AUDIO:

Talk World Radio is recorded on Zoom.

Here is this week’s video and all the videos on Youtube.

By Pacifist Barricade, February 22, 2025

The political scene in the United States has become a crucible of radical transformations. Each day brings forth inflammatory statements and shifting landscapes. Donald Trump’s presidency is nothing short of unconventional, keeping activists and journalists on edge with his declarations and actions. What does Trump’s presidency mean for the pacifist movement? We sat down with David Swanson, Executive Director of World BEYOND War, to discuss the read more

By The Zero Hour with RJ Eskow, February 19, 2025

David Swanson is Campaign Coordinator for RootsAction.org and is co-founder of World BEYOND War. He recently returned from the 6th Annual Conference for World Balance, which promotes peace and solidarity, global dialogue, and an end to runaway materialism. We discussed the conference, global activism, the need to build stronger coalitions—and much more.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the war in Ukraine were entirely one side’s fault, if the U.S. had one political party that did everything perfectly, if USAID had only ever caused either benefit or harm, and if all the self-contradictory gibberish coming out of Trump’s pie hole were either lies or holy gospel? A lot of people sure seem to think so.

Here in the real world, things are ever so slightly more complex than in a cartoon. A war can develop through evil actions by two — count ’em — sides. read more

AUDIO:

Talk World Radio is recorded on Zoom.

Here is this week’s video and all the videos on Youtube.

Santita Jackson speaks with Medea Benjamin, Mike Ferner, and David Swanson about people who don’t want nuclear disarmament if Trump is involved in it.

By World BEYOND War, February 15, 2025 We are heartened to learn that the U.S. government is communicating with the Russian government, and are only sorry that such a basic step seemingly required a presidential election, when a glance at the Doomsday Clock ought to have been sufficient. Having set the bar so low that speaking at all seems a tremendous accomplishment, we must nonetheless insist that the proper things be said, and be heard, and that they be followed with verifiable actions. The popular demand in Western media that Ukraine be listened to in, and be part of, any negotiations should be applauded, but radically expanded. The president of Ukraine is severely violating the rights of the people of Ukraine to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, conscientious objection, and the right to form political parties that represent their interests. He is preventing elections through the imposition of martial law. The nation of Ukraine is deeply divided in opinions, and those divisions often correspond with geographic locations. A majority of Ukrainians, according to polls — and despite crackdowns on speech that opposes warmaking — say they are open to peace negotiations that remove territory from Ukraine, something the President of Ukraine sides with a minority in opposing in the name of “democracy.” More Ukrainian voices than one should be at the negotiating table. In fact, not everything should be decided at a single negotiating table. Disputed territories should be permitted to determine their own fates through public referenda, to be overseen by authorities acceptable to all interested parties. The options available to them should include limited or complete independence from any existing nation. Such autonomy is critical to achieving a lasting and sustainable peace, as well as for diminishing the risk of world-engulfing nuclear war, as well as to restore some dignity to a vocabulary that it has been rendered disreputable around the world through a gargantuan feat of hypocrisy — the vocabulary of “democracy,” “nonviolence,” and “rule of law.” Also critical will be disarmament by all parties. And central to that must be restricting, if not scaling back, if not eliminating the reach of the world’s leading arms-dealing institution, NATO, which exists in gross violation of the United Nations Charter, and whose own rules forbid adding members without the uncoerced approval of all existing members. The acceptance of a neutral Ukraine outside of NATO would have prevented the war in the first place, according to countless authorities, including the then-Secretary General of NATO. Peace negotiations in Ukraine would also be aided by, and in turn be of aid to, negotiations to take the steps recently promoted by the U.S. President, to cut military spending in half and get rid of nuclear weapons. These would be accomplishments worthy of the gratitude of all humanity. Nuclear  disarmament is required by law, and is readily available to negotiate or to begin unilaterally. When the United States engaged in unilateral disarmament under Presidents John F. Kennedy and George H.W. Bush, Russia quickly reciprocated. Negotiated multi-party disarmament has worked in the past and can work now — even more easily, given the extent to which surveillance technology has made cheating more difficult. Of course, this agenda is at odds with President Trump’s demand for dramatically increased military spending, with the reconciliation legislation proposed in the U.S. Congress to dramatically increase military spending, with the ongoing U.S.-led nuclear arms race, with the new nuclear bombs being deployed by the United States in Europe, and with Trump’s penchant for threatening the use of nuclear weapons. We support the peace agenda and condemn the war agenda, regardless of them both coming out of the same mouth. We also support the frequent expression of care for the lives of those being senselessly slaughtered in Ukraine and would like to see it acted on in Ukraine and applied equally to the rest of the world. We also support the frequent expression of concern for not wasting money, yet — thus far — denounce the actions that have been defended by that rhetoric, as they have mostly been unlawful, immoral, destructive, and hypocritical. Trump was elected speaking against wars and corruption. We would like to cheer for the ending of wars and the targeting of corruption in its headquarters in the Pentagon — and we will do so the minute we see those things happen.

By David Swanson, World BEYOND War, February 15, 2025

Nuclear Weaponry

“Deterrence”

Pakistan and India obtained nuclear weapons in 1998 and went to war in 1999. The United States and Russia have fought numerous wars against other nations, and in Ukraine against each other (albeit with mainly Ukrainian troops on one side), and often threatened to use nuclear weapons. Russia has threatened read more

By David Swanson, February 10, 2025

Remarks following airing of President John Kennedy’s speech at American University.

It’s an honor to be asked to speak following a great speech, probably the greatest speech ever by a U.S. president while they were the U.S. president. Many U.S. presidents, possibly all of them, made speeches against war prior to becoming president. Some issued hypocritical warnings included in bad speeches on their last day in office. Some spoke and even worked for read more

AUDIO:

Talk World Radio is recorded on Zoom.

Here is this week’s video and all the videos on Youtube.