Rockwell: Well, good morning. This is the Lew Rockwell Show. And what a treat we have today to have Professor Stephen F. Cohen as our guest. Professor Cohen is the author of many books. I tried to count them. I find it very difficult to get the number but it seems to me it’s probably more than the proverbial five-foot shelf of books. Just extraordinary books on the Soviet Union, on Russia. And he’s professor emeritus at Princeton University and at New York University. His most recent book is War with Russia?. And I like the quote he has at the bottom of the book, where he’s called “the most controversial Russia expert in America.” We know what that means. It means the most truth telling. They don’t mean it that way but that’s what it does mean, the most truth-telling Russia expert.
So it’s just tremendous to have you, sir.
Cohen: I’m very happy to be with you. And I think both, as you know – though, undoubtably, I’m older than you are – I’m older than almost everybody – that –
Rockwell: I don’t know about that.
War with Russia?: From...
Best Price: $8.99
Buy New $8.50
(as of 02:15 UTC - Details)
Cohen: — that what is called controversial today probably was not so controversial in many ways a decade or two ago. So this is part of the problem.
Rockwell: No, it’s quite something. And I was especially struck by your saying that unless John Brennan and James Clapper can be required to testify under oath about the real origins of Russia-gate that there’s too much of a chance of the U.S. actually waging war on Russia.
Cohen: Well, I don’t know I you feel about this. I wrote a chapter of the book about two years ago when this Russia-gate fraud was unfolding and the title was, Intel-gate, meaning the intelligence services are Russia-gate. And now that we have Mueller’s report, it seems to be that there’s a cardinal question. I don’t want anybody to go to prison, but we need to know how this Russia-gate fraud began two or three years ago. And there is evidence that it began with our intelligence services. And I don’t mean primarily the FBI, but the CIA, with Brennan and Clapper. The reason we need to know that, I think, Mr. Rockwell, is that, not to punish anybody, but if it’s true that the American intelligence services were way off the reservation, that is, in trying to destroy Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, we know they have now abused their powers in ways that they could do so again. And that’s something we just need to know no matter what our politics are.
Rockwell: Professor, it seems to me like it’s like some earlier movie about Cold War crimes and starting wars and Dr. Strangelove and that sort of thing. It seems like it’s all coming true.
Cohen: So, I mean, everything is generational in terms of what we remember and how we see what’s going on today. I lived through the latter part of the preceding 40-year Cold War. And the extreme things said in the United States and also in the Soviet Union about America were very dangerous. There was a demonizing of the other. And we went through the period known as McCarthyism, where American citizens, for just having their own thoughts about international relations, were badly damaged.
I have to say that I don’t remember it being this bad as it’s been the last couple of years, back then. For this reason, back then, particularly in the ‘70s and ‘80s, when I entered the field of Russian studies and public life, it was two hands clapping in this country. You had a lot of people in this country saying, this is not the way to talk, this is not the way to conduct relations with the other nuclear superpower. But today, there’s just a handful of us – yourself included – I know who are saying that this is dangerous and that if we’re going to avoid some sort of catastrophic outcome in our relations with Russia, or any other country, we need to have a vigorous debate in this country about the issues, and we have not had it. For two years, we’ve slipped ever – three years maybe – ever deeper into a new and more dangerous Cold War. That’s the overarching thesis of my new book, War with Russia?. And we have done so without any public debate whatsoever. That’s what’s unprecedented on the American side.
By the way, what I’m talking about is debated everyday inside Russia, on television, in the mass media. And there are more than one or two sides to this issue. The question is, who is responsible for the new Cold War, how do we get out of it. There’s a robust debate about this in Russia but not in the United States. And that, too, is bad news.
Rockwell: It’s very bad news. And are there actually people who think that the U.S. could start a war, perhaps even an atomic war against Russia, and the U.S. itself not be damaged? I mean, do they really think that? Are they willing to take X number of casualties as long as they’re under a mountain in West Virginia?
Cohen: So that’s a really good question. And I think the answer is complicated and long. But let me give you what I think in my judgment is the short version. In 2002, President Bush withdrew the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Now, the importance of that treaty was that neither side could deploy so-called missile defense systems because both sides, American and Russian, needed to know that if they attacked with nuclear weapons, they, too, would be destroyed. But the assumption of missile defense was that the United States could obtain a so-called first-strike capability and survive. So what did Russia do? And this is almost reported not at all here. Russia, under Putin, quickly, efficiently, and apparently successfully, developed a new generation of nuclear weapons, attack weapons, called hypersonic. And they were designed to elude, escape, avoid, defy any missile defense system, upon which we have spent trillions of dollars, that we could install anywhere. I believe they were successful. So we’re now in a new and dangerous moment. There are people in the United States who still think that we could first strike Russia with a nuclear weapon and not – and that missile defense would protect us from retaliation. That is no longer true, if it ever was. And yet, we hear among the Dr. Strangeloves among us – and by the way, there are probably a few in Russia, too – the Dr. Strangeloves who nonetheless say we can survive a first strike against the other. But what does survive mean? Who? Who many? What? It certainly wouldn’t be civilization as we know it today. So this talk is dangerous.
When you hear the word — recently, for example, our generals have talked about controlling the radiation, the fallout of nuclear weapons and, therefore, make them, and I quote, “usable.” I mean, you and I grew up at a time when, as Reagan said – it was important. Remember, Reagan was very Cold War at one time – “No one can win a nuclear war, therefore, nuclear war must never be fought.” That was the premise upon which he carried out his attempt of a great détente with the Soviet Union under Gorbachev. But that premise, that nobody could win a nuclear war, has been forgotten.
Rockwell: Wow. It’s something quite extraordinary. I mean, you’re perhaps not the sole voice taking the correct position. But at one time, wouldn’t you have had a number of supporters on the left? And is that true today?
Cohen: Yes and no. It’s interesting the way you formulate that. In the ‘70s and ‘80s, again, when I entered public affairs in the sense of being an advocate for détente and ending the nuclear arms race and the rest, we – and I was young then – had tons of very senior supporters: CEOs of corporations who wanted to do business in the Soviet Union, in Congress, in the mainstream media, aides to the president, sitting members of Congress, Senators, members of the House. It was a different time. Today, we have almost none. But, Mr. Rockwell, here’s the interesting thing. The left has never been outstanding on this issue. Most of the pro-détente forces in this country, say, in the ‘70s and ‘80s, were among conservatives, as were most of the CEOs of major American corporations.
Remember also – and this is something I don’t know if anybody’s ever told Trump but they should, because he’s never mentioned it. When he said he wanted to cooperate – when President Trump said, when he was Candidate Trump, he wanted to cooperate with Russia, you remember that, right?
Rockwell: Yes. Of course.
Cohen: And a lot of people got angry with him.
Rockwell: Not me.
Cohen: Not me. Not you and not me. And they remain angry at him.
Rockwell: Yes. Yes.
Cohen: So he can’t cooperate with Russia.
In his own, non-wonky, non-historical language, Trump was saying he wanted détente with Russia, because détente means to try to cooperate instead of have all these conflicts. And that’s what he said in his own kind of real-estate way. If you look back at the 20th century, whether you lived it or you want to read about it – you can look it up, as Casey Stengel used to say; he was a baseball manager – the three major episodes of détente, that is cooperation with Russia, then Soviet Russia, were Republican presidents, Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan. No Democratic president made détente as important a policy as did those three Republican presidents. So Trump is in the tradition of American Republican presidents, even though he may not know it. And somebody should tell him, by the way.
Rockwell: That’s a great point. In my little circle of Libertarians and conservatives, there’s always been – we’ve always been pro-peace. But that’s, of course, unusual, too. But it seems like we’re all needed more than ever right now to try to wake people up but, I mean, the propaganda is such that it’s tough to cut through it.
Cohen: So I was arguing in this book – a lot of people don’t agree with me because they think that the grassroots, whatever that will be, will save us. But I argue in the book, War with Russia?, that we need a leader; we need leadership. Foreign policy has changed at the top and we don’t have time to build a grassroot movement to stop this new nuclear arms race that I just described. So who do we have? Well, I’m from Kentucky. Rand Paul is a Senator from Kentucky. But that’s not the reason I say to you that Rand Paul has been almost alone in the United States Senate in opposing this new Cold War. Now, he characterizes himself as a Libertarian. And I don’t know enough about the Libertarian movement. Maybe I should know more to know if he’s widely regarded among Libertarians as an authentic Libertarian. But if we were to ask each other, is there is a Libertarian, is there a leader anywhere near the top, I think today, we have to say it’s Rand Paul. And he’s taken some nasty blows for advocating a new cooperation or détente with Russia. They’ve slurred him.
Bukharin and the Bolsh...
Best Price: $4.00
Buy New $10.00
(as of 03:30 UTC - Details)
Rockwell: It’s true. Of course, there was his dad, who was and still is entirely a man of peace. But I think you’re right that Rand Paul is the only office holder. On the other hand, the Libertarian movement has moved left in all the wrong ways so that they are pro-war and constantly chanting SJW slogans and that sort of thing.
Cohen: Oh.
Rockwell: So Rand represents sort of an older Libertarianism of his father. So that’s excellent.
Cohen: It’s more than excellent. And I think that anybody who knows Senator Paul should tell him that we’re counting on him to provide more and more visible leadership.
But let me give you an example of what happened to him. He went to Russia, I think, last summer in August. just to talk to Russian policy makers and inform himself about their thinking. That seems a patriotic thing to do to me, and not objectionable, and something that American presidents and Senators did throughout the 20th century. One idea he had was – I don’t know if you know this, but there used to be a formal exchange program between the American Congress and the Russia equivalent, which was good because Congress members on both sides went back and forth, they had meetings. So it meant that we had an official channel of dialogue, we had a very high level, in addition to or apart from the presidency. And that was a very successful program. Some wackos in Congress cancelled it. So Senator Paul got the notion – I will admit I may have given it to him – that we should restore this. So he goes to Moscow. I mean, you would have to ask him, but I believe he found a receptive audience in Moscow among members of their equivalent of the Senate or the House, and said, yes, we’d like to restore this institutional exchange. So he comes back to Washington and he tells his colleagues and the media that this is possible, and he’s denounced as somehow being – I don’t know what the words is – unpatriotic. But if that idea, which would certainly protect us from war in an important way and, therefore, promote peace, is regarded as unacceptable, an exchange with the Russian congress so they can talk, where are we at today?
I think one result of Russia-gate has been to criminalize such, quote, “contacts.” I mean, all sorts of contacts were developed with Soviet Russia, by the American government, by scholars, by cultural figures in the 20th century, and that helped keep us safe from nuclear war, literally. I don’t exaggerate, Mr. Rockwell. If you look at the accusations made against Trump and his associates in the media, “contacts” – that’s their word – are criminalized.
Rockwell: Yes.
Cohen: I mean, they could indict me and put me away for the rest of my life, however brief the remainder is, because I’ve had thousands of contacts with Russians, high and low, over the years, and continue to have them. So when they say that an exchange with Russian policy makers is somehow a suspicious contact, this is a desperate situation.
Rockwell: Do you think that Clapper and Brennan will be called upon to testify?
Cohen: It’s really interesting, isn’t it? I don’t know if you listen to – and I don’t want my wife or anybody to know that I actually watch “Hannity” from time to time. I’ve got enough problems as it is. But I did turn it to “Hannity,” and it turned out, I didn’t know it, he had nearly an hour-long interview, an audio interview with President Trump. And this question came up. Trump is focused on the FBI because it’s been documented, some of the very bad illegal things, high members, officials of the FBI, did to/against the Trump campaign. And this is known. I mean, even the FBI – I guess he’s called the inspector general – has found this. And a number of these people have been exposed and resigned. Some may face criminal prosecution, which I don’t favor. But what is interesting is that Trump never mentioned the CIA. And yet, he knows. He knows the role that Brennan, who would have had to do it with Clapper, because Clapper headed that office, what’s it called, the Office of National or Defense Intelligence. He was the overseer, the overlord of the CIA. All the evidence points to Brennan as having been, in some way, the Godfather of Russia-gate. And yet, Trump won’t mention him.
Do you remember that Senator Schumer warned Trump, not in a friendly way, when Trump was critical of the intelligence agencies during the campaign, or maybe after he was president? Schumer, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, warned Trump, I don’t remember the exact quote, but if you mess with those people over at the CIA, they can mess you up every day of the week and twice on Sunday. He said something like that. Do you remember that?
Rockwell: I sure do, yes.
Cohen: So what did that mean? I mean, Schumer was standing in front of a microphone with prepared notes. That wasn’t off the cuff. Trump was being sent a warning, I think, by the representatives of the CIA and other intelligence services that he better not mess with them. I think it’s possible that President Trump still doesn’t want to mess with them because he knows that most of this Russia-gate stuff came from them. And it’s not over yet. But I would like to see – and I don’t want anybody to go to prison. I would like to see – are you old enough to remember the Church Commission –
Rockwell: Oh, gosh, I sure do.
Cohen: So Frank Church was from Idaho, I think.
Rockwell: Yes.
Cohen: And he was a fairly characteristic Democratic liberal. But he was deeply worried that the intelligence services were off the reservation. And with a very conservative – I think it was John Tower but I don’t remember, conservative Republican from Texas — they formed a bipartisan Senate commission to look into – this was back in the ‘70s – what the intelligence services had been doing. And what they found out is that they were assassinating people; they were planting false stories in the American media; they were tapping our phones. We didn’t have social media then and e-mail. But they were way off the reservation. So they passed – and people can go and Google them, the Church Commission or Church Committee – six volumes of recommendations to reform these agencies. Well, the reforms didn’t work. What we need – whether you’re a Libertarian, a Republican, a Democrat, a lefty, a righty, conservative or liberal, we need the most trans-partisan official investigation of the origins of Russia-gate and the role played in those origins by the intelligence services. We need to know that so that it won’t happen again. But, but is it possible? Well, if you’re a patriot, you would say it’s not only possible, it’s necessary. But these days, the Democrats, for example, would never go along and I’m not sure how many Republicans would. Maybe we don’t want to know what’s been going on there.
Rockwell: It’s quite extraordinary. I remember, as a boy, getting copies of all the Church Reports.
Cohen: Yes.
Rockwell: Which you can still get from the Government Printing Office. It’s really extraordinary stuff. And of course, you know it’s 10 times or 100 or 1000 times worse today.
Cohen: Well, maybe you’re right, Mr. Rockwell. Maybe it’s many-fold worse. But the fact is neither you nor I know because it’s so secret. So it’s reasonable for all of us, regardless of where we are on the political spectrum, because it affects everyone, from left to right, from Libertarian to non-Libertarian. These people have immense power and it’s secret. So I would think that anybody who cares about this country, from any perspective, whether it’s civil liberties or national security, would join in calling for an open investigation.
And I would go farther. I would say that everybody who testifies under oath would be guaranteed immunity from prosecution for anything they did in the past during Russia-gate, for example. But if they lie under oath during this investigation, they will be prosecuted for perjury. So start all over. Nobody goes to jail for what they did in the past. But they go to jail if they lie about what they did in the past. I think that would be a fair way to proceed.
Rockwell: Well, it’s a tremendous idea. It’s certainly something that’s unbelievably needed. And the CIA has been a rotten organization from the days it was founded and, really, I guess, its OSS predecessors, too. And they’re out of control so something has to be done or we’re just going to have a totalitarian warfare state.
Rethinking the Soviet ...
Buy New $20.19
(as of 02:35 UTC - Details)
Cohen: So the question is, something has to be done, and what is it. And you and I may disagree on a lot of issues. My wife disagrees with me on a lot of issues. My friends disagree with me on a lot of issues. But if we can agree on this, that we need to know what happened, what the intelligence agencies were doing, we ought to be able to agree on this. So I guess the answer is, all of us, from our position on the political spectrum, push for this. Not in a malicious way, not in “send them to jail and lock them up,” but that there is forgiveness if you tell the truth about what happened; not if you perjure yourself when you testify now. If all of us were to push for this idea, we might get some traction.
Rockwell: It’s a tremendous idea. And just the latest tremendous idea from you. Your extraordinary life, the scholarship and pro-peace studies and pro-peace activism is an inspiration to all of us, Professor Cohen. And –
Cohen: Well, I appreciate that. I don’t know it’s true. But some people ask me, how did you get to be emeritus, which means retired with benefits, at two universities. Because I’m emeritus at Princeton and New York University. And the answer is simple; you get really old. You need a lot of years to be emeritus. However, it comes with benefits. I have terrific medical insurance from two universities. So as one of my mothers-in-law, my first one, used to say, getting old ain’t easy but it does have some benefits. And one is remembering what has happened. Because we are so non-historical, ahistorical in the way we discuss our public affairs today, that that may be the worst, that we learn lessons we’ve long since forgotten.
Rockwell: Professor Cohen, thank you. Keep it up. Thanks so much for coming on the show today. And of course, we’ll offer your book and all of your other books as well with this podcast. And you’re wonderful.
Cohen: Well, I mean, you and I are the only two not. I’m joking. But I’m very grateful for the opportunity to speak to your people, to be on your platform, and to talk to you personally since we’ve never met.
Rockwell: Thank you, sir.
Cohen: Best regards.
Rockwell: Bye-bye.
Well, thanks so much for listening to the Lew Rockwell Show today. Take a look at all of the podcasts. There have been hundreds of them. There’s a link on the LRC front page. Thank you.
Sovieticus: American P...
Best Price: $1.36
Buy New $12.95
(as of 03:50 UTC - Details)
Voices of Glasnost
Best Price: $2.05
Buy New $11.80
(as of 03:50 UTC - Details)
Failed Crusade: Americ...
Best Price: $4.99
Buy New $15.00
(as of 02:50 UTC - Details)
Soviet Fates and Lost ...
Best Price: $3.78
Buy New $21.50
(as of 03:40 UTC - Details)
