle @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube.

Our Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd

All our episodes can be found at CTDpodcast.com.

 

TRANSCRIPT:
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:14):

Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which most events take place. During each episode, my guests and I will have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between current events and the broader historical context in which these events occur. This will enable you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live on today's episode. The question before us is what has happened to academic freedom and free speech? For example, there's an article in the Manitoban, the student newspaper of the University of Manitoba Canada, and it's entitled you of Manitoba, professor Soft on Putin, an Alumnus, thoughts on a Professor's Interactions with President Putin. My guest is a professor in the Department of Political Studies and Director of the Geopolitical Economy Research Group at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg Canada. She's an author of numerous books, and she's the subject of this article. She's Dr. Radhika Desai. Dr. Desai, welcome to the show, and let's connect some dots.

Dr. Radhika Desai (01:44):

Absolutely. Wilma, let's get going.

Dr. Wilmer Leon (01:46):

So you and your husband attended the Valdi Discussion Club and all expenses paid trip to Sochi Russia. You went earlier this month and this forum, the Valdi Forum, is billed as a wide ranging conference about international issues. Russian President Putin speaks at the conference every year. Now, as a result of your attending this revered and respected international conference, you and your husband have come under attack. So if you would please, first let's explain to the audience what is the VALDI Conference?

Dr. Radhika Desai (02:25):

So the Valdi Club is called the Valdi Discussion Club, and as its name indicates, every year, well, first of all, it holds discussions of course, throughout the year. It has a very good website with some leading commentators from around the world posting analysis of what's going on in the world, in the world economy, in world politics, et cetera. And then every year it has an annual conference to which it's an invitation only event. And of course the press is there as well. And every year they essentially analyze the world context in which the fast changing world context, shall we say, it's been going for 20 years. Indeed, the last conference we went to was the 20th Anniversary conference. A couple of other things about it that are important is that firstly, because Russia has been, if you think about the last 20 years from 2004 onwards, Russia has really been sort of in the eye of the storm that is changing the world so quickly and so rapidly, particularly over the last few years.

(03:28)
So that conference is actually a very fascinating conference to be at because people from, as I say all over the world, experts and academics, and even people, former diplomats, et cetera, all these sorts of people who really know what's going on attend the Wildlife Conference. So these conversations are absolutely fascinating. And second, the second thing I wanted to say is that of course the organization was set up by a few academics. As you say, president Putin always speaks at it. And in a certain sense, it will be interesting to think of it as the Russian equivalent of, for example, the Council of Foreign Relations in the United States or the Royal Institute of International Affairs, otherwise known as Chatham House in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Wilmer Leon (04:17):

And so you and your husband attended the conference and you even were able to submit a, well, you and your husband were able to submit a question to President Putin. And one of the things that for me is utterly amazing is he takes all comers, the questions aren't really screened. You're able to ask him anything that's relevant to world events, and he will at times speak for two and three hours just openly engaging with the press. Absolutely. I can't imagine Joe Biden, I can't imagine Barack Obama, bill Clinton. I could see doing it, but because it's so, it's structured but unstructured.

Dr. Radhika Desai (05:12):

Yeah, I mean, you are absolutely right about that. And I think the fact that we have political leaders who can barely read a teleprompter, let alone talk for four hours to essentially unscripted questions. This is really quite interesting. But anyway, to get to the point, president Putin, I've asked questions before. So I remember earlier in a 2014 Valdi Club conference when I had a previous possibility of asking a question, it was completely unscripted. And I had asked him about his economic policies for Russia and why he wasn't being, shall we say, more developmental in his policies. In one of my criticisms of President Putin would be that his economic policies remain a bit too neoliberal even today. I mean, of course they've become much more developmental than they were in 2014, but that's a small point. But anyway, this time around

Dr. Wilmer Leon (06:05):

Minute, it's important I think for people to realize that not only is Vladimir Putin and attorney, he has a PhD in economics.

Dr. Radhika Desai (06:17):

Yes.

Dr. Wilmer Leon (06:18):

A lot of people don't know that.

Dr. Radhika Desai (06:21):

True. Exactly. And as I say, I mean, in fact, I have a very good friend of mine pointed this out to me years ago that Putin is one of the few people who can simply give speeches that are really interesting, historically informed as he did this time around, and then engage with the audience on unscripted questions, giving a wealth of information and detail about what his government is doing. So it is really quite interesting. But anyway, this time around in more recent years, we have been asked to submit questions. So I submitted a question last year, but I wasn't called upon to ask my question, but this year I was called upon, and the question, I actually hadn't submitted a question when we set off, but then the Canadian Parliament engaged in the most astonishing act, essentially the Canadian Parliament on the occasion of President Vome Zelinsky visit to Canada, invited to Parliament, a man, a very old man, a 98-year-old man who was billed as a great hero veteran who had fought against the Russians. And the entire Parliament stood up and clapped. And by the next day, however, essentially the, you know what had hit the fan and the entire country was a Russian news stories about how this man was a Nazi. Now, how could such a thing happen? The fact of the matter is we have a deputy prime minister who is of Ukrainian heritage, who has a PhD in Russian and Ukrainian studies. There's absolutely no way that the Canadian government did not know that it was bringing a Nazi to Parliament. There were

Dr. Wilmer Leon (08:08):

Hoka is his name.

Dr. Radhika Desai (08:11):

Exactly. So Mr. Hunka, the Parliament, not even a single person in the hundreds of people in Parliament actually thought to ask, wait a minute, if he was fighting the Russians in the Second World War, who was he fighting with? And then it emerged that he was a member of a certain Kian division in the Waff ss. And this was actually totally a collaborationist Nazi unit which had participated in the genocide of Jews, Russians polls, and of course, Roma President Putin, in response to my question, also reminded us that an uncounted number of Roma people had also been attacked by these people and eliminated by these people. So anyway, no one in parliament had the guts to ask this question. And to me, and the whole country, of course, was shocked and really, and I felt it was really important to give President Putin a chance to have his say on this matter, because which is the country that is most wronged by this, it is Russia. Because of course, the direct target of this action was of course Russia. We were applauding Mr. Hunker because he had fought the Russias. So what better thing to do than to ask the president of that country, who by the way, is also the target of a demonization campaign in the Western media.

(09:43)
It's as though Putin is some kind of a macabre, omnipotent person who runs everything in Russia. Everything that happens in Russia, and quite frankly, everything that happens abroad, which is not good, is usually attributed to Russia, which is so the point.

Dr. Wilmer Leon (09:59):

Russia, I even wonder, was he responsible for the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, and did he murder Jimmy Hoffa? I mean, he gets accused of everything.

Dr. Radhika Desai (10:11):

Of everything, exactly. And the fact is, we have to remember that if it had not been for the Russian contribution to the Second World War, if it had not been for the Russian effort, which cost Russia anywhere between 25 and 30 million lives, I mean, this is,

Dr. Wilmer Leon (10:27):

We'd all be speaking German now.

Dr. Radhika Desai (10:30):

Well, exactly. I mean, it was the critical contribution to the defeat. I mean, think about it this way. The Soviet Union rescued the capitalist west from its own, shall we say, from the very monster that it had created, namely fascism and Nazim. So in that sense, in this current war, which is essentially a proxy war, that the US is waging against Russia using Ukraine as proxies, fighting Russians, as John Muir Heimer likes to say, to the last Ukrainian in this war, all we hear in the West about Russia is of course the wall to wall propaganda that is everywhere. It's anti Putin and it's even anti-Russia. We are de platforming Dostoevsky and Tchaikovsky. I mean, this is ridiculous. And so it has gone to such an extent. And so one of our purposes in attending the conference was that we want to remain in touch.

(11:32)
We have many friends in Russia. We have had long collaboration with a whole variety of Russian scholars and academics, so why shouldn't we go? And in fact, just a few days before we were to arrive in Russia, the Canadian government imposed sanctions on Russia, and we immediately got down, Valdi wrote to us saying, we have have been sanctioned by your government. If you do not come, we would understand. Please make up your mind and let us know whether you'll be coming or not. We sat down and read the sanctions law. We realized that it does not apply to attending a conference. It applies essentially to doing business with providing buying and selling goods, providing finance, et cetera, et cetera. So these were the sorts of activities to which it applies. Anyway, so we decided to go and we went. And so essentially, I am being pilloried, we are being pilled foregoing at all.

(12:29)
And for asking this question, which according to the media gave, it was a sort of softball question to Putin, which allowed him to essentially talk about how ridiculous Canada had been. This was called by some people who are, of course, we can talk about who these people are as well, but they're highly politically motivated, and this was called morally reprehensible. I ask you, what is morally reprehensible for 400 plus people who are the elected representatives of the nation who have the, shall we say, the honor and dignity of the nation to maintain, to indulge in and act like this, and to applaud Mr. Somebody like Mr. Hunker, or is it reprehensible to ask the president of the country, which is already the target of so much attack, giving him a chance to say something meaningful about how bad Canada Canada's leaders have been? Essentially the entire political class in Canada, in a single act discredited itself. I mean, this is how bad things have got.

Dr. Wilmer Leon (13:36):

And as a result of this, your prime minister, Justin Trudeau, apologized profusely called the honoring of Mr. Hunka in your parliament, a joint session of Parliament as an accident. But here's what I find to be really, really confusing, is Zelensky was there, and Hunka was brought in as a kind of a tangential honoring of Zelensky. And what we know very clearly, even though many in Western mainstream media don't want to discuss this, is that with organizations like the Wright sector and the as Ofv Battalion in Ukraine, that there are Nazis many call, but they ain't nothing neo about 'em. They are Nazis who honor the late Stefan Bandera, who was a just brutal, horrific war criminal. And so all of this was orchestrated as a way to pay homage to Zelensky and then pay homage to the Nazis that the United States is paying training and organizing with in Ukraine. Now, is that rhetoric on my part or is that supported by the data?

Dr. Radhika Desai (15:09):

Absolutely supported by the data. I mean, and by the way, it's not just the United States, the Canada, and the Oh yeah, absolutely are also contributing to the training and equipping of this army, of which Nazis are such an important and big part. In fact, I would say they're the kind of cutting edge of the army. So absolutely this is the point. But the other thing that occurs to me when you were sort of reeling out all these facts is that we are often told when we point out that there are Nazis, Ukraine has a Nazi problem, we are told, oh, well, of course Ukraine has no Nazi problem because President Zelensky is Jewish,

Dr. Wilmer Leon (15:47):

A Jewish. So here

Dr. Radhika Desai (15:47):

You are, you want to respect this Jewish gentleman who is, and you bring a Nazi and applaud him in front of this guy. What kind of a ridiculous thing it is. Wilma, I think many people, of course, prime Minister Trudeau said, oh, it was a regrettable mistake. It was a tragic accident, et cetera. There was nothing accidental about it. The fact of the matter is that nobody gets into Parliament without being vetted. The people would've known there's an entire process of vetting, and even if there was no process of vetting, the fact of the matter is that our Deputy Prime Minister, Christia Freeland, is not only of Ukrainian origin in Canada, her ancestors have been the beneficiaries of laws that explicitly encouraged Nazis to immigrate to Canada in the post-second World War period at a time when it was difficult for Jews to immigrate to Canada.

(16:50)
Jews who had been fleeing what remained of the Jews in Europe who were fleeing Europe at the time, even they were not welcome in Canada, but the Nazis were welcome. And what's more Christia Freeland, she is the granddaughter of one of these people. Now, nobody can help who our parents and grandparents are. I mean, that's not her fault. But what she has done is she has consistently maintained that she's very proud of her grandfather. She believes he's a great hero, even though it has been revealed that he too was a close follower of Bandera, was working very closely with them. All this stuff has come out in the newspapers, and it has simply the mainstream press after one or two stories are published, they completely sort of forget about it. And Christia Freeland also has a PhD in Russian and Slavic studies. She speaks Russian, she speaks Ukrainian. She speaks many other European languages, absolutely no way. She did not know that Mr. Hunker was, this person was essentially a Nazi. So the idea that it was a mistake that only the speaker has to resign, and then everything is fine. This is completely ridiculous.

Dr. Wilmer Leon (18:12):

What, if anything, does this say to you about the broader issue or context of white supremacy? And what I mean by that is when I was in high school and learning history, oh, the Nazis were evil, Hitler was evil. All of that is true, and Hitler was vilified. The Nazis are vilified, and oh, the one thing you don't want to be called other than anti-Semitic, you don't want to be called a Nazi. But what we find out now is the United States worked with them in World War ii, the United States insured Safe Passage, and I say United States, and also in that is United States allies insured safe passage of a lot of Nazis to the United States, to Canada, to South America. So one, then I think this only begs the question was or was the conflict, or is the conflict not so much ideological, but procedural? Oh, because does that make sense? I think you got my question.

Dr. Radhika Desai (19:32):

Yeah. I mean, I think that of course, during the, first of all, in order to understand the second World War, you have to see in a certain sense, the first World War and the second World War as a single conflict, it was a single inter imperialist conflict. So in that sense, the First World War, everybody recognizes that it was an inter imperialist conflict in which although Western countries, the Anglo-American part of the west continues to maintain the silly idea of German guilt. In reality, all the imperialist powers, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, everybody included, were all equally complicit in the outbreak of the First World War. So there was this conflict, and then after it ended the versa, so-called Versailles settlement actually settled very little. It simply laid the foundations of the causes that would lead to the Second World War, because as I say, it settled very little.

(20:35)
So in that sense, the second World War also has to be seen as an inter imperialist conflict with one big difference. And that is that the Soviet Union and also Chinese forces, communists, but also nationalists, but mostly communists, these forces were the ones who were able to turn the tide and save the liberal west. I put this in quotes because, but in name, at least these were the liberal west as against the fascist west, and they were able to save the liberal west from the fascist west. But of course, contrary to the notion that somehow fascism and communism are closely connected, in fact, fascism is the progeny of capitalism. Many would say that once you get to the monopoly stage of capitalism, which we were at basically in the early 20th century, already fascism is inherent in the system. It is a permanent temptation, a permanent possibility. And it is not surprising by the way, that today we are seeing the resurgence of fascist forces. And this resurgence is also facilitated by something else you alluded to, which is that, so we fought the Nazis in the Second World War, but you know that before the onset of the Second World War, many major world leaders were sympathetic to the Nazis. Many major western leaders were sympathetic to the Nazis, to the fascists in Italy and so on. George

Dr. Wilmer Leon (22:06):

Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazis in World War ii.

Dr. Radhika Desai (22:11):

Very interesting, very interesting. I didn't know that. But yes, or people like Churchill and so on, they were secretly or openly the royal family for that matter, everything. So I mean this already then of course, there was this terrible war and the discovery of the Holocaust and all of these things, but even thereafter, in order to preserve capitalism, in order to ensure that the enormous sympathy that communism in general and the Soviet Union in particular had among the masses of Europe, would be pushed back essentially the West Connived in keeping many fascists in power in countries like Germany, Italy, and elsewhere. So in that sense, there was already this collaboration. And since that time, I mean, the fact of the matter is that, take for instance, something very recent, the Bernie Sanders Trump thing, Sanders campaign as a left-wing politician, he was absolutely not allowed to come anywhere near power. I mean, not within sniffing distance of power, but the election of Trump could be tolerated.

(23:27)
And so we see that fascist temptation is always there, and it is, the bias of the system is so much to the right. And today we are in this absolutely awful situation in which we have completely useless leadership, but the only opposition to this completely useless leadership that western countries have comes from the right because the left over the last so many decades has been completely beaten down. You began this conversation by asking about academic freedom and freedom of speech and what is happening. I should say, by the way, for the record, that my university has maintained the academic freedom stance, and I'm glad that is so that's very good. However, the fact that you can be pilled on Twitter and by personal emails that I'm sent on Facebook, et cetera, for essentially doing something very simple like putting a question in a conference, this kind of behavior, this kind of cancel culture that exists, this is essentially, you can say it is the verbal version of the sort of vigilante action which is associated with fascism. There's absolutely no doubt about it.

Dr. Wilmer Leon (24:47):

In this article that I referenced in the Open an Alumnus thoughts on professors' interactions with Russian President, I'm going to read a bit of it. I'm an alumnus of the Department of Political Studies, and I am a former student of Professor Desai. I cannot say that I aligned with all of her positions at the time, but after finding out that she had spent part of last week shilling for War Mongerer Putin, I found her actions to be particularly disgusting. The student continues, former student continues, A discussion club may seem like a noble endeavor in a free and democratic society. However, in Putin's Russia, public discourse is manipulated and dissenters are repressed and punished. I would be shocked if this Valdi forum was anything more than premeditated theater for Putin to stoke his own ego. Couple of things. One, if this was a former student of yours, this individual obviously didn't spend a lot of time paying attention in class.

(25:52)
That's the first point. And this idea that in Putin's Russia public discourse is manipulated, I would ask the individual that wrote this, if they know anything about Julian Assange and what the United States is doing, what Joe Biden is trying to do to Julian Assange, then this idea that public discourse is manipulated. This individual obviously knows nothing about what Tony Blinken did before he became Secretary of State trying to kill the story of Joe Biden's son Hunter and the Hunter Biden laptop story. So all of this is subterfuge and rhetoric, but this is just one example. There are what, five or six articles that have been written against you. Speak to that, please.

Dr. Radhika Desai (26:48):

Yeah, I mean, first of all, let me just say that this idea that there is no freedom of speech in Russia, and for that matter in China, I often encounter this because as it happens, I have a very big range of academic connections, both in Russia and China. And I visit these countries regularly for conferences and so on. And what I found is very ironic, but the actual spectrum of opinion in both of these countries in Russia and China is actually much broader. In all of these countries, you have sort of open expression of neoliberal positions on the one hand on the right, and then socialist positions on the other. And everything in between is at least expressed. Whereas what we find here is that there is a systematic suppression by the mainstream media of anything but a set of views within a fairly narrow spectrum of opinion.

(27:47)
And people like the author of this article, some of the authors of the reporters and others who have written other articles who have been participating in an attempt to create a Twitter storm against me, which hasn't been very successful. But nevertheless, the attempt is made. What these people do is they're sort of what I call the ankle biting little yappy dogs of the authorities who kind of try to do some of the little work for the authorities. So that's what they're trying to do. Now, I do want to say one or two other things about it. There is no doubt that there is a certain amount of censorship in Russia. For example, my very good friend Boris Kaki, who is one of the contacts, he's a very fine scholar, a very prominent historian, sociologist of Russia. He's also a political activist. He has run for parliament.

(28:37)
He works actively for essentially trying to promote some sort of socialism in Russia. Now, as it happens, he is deeply opposed to this war. I mean, I'm opposed to any war as well. I don't think it's a very good way of settling things. But by not entirely agreeing with Boris, I think that I understand his position. Anyway, Boris has essentially been jailed by some part of the state apparatus for essentially allegedly AB betting terrorism. I can't believe that. And few people who have been pillaring me for asking Putin this question about what happened in the Canadian parliament mentioned the fact that I had actually two things to ask President Putin. The first was about this matter that we've already discussed about the Canadian Parliament, and the second was a personal appeal that he himself look into the matter of Boris Kaki, along with some friends.

(29:37)
We delivered a letter to him, in which we also pointed out that there was absolutely nothing to be gained by doing this in any case. So my point is that there is a certain amount of censorship in these countries, but as you rightly point out, such censorship also exists in our country. Look at what we are doing to Julian Assange or Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning or a whole range of other academics who've actually lost their positions for the views they've expressed and so on. So I mean, this sort of persecution is going on all the time, but in the West, we don't just have this censorship of what I call the censorship of sticks. We also have the censorship of carrots. And what do I mean by that? Essentially, the entire media world and the academic world is manipulated by essentially giving out everybody, making it known that if you repeat what we want you to repeat, you will get a good job.

(30:36)
You will get promotion, you will get grants, you will get preferment, you'll get tenure, tenure. You'll get to hold the, that is the media. So all of these things are available provided you do certain things. And a lot of people, too many people, I would say most people in academia tend to fall for some version of this. I don't say all because there are still independent voices in academia and more power to them and more power to us. But nevertheless, too many people fall for this because it's just so easy and it's so convenient. So anyway, the point is that both of these forms of censorship exists, and what they have done is they have narrowed the spectrum of opinion.

(31:21)
And this is a very serious problem because the West is now part of the reason why nobody said anything in Parliament is because also in parliament where our leaders, our elected representatives are supposed to speak their mind, to represent the ordinary people. They are essentially not doing their job. So our political systems are broken. As a result, we desperately need to widen the spectrum of opinion to have more voices speaking out. This is key. Now, I think if we continue, because it's also fueling the wars that our countries are promoting around the world. Now we have, until recently we had Ukraine. Now we also have Israel Gaza, which is getting to be exceedingly dangerous. And tomorrow, by the way, we might have one with China.

Dr. Wilmer Leon (32:10):

And to your point about censorship and what's going on in Gaza, and to your student that talks about suppression in Russia, university of California, Berkeley law professor Stephen Davidoff Solomon called out some of his students for supporting anti-Semitic conduct on campus. What this law professor did was wrote a open letter to the law firms that he is in touch with telling them not to hire certain of his students who have proven to be pro-Palestinian. Quote, my students are largely engaged and well-prepared, and I regularly recommend them to legal employers. But if you don't want to hire people who advocate hate and practice discrimination, don't hire some of my students. anti-Semitic conduct is nothing new on university campuses, including here at Berkeley. That's just one example of the stifling pressure that academics are imposing upon their own students. We know what happened at Harvard, thank God the president of Harvard, I think her last name is professor President Gay, did not succumb to the requests and the pressure to turn over the names of Harvard students that were protesting in support of Palestine. I believe the same thing has happened at Columbia University. So these are just examples, real clear examples of how stifling the pressure can be in the United States.

Dr. Radhika Desai (33:59):

Absolutely. And when you do that with students, it's a bit like get them young, so that sort of slap them into shape before they get into bad habits sort of thing, according to the authorities. But this sort of thing is going on around the world in the uk. They're trying to ban the Palestinian flag and trying to essentially, they're persecuting people for going to pro-Palestinian demonstrations. But you know what? Wilmuth around the world, what we are seeing, especially in the Western world, is that the Western world's leaderships, which are all repeating the same mantra of Israel, has the right to defend itself completely ignoring the context, et cetera, the historical context and everything. They are completely out of touch with the vast majority of the people.

Dr. Wilmer Leon (34:51):

And they're ignoring international law.

Dr. Radhika Desai (34:55):

Indeed. And they, in fact, absolutely, they keep saying that they should abide by international law. But the fact of the matter is Israel is not abiding by international law. It has already declared that it is at war, but at the same time, it is essentially by corralling all the people of Gaza into Gaza, not allowing them to leave, depriving them of water, electricity, sanitation, bombing hospitals killing children over 2000 of them already. This is completely against international law and

Dr. Wilmer Leon (35:33):

It, it's called collective punishment. And collective punishment is a war crime. Now, I don't think you're making that up. I know I'm not making that up. If you pay any attention to the International criminal court, if you know anything about, and this conversation is not anti-Semitic Pro, international law and collective punishment is a war crime.

Dr. Radhika Desai (36:06):

Absolutely. And it is. It is also pro justice. I mean, at the end of the day, what these people

Dr. Wilmer Leon (36:11):

And pro morality

Dr. Radhika Desai (36:14):

And promo, they decontextualize, everything Hamas, everything begins in this discussion of the West today. Everything begins from the 7th of October when Hamas attacked Israelis and killed many of them and so on. But the fact that Palestinians have been living, Palestinians have had their land occupied since 1948 and before 1948, this is completely forgotten the fact that Palestinians have been displaced, that the Palestinians have the right to resist, and they have the right to self-determination. All of these things are completely swept under the carpet. It's really shocking. And this is entirely a result of the fact that the spectrum of opinion has been narrowed. The forms of censorship that I pointed out earlier operate both in media and in scholarship, so that more and more we are hearing either completely irrelevant things or things that are only repeating what the authorities want repeated.

Dr. Wilmer Leon (37:17):

And let me give an example of that. President Obama published an op-ed thoughts on Israel and Gaza, and I'm going to read the three opening paragraphs. It's been 17 days since Hamas launched its horrific attack against Israel, killing over 1400 Israeli citizens, including defenseless women, children, and the elderly. In the aftermath of such unspeakable brutality, the US government and the American people have shared in the grief of families, prayed for the return of loved ones and rightly declared solidarity with the Israeli people. As I stated in an earlier post, Israel has a right to defend its citizens against such wanton violence. And I fully support President Biden's call for the US to support our longtime ally in going after Hamas, dismantling its military capabilities and facilitating the safe return of hundreds of hostages. But even as we support Israel, we should also be clear how Israel prosecutes this fight against Hamas matters. In particular, it matters as President Biden has repeatedly emphasized that Israel's military strategy abides by international law, including those laws that seek to avoid to every extent possible, the death or suffering of civilian populations. I just wanted to read the opening here because this is really where I formulated the earlier question to you about white supremacy. And this being not a matter of ideology, but a matter of strategy. Because what I take away, there are a number of fallacies in what Obama wrote, but what I take away in that last paragraph is Obama saying this slaughter, slaughter Hamas, as you want to just be a little nicer in how you go about doing it,

Dr. Radhika Desai (39:13):

But it gets worse than that Wilma, because the very next paragraph. So it says all of these things that we should try to avoid as much as possible, not try to avoid, only try to avoid as much as possible, which is already a big qualifier. But then, or

Dr. Wilmer Leon (39:29):

Don't do it because you're violating international law.

Dr. Radhika Desai (39:33):

That's right. Yeah. How about that? He already is giving Israel a free pass there, but then he says, this is an enormously difficult task, so trying to minimize the suffering of the civilian population is already too difficult, so it may not be possible to minimize it anyway. And then he says, the United States has fallen short of this high values when we are engaged in war. And then he says, it is understandable that Israelis have demanded that their governments do whatever it takes to root out Hamas. And then he repeats the, oh my God, if I hear it one more time, my head will explode. They are using civilians as human shields. So he repeats this old trope that the Israeli government sources never fail to repeat. And so the thing is that this whole thing is really a gift. He's doing nothing. He seems to be calling for sympathy for Palestinians and so on, but Israel has rights.

(40:39)
Palestinians only have our sympathies. And there is a big difference. Sympathies is, at the end of the day, an empty sentiment, especially if it is not backed up with action, of real support, of real solidarity, of a real, even-handed attempt to try to, I mean, the whole thing is, I talked about the earlier history, the fact that Palestinians have, have had that land occupy for decades. So all of these things are true. And throughout this time, the United States has always intervened in this situation in a way that is heavily loaded in favor of Israel while trying as best as possible to make a show of even handedness. The fact of the matter is that this article by Obama, which completely supports the Biden administration, essentially is just repeating what the Biden administration is doing, and it is simply showing the pronounced US bias in favor of Israel. And he says at one point he says that we should try to minimize civilian casualties because it'll otherwise alienate the people of the world. The fact of the matter, it's

Dr. Wilmer Leon (41:58):

Bad for business

Dr. Radhika Desai (42:01):

And it's bad for business. But also the fact is that at this rate, there will, and he says that there will not be enough actors in the region who support Israel's right to exist and also support the Palestinians will not be able to broker a deal. But at the rate at which Israel is going and the way in which the United States is completely behind Israel, there will be very few actors in the region who will continue to recognize Israel's right to exist because the street will not allow them, the ordinary people. I already read in today's newspaper a report that the Tunisian parliament is going to outlaw any kind of normalization of relations with Israel, and also essentially prevented citizens from engaging in any kind of contact with Israelis. So this is already one of the reactions. And I would say that if as the collective punishment of Gaza continues, as children continue to be killed in Gaza, the whole world is going to turn against Israel. It's not good for Israel, actually, for the way in which this is unfolding.

Dr. Wilmer Leon (43:14):

Libya, I believe, has taken a similar action as Tunisia is taking. And we know that based upon the Abraham Accords that the United States was trying to broker reproach monk between Saudi Arabia and the Zionist colony of Israel, and that as a result of Hamas' action, the Saudis have put that whole thing on hold because to your point, they see what's happening in the street and they don't want to be overthrown following the United States down this rabbit hole. And they see what's happened in Ukraine. They see what the United States is doing relative to Taiwan, and they see that's a formula for World War iii.

Dr. Radhika Desai (44:10):

Absolutely. And I just like to add one other thing. I mentioned street. You mentioned street. The fact what we know is that you, many, many of the governments of the Middle East, including Arab countries, would have been happy to compromise with Israel. But what has held them back, what has kept the Palestinian cause on the front burner throughout all this time is popular protest and P, we talk about how the Arab Street has been essentially the defender of the Palestinian cause, the people who have essentially not allowed it to be snuffed out. But today, I would say that people in the West are also fed up with this one sided support. I mean, I'm reading in the papers not only about big demonstrations in the capitals and big cities of Middle Eastern countries, but throughout Europe as well, and also in North America. I mean, you folks, you've had huge demonstrations in your big cities in the United States. We've had big demonstrations. London apparently had a demonstration that was 300,000 strong, which is the biggest demonstration of its sort since the 2003 February, 2003 demonstrations against the Iraq War, which were historic, as you will remember.

(45:30)
And already, it's such an irony because Kier has become the leader of the Labor Party precisely on the antisemitism bandwagon where anybody who supports Palestine is essentially branded as Antisemite. Kier and his gang have essentially participated in a process of pushing out Jeremy Cobin as the leader of the Labor Party on these completely flimsy grounds. But today, STAMA is facing a revolt from within his own party because he, like all the other Western leaders, is essentially backing the US position and the Israel position. Without question. I mean, people are saying, look, folks, there's got to be a ceasefire. There's got to be a negotiated settlement. Anybody with a small amount of knowledge of the Palestinian Israeli situation can easily see that, but the leaders cannot, and they are really getting say, completely unstuck from the people who support they will need come the next election.

Dr. Wilmer Leon (46:40):

The title of the show is Connecting the Dots. Is it hyperbolic for me to look at, again, Ukraine, look at what the United States is trying to do with Taiwan, and look at how now the United States is involved in this conflict in Palestine and see similar traits. And I'm just using the three most recent events. I don't have to go too far back in history. I can talk about Afghanistan, I can talk about Iraq, but just looking at where we are right now, again, Ukraine, Taiwan, Juan, and Palestine. Am I wrong to connect those dots?

Dr. Radhika Desai (47:24):

Absolutely. No. And you know what? All three of them are interesting proxy wars. And by the way, the United States has developed the idea or developed the practice of proxy wars into a fine art because the United States used Islamic fundamentalists to fight Russia in Afghanistan, for example, and other such. There have been many such ways in which they have done so in the present context. Yes. So the United States,

Dr. Wilmer Leon (47:53):

The United States is doing that in Congo right now.

Dr. Radhika Desai (47:56):

Yes, exactly.

Dr. Wilmer Leon (47:57):

Doing the same thing in

Dr. Radhika Desai (47:57):

Congo. The United States is fighting Russia via using Ukrainians. The United States hopes one day to fight China using the Taiwanese. And today, think about this, what is probably given the possibility that if Israel stages a land invasion of Gaza today, it may be very difficult for Iran to stay uninvolved. And Iran has been the consistent defender of Palestinian rights throughout this period. Really an important and interesting point now in this context, then what will happen, the United States will use Israelis to fight Iran. And so again, as I like to say, everyone who's in our countries in the US and Canada who's saying we are standing up for Ukraine, et cetera, et cetera, they are the ones contributing to the destruction of Ukraine. And it may ironically be the case that everyone who will say we stand up for Israel's rights to exist, et cetera, et cetera, and to defend itself, will essentially be contributing to the destruction of Israel. So there may be one of the biggest ironies of all,

Dr. Wilmer Leon (49:08):

You mentioned people standing up and saying that they're trying to prevent the destruction of Ukraine, but what they are also supporting in that is a destruction of the United States. Because when you look at the budget, when you, I think very recently, or Joe Biden's now trying to get another 125 billion to be sent to Ukraine, and people need to understand what this money is doing. The United States is paying the salaries of Ukrainian civil servants. The United States is paying for the pensions of Ukrainian civil servants when the UAW is on strike in the United States trying to get pensions restored in the United States. All of this under the pretext of democracy and defending democracy, when it was the United States in 2014 with the Maidan coup that went in and overthrew the democratically elected jankovich government in Ukraine, which was the precipitant to where we are today, the hypocrisy in all of this is nauseating.

Dr. Radhika Desai (50:28):

And also when they say, I mean anybody knows when the United States says that it's defending human rights and democracy, what it's really doing is first of all, it's using usually some sections of the middle class as essentially the protesters who will protest against the government that the United States does not like, et cetera. So they're again using them as instruments and appealing to their liberal principles, et cetera. But more to the point that the kinds of rights and freedoms the United States wants to see realized in all the other countries of the world are those rights and those freedoms of US corporations to go there and do as they please engage in whatever economic activity that they want to, and all sorts of exploitative activities that they want to get into. So that's what the defense of human freedom and human rights actually amounts to. Anyway. And then on top of that, the irony is that the United States requires all its partner countries. Whoever wants anything from the United States must enact neoliberal policies. What are neoliberal policies? They're precisely the policies that make democracy impossible, because in a capitalist society, you cannot have anything like a functioning democracy without making some substantial material concessions in the form of good wages, good welfare states, et cetera, to the ordinary people. But this is precisely what is made impossible. So what is there for ordinary people to vote for?

Dr. Wilmer Leon (52:05):

And that's a great, great point. And there's something else I think from a societal and a cultural perspective that needs to be taken into account here. And that is the United States, and this has been a stated objective since this whole Ukraine conflict started. The United States wants to engage in regime change in Russia. They want to get rid of Vladimir Putin. But I've seen independent polls, and what I mean independent, I mean from Princeton University and other US Ivy League institutions that say over 86% of Russian people support their government. I've seen independent polls from, again, American institutions, 96% of the Chinese people support President Xi and the Chinese government, we tried to overthrow Ade in Syria. He won the last election with 86% of the vote. And I have friends of mine that were election observers in Syria who said, free and fair election. Same thing with Maduro in Venezuela, free and fair elections. So my point is there forms of democracy because of their histories and their cultures are different than our form of democracy. But that doesn't mean they're not valid. That doesn't mean they're not supported by the people, and that means that does not mean that they should not be supported by us.

Dr. Radhika Desai (53:44):

Absolutely. I mean, I remember I used to teach a course on democracy and capitalism, and my students had to read this particular text written in the seventies by CB McPherson, a very important Canadian Marxist philosopher, but also very widely respected. And you read there in the seventies, it was completely natural for people to say, you know what? We may have our form of democracy, but it is a liberal democracy. But in the communist countries, which existed at that time, they also have their own form of democracy, and that's a different one. And third world countries are trying to realize their own forms of democracy. So this type of pluralism had to be accepted because the fact that the Soviet Union existed was an important restraint, constituted an important restraint on the West and on the United States. The moment the Soviet Union has ceased to exist, the United States has gone full fledged into this completely delusional quest for supremacy around the world, which is an impossible quest.

(54:48)
The United States can never enjoy that form of supremacy, but the problem with the United States is failing that it has no plan B. So US leaders keep trying to achieve that supremacy, as you rightly put it, destroying the United States itself in that process. But also I would say, of course, causing mayhem around the world, causing economic crises, wars, financial crises across the board, essentially making people's lives a misery. I mean, it's no wonder that China is today welcomed with open arms in so many countries where the United States and the West more generally have historically visited very little but abuse on these countries.

Dr. Wilmer Leon (55:34):

We have just about probably four minutes left and you saying that just made me think. When you listen to President Putin, he talks about the shift away from the unipolar dynamic to a multipolar dynamic. When you listen to President Xi, he talks about the shifting away from a unipolar dynamic to a multipolar dynamic. And I just heard Joe Biden say recently, we're getting the sense that the world is shifting and we need to consider a new world order. I've heard that before. And then he says, and the new world order needs to be led by the United States. I said, Joe Biden, man, you are, if not senile, you are at least out of your mind.

Dr. Radhika Desai (56:28):

Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, as I said, there is a certain level of delusion. I mean recently, I can't remember the exact words, but President Joe Biden was asked whether the United States could fight a two front war, and he said, of course we are. Of course we can. Of course we can. We're the United States. I mean, the fact of the matter is Wilma, if you think about it, and you are the historian, I'm not. But if you think about it, the United States has never won a single war, which it has fought on its own. I mean, not counting it later,

Dr. Wilmer Leon (57:01):

Ii, since World War ii, the United States, maybe we could say Grenada, and maybe we could say Panama, other than those two, the United States hasn't won a thing where didn't win Vietnam. I could tick off the didn't win. Afghanistan didn't win. Iraq we're like, oh, for five.

Dr. Radhika Desai (57:26):

And so the question arises. We are told in the same breath that the United States, we are told that the United States spends almost a trillion dollars a year on its military. What good does that do if the United States can't win wars?

Dr. Wilmer Leon (57:44):

What if the United States spent a trillion dollars on its infrastructure? Dr. Radika Desai, how can people reach you and connect and read your work?

Dr. Radhika Desai (57:54):

Well, my email is very easy to find. So if you just Google ika dea, university of Manitoba, you'll find my email and my website is ika dea.com.

Dr. Wilmer Leon (58:05):

I want to thank my guest, Dr. Rika Desai for joining me today, and thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wilmer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share my show, follow us on social media. You'll find all the links below in the show description. And remember, folks, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge because talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wier Leon. Have a good one. Peace