Daniel Ellsberg Forever Wars Ukraine

Daniel Ellsberg on Nuclear War and Ukraine

By Paul Jay / theAnalysis.news

Daniel Ellsberg discusses the significance of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the growing danger of nuclear war with U.S. and NATO.

Paul Jay


  1. A realistic fear of nuclear war, delivered in a cloud of delusional nonsense.

    Nuclear war is scarily possible, but as Ellsberg recognizes, it is far more likely to be initiated by the losing side: both sides have reserved the right to resort to nukes in the face of an “existential threat”.

    Western media propaganda notwithstanding, Russia is winning this war. Not just the ground war in Ukraine, but the unprecedented economic war unleashed by the US and its allies’ sanctions.

    And far from being an international pariah state (like Biden hypocritically promised he would make Saudia Arabia), Russia has significant allies (especially China), and around the world, more countries are neutral rather than actively attacking Russia economically with sanctions.

  2. doubtful that emperor gates and US ruling class wants a major war—the peasants do obviously…US ruling class is aware of consequences—they only permit low intensity proxy wars which US always loses, to destabilize…USA only attacks defenseless nations; nuclear DPRK will never be invaded

  3. Very disappointing from Ellsberg. Like Chomsky, his later rantings are now nowhere near the perceptive way he viewed events until recently.

  4. You can’t get to square one as long as you falsely depict this crisis as a matter of “Russia invading Ukraine.” This is Zelensky’s war, largely financed by the US. Too complex for a simple post, but a key factor to Russia’s involvement is a situation caused by Zelensky since taking power in 2019, best described as “ethnic cleansing.” It’s now quite clear that his goal is the eradication of Russian Ukrainians, many of whom have lived in Ukraine (former part of the Soviet Union) for generations. To understand, consider having a US administration that decided to eradicate Mexican Americans. How would you respond? In this case, Russia has maintained “corridors” in Ukraine, trying to delivery aid and assist Russian Ukrainians who are trying to flee. THIS is what the US calls a “Russian invasion.”

  5. Daniel Ellsberg is so wrong on facts and international law that it is very painful to listen.

    Does it have anything to do with perhaps elderly infantilism?

    Because I see this kind of collapse of capability of rational analysis of complex processes among too many formerly sober, political realists of high intelligence and knowledge in the past recently acquiring what amounts to selective amnesia and subjective reasoning that Horkheimer attributed to German Fascism that played universal victimhood card. In political reality not all victims are blameless and often it is they who provoke violent response they are suffering from.

    OK. We all want peace, no war but that means nothing because what’s important is what kind of peace, in chains or by consent or peace of family crypt kind, we want and that requires detail analysis of global political reality and imperial dominance.

    If Elsberg bothered to read non American historians’ books about global politics on last 120 years he would have found agreement among them, the very agreement MLK characterized when he asserted that it was not any other country but US (America as a state and the nation) that was the worse purveyor of violence and war in the world.

    That means that one cannot do what Ellsberg is doing here namely equating victims with bullies with provocateurs, warmongers, perpetrators of crime of war by ignoring historical circumstances and core source of aggression which as always is historical injustice left ignored.

    According to international law of treaties and precedents every country has a right to defend itself and its territory and according to UN charter must present its argumentation before and immediately after action is taken.
    And others must listen to them must try to find compromise, not ignore them.

    Otherwise they contribute to future war.

    Needles to say that nobody listened to Russia’s legitimate concerns with NATO expansion and her proposal of undivided European security that would eliminate need for aggressive political pacts like NATO. Warsaw Pact self dissolved in the name of peace. NATO remained.

    Nobody listened to cries of Donbas, nobody but Russia for eight years was pushing for peace in Donbas via Minsk Agreements rejected by Kiev and the west that wanted war and armed illegitimate Kiev Nazi regime.

    The US attacked Vietnam and killed millions of its citizens living 8 thousand miles from US a friendly none threatening country (Ho Chi Min political idol was Jefferson) that just liberated itself from French Nazis (Vichy) colonial slavery by force of war legally according to UN charter, the country that did not want to join hostile anti American military alliance, did not ban American language and culture etc., it was a supreme crime of aggression that followed massive war crimes.

    Only such aggression to be repeated by US in Iraq where through sanctions and war US killed up to one million Iraqis or on the top of that hundreds of thousands Afghans.

    Such blatant American aggression driven by sick Domino effect political theories and/or imperial hubris of global domination cannot be compared to Russian intervention in Ukraine according to Article 51 of UN charter paragraph on collective security exclusion from prohibition of war to fulfill obligation to an ally (LDPR) located at Russian border.

    Moreover as the liberation of Donbas and national self determination civil war in Ukraine was going on for eight years the same UN charter established humanitarian intervention law (reconfirmed in case of NATO intervention in Kosovo) that applies to stopping killing of ethnic Russians civilians in Donbas.

    The preemptive strike to eliminate direct existential threat of NATO trained and armed Ukrainian forces located directly at Russian border joining aggressive anti Russian NATO alliance is also under prevue of Article 51 interpretation acknowledged by the west.

    Ellsberg is by the same token is wrong about Soviet intervention in Afghanistan as its was a response to foreign sponsored aggression (by Saudi al-Qaida and Bin Laden funded by US ) against legitimate Government of Afghanistan that invited Soviet forces as called for by mutual security treaty.

    As a result thousands of Russians died so right of girls to attend school denied by terrorists “freedom fighters “ who shot down several passenger airliners taking of from Kabul airport with US stinger missiles, was assured. It is utmost hypocritical for US government to cry crocodile tears for Afghan girls unable to go to school under Taliban rule.

    Ellsberg seems to dismiss such.. supposedly irrelevant details. Aggression is aggression for him. No, it isn’t.

  6. While I disagree with some of the equivalencies drawn between past US-led military actions and Putin’s proxy war against the west in Ukraine, the above publication is one of the only ones where a left-ish, Neo Progressive pundit openly admits that there are two sides in the current conflict (rather than the habitual left-ish pretense that the only ‘game in town’ is US aggression).

    Kudos to you, Scheerpost. There is hope for you yet!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: