Scott Horton Show - Just the Interviews - 11/18/24 Keith Knight interviews Scott about his New Book 'Provoked'
Episode Date: November 21, 2024Libertarian Institute Managing Editor Keith Knight interviews Scott about his new book Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine. Buy the book here: ...https://a.co/d/fQluFTV Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcript
Discussion (0)
This morning, President Biden huddled in the situation room with his full national security team,
and we expect to hear the president in just a few moments announce a new round of sweeping sanctions
for what he calls the unprovoked and unjustified attack on Ukraine.
The Russian military has begun a brutal assault on the people of Ukraine.
Without provocation, without justification, without necessity, this is a premeditated attack.
The Ukrainian president, Vladimir Zelensky, says history will be made at this summit.
Ukraine never wanted this war.
It's a criminal and absolutely unprovoked aggression of Russia.
And the only one who wanted it was Putin.
Welcome to Keith Knight.
Don't tread on anyone in the Libertarian Institute.
Today we'll be discussing provoked how Washington started the new Cold War with Russia
and the catastrophe in Ukraine with the author, Scott Horton.
Can you walk us through the German unification deal with Secretary of State James Baker?
Sure. Okay. So this is the fall of the Soviet Union.
And from the time after World War II, up until 1989, or the process beginning in 1989,
the Soviet Union occupied all of Eastern Europe, including all the way to halfway across Germany.
And when the Soviet Union started falling apart in 1989, essentially people started fleeing
from Hungary into Austria, neutral Austria, and the communist rule had always been,
and they'll cheat you for trying to escape.
And that's real.
I mean, people could not escape outside the borders of the Soviet Union.
They'd be machine gun.
But when they fled from Hungary into Austria in November of 1989, the new, or not that
but the Soviet premier Gorbachev ordered his men to hold their fire and allow the people to go ahead and go.
And then that was it, man, like a floodgate.
I just saw a video the other day of a guy kind of gently chipping away at a beaver dam until the whole thing just completely, you know, fell apart because, you know, it was going to flood or whatever you need to.
But that's the fall of the Soviet Union right there.
It's like chipping away, chipping away, chipping away.
But once that border was open, oh, that was it.
now you got people fleeing from east to west all over the place and including you had this
very strange situation that was a remnant of the second world war where the free half city of
west berlin was wholly inside east germany kami east germany and this is of course a major
contention between the east and the west during the cold war and could have led to a
nuclear war fights over berlin did get heated at different times and so this was the the
big symbolic falling of the Berlin Wall that the Soviets had built in 1961 between East and
West to keep people from fleeing from the Communist East into West Berlin and then from there
catching a plane to West Germany and the rest of the West. So the Berlin Wall came down and that
began the process of the entire dissolution of the USSR. Now, part of that was the question
of what's going to happen to Germany
now that the Soviets are withdrawing
now the Soviets still had troops there
and the question was are they going to
essentially accede to the will of the German people
and remove their troops
and on the
you know with the deal already being
the reunification of Germany
under West German rule after they leave
and they essentially negotiated a deal
and the Americans had essentially threatened Gorbara
chop that listen man you don't want an independent nuclear armed germany that can do whatever it
wants after the last two wars over there so what would be better would be for you to withdraw your
forces from germany on a condition that america is going to stay and germany will remain part of
nato and that means america will be calling their shots and it means that they will have no need
to obtain nuclear weapons we have nuclear weapons stationed on their soil they don't need
nukes of their own. Isn't that the future that you want here for the medium term? And Gorbachev said,
yeah, that sounds smart. So in the negotiations, and this is what you're getting at with your
question because it became an important bone of contention, part of the question was, so what is
going to become of the status of the NATO alliance, the Western NATO alliance, in the face
of the disillusion of the Warsaw Pact, or at least its retreat from Germany? And somewhat nonsensical,
basically, Baker had said, well, we'll bring Germany into, we'll reunify Germany, but we won't
expand NATO, like the concept to the East, but that doesn't really mean anything. If Germany's
part of NATO and the East is being reunified with the West under West German rule, the Kami
government of the East is being completely dissolved and replaced, then, of course, NATO's,
what, their war guarantee clearly extends to Germany as well. So then they said, well, since
that doesn't make sense. What we'll do is we'll kind of revise it and say that we won't put any
military forces in East Germany. And so that was what ended up going into the treaty. But what's
important is that it was when James Baker and the German foreign minister Hans Dietrich-Gensher.
And on top of that, then deputy director of the CIA, Robert Gates, was also communicating to
them on the same day, February 9th, 1990, that what we'll do is will not expand the NATO
alliance east, not one inch as long as you withdraw and allow reunification. And it was based
on those promises that Gorbachev agreed to allow reunification. And in fact, they started to
walk it back, the Americans did, and said, well, you know, we're going to do this thing where we just
promise not to put our military forces in the east. We'll have the special military zone,
but of course, you know, NATO will have a war guarantee. We'll still, you know, count in the east
and all that. Well, Genscher did, he knew that the Americans were revising their take. And then he went
and met Gorbachev one more time and didn't say anything about that, said the deal from the other
day is still what we're talking about here. And it was based on that. Because see, it's not,
that the United States is super sovereign over the galaxy. Germany also is a nation state and part of
NATO and their foreign minister's promises also mean things, you might think. And it was based on
Genscher's promise to Gorbachev that Gorbachev said, okay, fine, I'll allow reunification. And then
Gensher, now that was just a spoken sentence. That wasn't in a treaty. He just agreed. And Genscher went
right out and gave a press conference and said, okay, he said that we can reunify. We got full
permission from Gorbachev can't back down on that now and it was based on the promise it will not
extend NATO one inch east at the same time all during these conversations especially the Germans but
the Americans at time to brought up by name Poland, Hungary, the Baltics, the Czech Republic and
said no of course we can't extend there if we're not extending into eastern Germany we certainly
they aren't extending east of there.
And then
remember in the written treaty,
they said,
okay,
but we promise not to move our military forces
into eastern Germany.
At the same time that all this is going on,
they're promising,
as they said repeatedly,
that NATO is actually going to become
a political organization,
sort of like the EU plus the United States.
And we're going to have an entire new security structure
for Europe,
That includes Russia.
And this was what they called the common European home.
And Bush Sr. had said he, I guess, was calling this the New World Order, although he didn't really mean it, that it would be from Vancouver to Vladivostok, would be one United Security Alliance of the North.
Or actually, as they put it, not an alliance, but a partnership, meaning that everybody works on all these security issues together.
And after all, the Soviet Union is gone, there's nothing to fight about anyway.
There's no one to fight with.
And so we'll just have one common security structure, including Russia.
And it was based on all these promises that they allowed the disillusion of the Warsaw Pact
and the freeing of the nations of Eastern Europe, which they could have fought for as they had
in the Prague Spring and in Hungary and in Poland crushing solidarity in the early 1980s.
they had shown themselves willing to crush local dissent against communist power during the Cold War that was based on all these assurances by the West that they decided to withdraw and so even if it didn't say in a treaty we promised never to bring the Baltic states or Poland into NATO still you have to ask yourself because it is in the treaty that they promised not to move their military forces into eastern Germany well
if they were always welcome and free to bring Poland and the Baltic states into the NATO alliance
and deploy military forces there, then what difference would it make if they deploy military forces
in Eastern Germany? Right. So the promise in the treaty was a recognition of their earlier promise
just slightly revising it. And in fact, as I show in the book, in 1989,
Before any of this, the first kind of warm-up meeting before they inaugurated this entire series of talks was Bush Sr. and Gorbachev at Malta.
And Senior told him, listen, if you allow all these countries to break away from the Warsaw Pact, I promise we will not take advantage of that.
That was a solemn promise by the President of the United States.
And as his ambassador at the time told me on the show and has written repeatedly, clearly that counts.
Expanding the NATO alliance is taking advantage of the withdrawal of the Warsaw Pact, no matter how you slice it.
That was the first promise that was made was Bush himself before Baker ever had a chance and Gates and the rest of them.
And as well as the British foreign minister heard, the German foreign minister, Genscher, etc.
And the French had given a couple promises along the same lines as well.
So these are all supposedly equal partners in the NATO alliance have just as much right as each other to make solemn promises to a country like Russia while they're negotiating things like this.
I mean, they work together on it, obviously.
And they were agreed.
But here's the thing.
They were lying.
And it's hard to find the scholars who will admit that they were lying.
Only Joshua Schiferson that I've seen will write in a journal.
with his professor glasses on that like hey man they knew what they were doing the plan always was
they were going to expand the nato alliance and they made up this crap about expanding the center
for security and cooperation in europe which became the organization for security and cooperation in
europe um isn't it center i think so yeah the c sce and they were they were promising that they were
going to use the c sce and then later the partnership for peace
And these were why Russia didn't have to worry about NATO expansion because NATO is not even going to be a military alliance anymore anyway.
It's going to be a political organization.
It's going to basically be an agreement between it states that they will not resolve their border disputes with violence, that they will maintain regular elections and civilian supremacy over their military and this kind of stuff.
They want to be friends with the USA.
They're going to have to do it the American way.
But we're going to drop that whole military alliance thing.
And they knew that they were just lying.
They were telling Gorbachev what he needed to hear for him to get out of the way.
And that was how this whole Odyssey starts, essentially, with the Americans playing dishonestly at the end of the last Cold War.
So I believe it was either Gorbachev or Yeltsin, who publicly comes out and says Russia hereby withdrawals from the Warsaw Pact.
And we are now, he didn't say this, but it's now referred to as the unipolar moment.
what do we need to know about the unipolar moment and dick cheney's defense strategy for the 1990s
okay so we'll take yourself back to this situation uh put yourself in washington dc at this time
it had been as i learned in school as a boy was a bipolar world and that meant that there was
was Washington Moscow and everybody else and there was sort of the non-aligned movement in the third
world but essentially you were with if he for powerful nation states they were more or less aligned with
moscow or aligned with the u.s china flipped from one to the other right um that was the way it is um
so then you know china it was nixon that that won china over in the early 1970s so when the soviet
union fell apart in 1989 there's nobody left to oppose the united states of america now if ron paul had his
way and secretary state you know president paul and secretary state pat buchanan what they would have done is
they would have brought all of our forces home and we said listen and and this is absolutely buchanan's line
ron was already a non-interventionist anyway but buchanan's line absolutely was okay well that's that
we took care of them commies the commies are gone now let's come home he wrote a book called the republic
not an empire and because as he recognized as uh garret garet said that one
must forbid the other or it will destroy the other you cannot have it both ways it's as simple as that
and pat said this is supposed to be a constitutional republic so we should abandon the empire and come home
the british and the germans and the french and the russians can figure out their deal they can do it
without communism they can work it out china japan korea they can work it out hell we can host a
conference and help them work it out but let's bring our forces home we do not need to
remain out there dominating the planet like this.
And then there was the war party, which is just all the connected special interests
who said no, actually, in fact, look, some of them were just ideological.
Some of them had ulterior motives like money or Israel, but a lot of them, I mean,
you've lived here your whole life, you know it.
People believe out here in the country too and in D.C.
America is Superman.
and not just Superman, but Christopher Reeves Superman, right?
Like complete virginal, innocent Jesus figure that at a great cost to itself goes around helping people.
You know, like that's it.
You want us to stop doing that?
Robert Kagan and Bill Crystal wrote a piece for foreign affairs called Toward a Neo-Raganite foreign policy in 1996 where they said that we need this policy of benevolent global hegemony.
and Robert Kagan said
John Quincy Adams
said that America goes not abroad
in search of monsters to destroy
but why not?
We're the greatest monster killer machine in the world,
man,
that's exactly what we're supposed to do
is go out there and kill them bad guys.
And but of course,
as I'm ruining the book for you now,
the Kagan's are the bad guys.
And building this world empire
and he's one of the major co-authors
of Iraq War II happens to be,
Spouse is one of the major ring leaders of American, Eastern European policy over the last
decades since the W. Bush years. Since the Clinton year, she worked for Stroke Talbot and the
Clinton years. You know, they wrecked everything in the name of holding the world down and
keeping everything from getting out of control. And they do think that what they're doing is right,
most of them. A lot of them, you know, have ulterior motives and like making money and this and that.
but you know charles crouthammer for example he's died in the wool neoconservative you know
cold war democrat turned reganite type right for the washington post just said he's the one he coined
the phrase unipolar moment in the foreign affairs he's the one who said absolutely unashamedly
i say we stop it nothing less than universal domination and then as later paul wolfowitz and
really his men, Salmea Khalil Zod and Scooter Libby wrote in the defense planning guidance
that they wrote in 92 at the end of a Rock War I in preparation for, you know, the coming
decade and the end of the millennium, the dawn of the new one, that America would remain
the dominant force in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia, and would allow no near-peer competitor
to really even consider a challenge to us, to even build up enough to try to challenge us,
not only any foreign power, but any regional grouping of foreign powers.
China, Japan, and Korea think that they can gang up on us.
We'll stop that too, like that would ever happen.
But anyway, that was the point was America will be, the middle part of North America
will be the dominant force in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia from now on.
in order to prevent things from getting too hairy out there
and that's basically the deal as Joe Biden says it
as they all say it as you've heard a million times if not us who
if it wasn't us it'd be China which of course is stupid right China can't afford it
and really think about it and chairman she has been looking at George W. Bush
and Barack Obama and Donald Trump and you know Joe Biden this era
and saying yeah that's what China should do is blow our own damn brains out
killing a few million people around the world, making the world hate us and accomplishing absolutely
nothing for it, but the Israel lobby take over our government, kill their Shiite allies or
enemies for them, former allies. I mean, of course, it's ridiculous. No one else can afford it,
and we can't afford it either. The national debt is, you know, 36 trillion. I was kicking myself
right after I published the book, like the day I published it. Just a few hours later, I saw a new
story. No, it's not 35. It's kicked over to 36 trillion now.
So, man, I just hit go. Um, and, uh, so we can't afford it. And neither can anybody else
afford to be the global hedgement. But the idea is that this is the right thing to do.
And of course that they don't want to have to get real jobs. And the military industrial
complex is a very real thing. In fact, nowadays, they call it the defense industrial base and
you're supposed to like it. It's one of the major selling points. You can see all the things
tanks and focus groups and whoever they came up with this and they've said it so many of the major
players have said this about the war in ukraine but that money's going to our congressional districts
that money's going back to our home states joe bine have a quote of joe bide in the book boy these things
are made in the u.s.a we're getting the bombs from here and the artillery tubes from there and the fighter
jets from here and the tanks from there you know citing american cities and states and about you know
essentially Keynesian economic theory but where all the stimulus is in the
the form of military spending, which is just completely crazy because none of it is good for
distributing goods and services to customers at all.
All of it is just taking wealth and destroying it, which is how you can have a former
communist society, former communist economy, but still a, you know, commie one party dictatorship
in China in just 30 years, have these build these giant megalopolises that.
that just put American cities to shame in so many ways.
Because our government has blown, as I calculated in the book,
approximately $17 trillion on militarism since the end of the Cold War.
And that doesn't include the care and feeding of the veterans and their families,
which is other trillions and trillions on top of that.
All that is money that got pissed away on killing people
when it should have been improving the standard of living for the American people
and helping us set an example for the rest of the world of what freedom is really supposed to look like.
And as everyone listening to this is well aware, nobody stands by Iraq War II anymore.
Remember when that was the biggest deal in the whole world and it was so important that you stood by it?
And if your neighbor didn't, you were supposed to call him a traitor in America hating Saddam Hussein loving terrorist, pinko, Kami, homo trader.
And yet now no one believes in Iraq War II, do they?
No, because we had to fight Iraq War III against the consequences of Iraq War II.
since then.
Ah, jeez, the whole Middle East is a wreck.
Iran and the Ayatollah and bin Laden won that war, right?
Even the Israelis didn't really make out there getting a discount on Kurdish gas,
but they also put Iran's best friends in power in Baghdad.
That's not what they wanted.
And so the whole thing has been a complete disaster.
Everybody knows that.
And there's no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt on any of the rest of this policy either.
I got people in my Twitter going, no, Russia did the thing.
Yeah, Russia did the thing.
but what do you think is the context here it's like saying oh my god iran and iraq are in a war right now
i bet america has zero to do with that right it's not like the iranians are fighting with an
american built military and air force and everything it's like saddam hussein is fighting on a green
light and a bag full of money from jimmy carter it's not like the revolution in iran
wasn't a direct consequence of our coup 26 years before it's not like
like the Iran-Iraq war had anything but to do with the United States of America.
No, but didn't you hear Iraq attacked Iran?
Yeah, I know, dude.
But also it was all because of Ike Eisenhower and Jimmy Carter and their men and Nixon.
Same thing here.
The American Empire inherited the world, right?
we got after world war two we inherited all of the european empires plus japan's
and then after the cold war we even got the soviets empire in eastern europe and working on it
in central and and east as you know far eastern europe and central as the um in the caucasus
region and all of this as the russians say over and over again you got to surround it i mean
you think about poland american bases in poland
That's not really surrounding Russia, but then you look and you go, oh, I get it.
You got troops in the Baltics, talking about bringing Ukraine into NATO.
Think about the map of Russia's western border.
Ukraine sticks in there very far, right?
That Dombas used to be part of Russia, that whole part.
And even then it wouldn't be a straight line down.
Harkeve is essentially, what, three, 400 miles due south of Moscow or almost due south of Moscow.
And then we don't have bases in the caucuses, but building up allies in the caucuses and terrorist groups.
And then, of course, with our longtime occupation of Afghanistan and then Korea in the Far East, made real sense for them to say, made real sense, Keith, for them to say, hey, man, we overthrew the commies for you.
we broke our empire up in a 15 countries and yet you still are just hell bent on absolutely
surrounding us and how are we supposed to take this as anything but a hostile threat and Putin
pretended to not see it for a long time he would say listen we believe you that you love us to death
and mean us no harm however we can't just make our policies based on promises in fact you're
ringing our nation with anti-missile missiles so we have to build more missiles
to overwhelm your missiles because you guys understand the economics of nuclear missiles.
What am I supposed to do, man?
And so here we are.
In 1992, President Clinton is elected.
What are the provocations that took place under President Clinton?
Well, the biggest thing is NATO expansion.
Secondly, it would be the shock therapy economic policy.
And then thirdly, the Balkan Wars.
That's all the worst of it.
You know, in NATO expansion, again, they were lying.
They promised Yeltsin, we're going to do this partnership for peace instead of NATO expansion
and got his enthusiastic support and, you know, let that stand, let other countries make their decisions based on the fact that Russia is for it.
Everything's cool.
And then including helping to convince Ukraine to give up the Soviet nukes that had been left behind, not that they could have really made use of them anyway.
And then they go, ah, psych.
Nah, what we're really going to do is the partnership of peace and all that.
We're just jerking your chain.
What we're really going to do is we're going to expand NATO and there's nothing you can do about it, right?
So what are you going to do about it?
And then that was it.
And so they went.
And where did they expand NATO to?
Which country is under Clinton?
The first round was Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.
And what they let the others know when they began the process of the membership action plans for the Baltic states.
And...
I guess the first of the Balkans or whatever, maybe Romania and Bulgaria.
No, I already said Romania.
No, Romanian.
Yeah, yeah.
But Bulgaria and then some of the other, I guess, Balkan states were brought in in the third round under W. Bush.
And then see, it's funny because the same week that they finished the inaugurator,
of NATO expansion in the spring of 1999 it's like maybe it was like two weeks later they launched
the aggressive war against Serbia to break off Kosovo in support of no international law whatsoever
in fact in defiance of every bit of it with no UN resolution because the the Russians were to vetoed
obviously and based on no authorization from the US Congress whatsoever Bill Clinton just
launched to war and the whole time they're saying to the Russians look what
expanding native it's a purely defensive alliance so don't be such a baby about it's not that
big of a deal as soon as the ink is dry they launch a war and as dr paul warned at the time
look at how they react to this in fact right after putin was you know took over power before he
was even elected when yeltsin handed it to him on new year's eve ron paul said and you see what he
did first thing he did was consolidate control over the over nuclear weapons back under the control of the
And his government put out a statement saying that this is their natural reaction to the launch of the war in Serbia and proof that NATO is not just a defensive alliance.
And, of course, then they went to Afghanistan in the name of Article 5 in defending the United States, but it wasn't the Taliban that attacked the United States.
That was a NATO mission that included, you know, virtually all of the NATO countries and including some would-be NATO countries like Georgia for, you know, a good.
11 years there uh eight years in the ruck war two i mean i'm sorry uh i'm i'm conflating a ruck
war two um afghanistan for for the whole time from about well from like what 2004 i guess
they really started bringing a nato in um in 2003 and four um and then through you know 21
the final defeat there and then of course the aggressive war in libya under barak
Obama was another one, showing that no NATO, in fact, is not a defensive alliance.
It's an alliance.
It's America's military alliance, but they'll do whatever they want.
And nobody can stop them.
And how do you like that?
And of course, on Libya, they did have a UN resolution.
Not that I'm sitting here simping for the UN, but I'm just saying that's the treaty that
everybody signed that said you're not allowed to start a war unless you have a UN resolution
that agrees, you know, the major power, victors of World War II, basically on the security
Council agree. And they lied to the Russians and said, listen, we're just doing the no-fly zone over
Benghazi because all of our intelligence says that Gaddafi's going to kill every last man,
woman, and child in that city, you know, 700,000 people or something if we don't stop them,
which is a ridiculous lie. And the Russian said, okay, fine. And then as soon as they got their
UN resolution, they just escalated to full regime change in Tripoli over a nine-month air war,
completely betraying the new president Medvedev in humiliating him and leading directly to
Putin's return to the presidency in 2012, based on his humiliating failure to veto that war.
So anyway, it's a little taste of, you know, what the NATO alliance actually is compared to what they say on the shock therapy.
I mean, look, if it was you and me, we would have sent Murray Rothbard and Lou Rockwell and Ron Paul over there.
And they would have got it right because they're our friends and we like them.
But what happened was George Bush and Bill Clinton sent Harvard.
over there. And they're capitalists. They're not communists. They're not leftists. They're neo-liberals.
They are center-left. Free markets and democracy, as Bill Clinton called it, meaning our current
system, right? New Dealism, quasi-free markets and quasi-democracy and cronyism and inflationary
money and all of these things. And so they sent those people over there. So they were trying to do the
right thing mostly, but they just didn't know what they were doing. What they really needed was a
strict rule of law protecting property rights and contracts. And on top of that, they needed
fiscal restraint and hard money. And they got none of that. And, you know, there are a lot of
different guys involved, and not all of it is any one of their faults or anything like that,
But essentially, through hyperinflation, through the voucher scam and the loans for shares scam, they essentially turned the Russian economy absolutely inside out.
Now, we're talking about a communist economy, and I'm not like calling names.
I'm saying the national government in Moscow owned everything, okay?
It was literally a Marxist Soviet commie union, you know, not just the political,
flavor of it, but that was how the economy was run. Everybody's a government employee.
All of the property is owned by the state. And so how were they going to transfer from that
to Rothbardian free market purity and perfection? Well, it was going to be a hell of a task,
right? And they blew it. Everybody involved blew it. And of course, the Russians are responsible
for their part in it. There's no point in playing down the Americans' role because they accept
the responsibility for it. They bragged about it at the time.
they were doing it and thought they were doing the right thing and getting away with it.
And then they took responsibility for it after it failed and said, boy, we really screwed that up.
So there's no point in saying that, no, it was all the Russians fault, not the Americans.
The Americans, look, here's what I'm trying to say.
There was going to be some kind of de-industrialization, right?
The whole economy was a zombie economy.
A lot of those factories were going to not be able to survive in a free market context.
right so there was going to be some level of deindustrialization but what happened instead was the
absolute wholesale deal deindustrialization of russia the absolute hollowing out of the carcass
of its kami economy so that they just had virtually nothing to to build back up from they just
the the gangsters who were not businessmen they didn't have any skills they didn't have any
interest in building up the economy they essentially were taking property and then
stripping it and selling it off and spending all the money on coke and whores and expensive
cars and having a good time entertainment for themselves at the expense of their own society that
they ruthlessly exploited and then those companies were all just driven into the ground and this
led to an excess death count of something like five to six million people something like would
happen in the absolute worst wartime a collapse in GDP equivalent or worse than even when
Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in terms of percentage of gross domestic product.
It was an absolute catastrophe.
And really, there are a few studies out there that I didn't really get a chance to delve into this too,
too much because it was just too far afield from my book, although I really, it is an omission
that I don't really cover how shock therapy took place in Ukraine.
I kind of allude to it a little bit.
But there are a bunch of studies out there, J-Store and everything about how this is true
kind of for all of Kami, Eastern Europe.
it's after all western europe was in charge and they don't want a bunch of competition they weren't
acting in angelic public spiritedness of welcome to the to the west welcome to capitalism and free
markets in the new world they're just threatened by cheaper labor they're just threatened by
you know cheaper natural resources and cheaper labor in the east undermining their stuff so they all
just want to be protectionists they don't want to help these people up they want to keep them down
and the americans too and geoffrey sacks and many of these guys concluded that there
reason that they couldn't get the help that they wanted for the Russians was because the Americans
preferred to weaken Russia. They preferred to hurt him. And the thing is about it too, and I know
you're too young for this, but I'm sure I know you've heard of it, but I was raised on this, man,
that. And see, they would never admit that it's all Woodrow Wilson's fault, Keith,
except that they don't blame Wilson. They blame the Senate. They blame Henry Cabot Lodge in the
Senate for refusing to ratify the League of Nations Treaty. It's not Woodrow Wilson's fault
for getting us into World War I. It's the Senate's fault for not ratifying the creation of the
League of Nations. Because if he had, then America would have been the dominant power in Europe
already, and we would have not let France and Britain inflict such harsh terms on the Germans
as written in the Versailles Treaty. We'd have softened that, and that would have not been allowed to create
the circumstances for the rise of Nazi Germany, because as John Maynard Keynes predicted in advance
and so many others predicted in advance that World War I was going to cause World War II,
and especially that American intervention was going to cause the next war 20 years from now.
And everybody knew it was just undeniable.
My seventh grade government school teacher said France and Britain, it's true,
France and Britain inflicted these absolutely horrific terms on the Germans.
I think they might have omitted the blockade that they kept for more than a year after the war.
Maybe it was two years after the war.
It's horrific the way they treated Germany.
And so when the question is, how could the people of Germany,
the place where all that great stuff came from and whatever, music and art and culture and whatever, christened them,
how could they have turned to Hitlerism?
And the answer is, F you, that's why.
right like that's why revenge and he promised to make up for what had happened to them at the end of
the war to get their territories back to give them their dignity back after they'd been completely
screwed and so then keith america learned that lesson at the end of world war two again i'm telling
you my elementary and junior high civics education here okay this is what we all knew as a society
as of late 20th century America, okay, post-war America was we're better and smarter than those
stupid Brits and French. And instead of putting our heel on the German and Japanese neck
afterwards of war, we helped them up and we rebuilt them and we made them our friends.
And now they're our friends and that shows that why we should be the stewards of the world
instead of them because we're so much better at it. And so those are the lessons of Versailles.
don't do that to people man you beat a guy be a good sport about it or you're going to have blowback
right that's it so then what they do the bush administration and the clinton administration
that's bush senior and clinton they said that they go we got to heed the lessons of versailles
and then they didn't they said we got to be magnanimous about this and then they weren't
and they exploited them and they rub their face in it and geoffrey sacks and the rest of
of these guys say it was deliberate and i have so many quotes throughout the book of different people
especially in the clinton years expressing the conventional wisdom that look if the russians don't
like it what are they going to do about it does that sound like christopher re's version boy virgin
boy scout superman to you what are they going to do about it no that's bad guys talking
that's bad guys talking well come on russ is a pale shadow of what they were and
if they don't like it and they react against what we do well we still got nato so if we pick a fight
by building up this alliance at least we have our alliance to fight with to intimidate them with
to threaten them with does that sound like a new world order or that's just going back to the
19th century that's the americans claiming universalism and globalism and the rule of law
when they're doing nothing but act just like the damned british yeah there's
There definitely seems to be a correlation between countries that embrace more free markets and have a significant increase in life expectancy, whether it's Britain, America, Eastern Europe, Singapore, places in China, South Korea.
But that did not happen in Russia. And when you read those quotes that you mentioned on top of it, it certainly seemed like a deliberate plan to actively weaken Russia as the defense planning guidance mentions. They can't tolerate a single competitor in the world.
world. I skip this, but it's in the book. I got a whole section on Bosnia. Both seniors
started it. Bill Clinton also made it worse and it's horrible. And so that's in there too.
And the case of Kosovo, is that the one where I actually don't, I'm not as familiar with this as I should be.
When it comes to Milosevic was the bad guy who Clinton was stopping from engaging in genocide.
Was that in Kosovo? Well, that was what they claimed. Yeah. But it
wasn't true that that that was the claim okay right when it comes to purely in a civil war so they
claimed by their interpretation of the law and i i go through all of this by their interpretation of the
law bosnia had every right to secede and so at that time then at that point if Serbia and this is
debatable and whatever but if Serbia is fighting a war in bosnia they could at least sort of pretend that that
is a war between sovereigns, not a civil war, after the secession, which they recognized,
okay? But Kosovo was always part of Serbia. And it was dominated by ethnic Albanians,
and there was a huge, you know, potential conflict there. But the Americans and their allies,
of course, made it worse and worse and, you know, took the side of by far the worst guys in the civil
war and set again this precedent that the president could just do whatever he wants you know when
Barack Obama started the war in Libya he just gave us a short statement while he was on another
on a trip to Brazil he didn't come home and sit down in the oval office and go my fellow
Americans here's why I just started a war without Congress and do whatever I want he's just like
given a press conference like oh by the way I hereby start a war against Libya
by Bill Clinton in Kosovo, that I can intervene in a civil war on no authority from anyone,
anywhere whatsoever. And nobody stopped him. Nobody impeached him and removed him from office for
that. They had just finished impeaching him over BS. So they had no political capital for that.
And the Congress was run by Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, who might as well have been Hillary Clinton
anyway. Yeah. It's amazing that the fact that there's a civil war, they justify,
engaging in intervention, as though they don't constantly celebrate the civil war that Americans had
as the greatest triumph of good over evil in our history, constantly saying, well, we had to
intervene against Bashar al-Assad in his civil war.
By the way, you know, when they started the war in Yemen, again, Barack Obama started that
war with much less a declaration war, no authorization from Congress whatsoever, and he didn't
even announce it.
You know who announced America started when America,
in March 2015 when Barack Obama declared war on Yemen.
Bernadette Meehan, the spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department, issued a paper press release.
By the way, the U.S. is bombing Yemen for the next 10 years.
We're going to kill half a million people, minimum.
When it comes to Bush Sr., expanding NATO into Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
We have more NATO expansion.
When it comes to the treaties, what other provocations as far as treaties go did George Bush, Jr. get the U.S. out of?
Well, the big one is the anti-ballistic missile treaty, which had been initially signed.
I forget when it was ratified.
It had originally been negotiated and signed by Richard Nixon.
Instead, we're limited to, I think, two or three anti-ballistic missile sites because, as it
says right in the thing with the eye toward limiting the arms race you know you can say it's
perfectly fine to have a defensive anti-missile system but you have to understand the other side's
just going to make more missiles and you can make your anti-missile systems more and more effective
and then they can build even more missiles than that and we can keep going forever until it's
you know like itchy and scratchy with the two gigantic guns the size of the planet earth you know
blowing each other away there's essentially no limit on it so they said let's put a limit on
it let's not attempt to build up the ability to shoot down each other's incoming nukes so that
we'll just stop making more and more at that point they already had tens of thousands each enough
to kill the whole planet over and over again life on the planet over and over again um and so uh well
so what what do you think happened w bush tore of the treaty and the russians started making more
missiles. Bush put, he started this. They only, I just saw they just activated one of these
Aegis onshore systems in Poland. The other day, dude, after all this time, God, what a boon dog.
The whole thing is just such a rip-off key. And then the thing is, they put these sparrow interceptor
missiles in Romania, Poland, and then the radars in the Czech Republic. And they say this is to protect
Europe, particularly Poland for some reason, from Iran that doesn't have missiles that can reach
Central Europe and isn't making them and doesn't have nuclear weapons and isn't making them.
And so what are we even talking about here? It is completely unbelievable. When Bush said it,
I swear, man, I searched so high and low and I asked friends to help me. And I asked this stupid AI chat
ball on my phone to help me find. I can never find it. I swear to God, this is true, dude.
I remember this.
Bush was at some G8 meeting or something.
And he goes, well, the missile system's for Iran.
And the whole room busted up laughing because it's just so stupid.
What are you talking about?
I can never find that.
Like, I know somebody had blogged about it at the time or something.
It had been, it was around back at the time.
Link rot just murdered it off the internet.
But I remember.
But when Obama said it, they were all like, oh, yes, that sounds very important that we
shoot down Iranian missiles.
So here's the controversy, Keith, okay?
The Russians say, look, we're afraid that you're trying to shoot down our missiles,
which means we've got to make more missiles.
And W. Bush says, don't be silly.
This is for Iran.
And as proof of that, can't you see that we don't have enough anti-missile missiles
to shoot down a salvo from Russia?
You guys could nuke Europe off the face of the earth with thousands of bombs.
Certainly high, hundreds of bombs.
We have nothing like the capability to shoot.
all that down with these rockets, okay? So that can't be what they're for. So Putin and Lavrov,
they go, well, huh? Actually, you know, that makes sense. I think Medev had said this as well.
That's actually a compelling argument. Mr. Bush. Okay, but so then maybe it's the fact that those
are dual-use launchers that can fit Tom Hawk cruise missiles that can be fitted right now under the old
treaty that Trump tore up, the INF treaty. We do not take.
tip our tomahawk missiles with h bombs but we can and the mark 41 is mk41 missile launchers
ages onshore missile launchers that are used to hold those sparrow anti-missile missiles
can also fit tomahawk cruise missiles that have a very short flight time to moscow and pose a
very credible threat and so what do they do they immediately move their nukes or at least
nuke capable missile systems into Kaliningrad
and into Belarus to stay like, well, what are we going to do?
We got to target your missiles with our missiles now.
The whole thing is a giant escalation and it achieves nothing.
And George Bush, by tearing up that treaty, essentially,
he wasn't just helping to really, you know,
inflict a major wound in America's relationship with Russia.
He really was betraying all of mankind with that.
You know, that's treason against just humanity itself.
The enemy is the fusion bombs, not the Russians.
It's our fusion bombs, too.
That's the enemy.
That's who has to be kept at bay forever is atomic and thermonuclear weapons.
We cannot have these used.
And what Bush did was increase the likelihood of their use period, which makes him, well,
tied for worse person
of, you know, since
the Second World War, at least.
I'm sure Barry Weiss
would like to give him a run for his money.
When it comes to NATO expansion
in general, what
is the problem with
NATO expansion? Okay, I'm sorry
you've gotten into that. You mentioned NATO
is also an offensive alliance.
Who were the voices at the time
saying NATO should not expand?
Just a bunch of hippies
from Woodstock. Who were the big
voices saying, look out, there are downsides to expanding NATO.
Well, first of all, our good friends like Ron Paul, Ted Galen Carpenter, Pat Buchanan,
and all these great libertarians and paleo conservatives were our friends and great on it.
There were endless numbers of liberals and leftists and progressives.
Who knows how to categorize them all?
If I, I could probably like ask somebody, maybe Gareth Porter could like give me a good list of
everybody who also was determined to not go this way, but importantly for your point that you're
getting to is that two-thirds, a supermajority of the Council on Foreign Relations was opposed
to NATO expansion in the 90s. The grayest of graybeards, not all of them, but many of them,
including people like George Kennan and even Brent Skowcroft, who was George Bush
senior's best friend and co-author his national security advisor co-author of his memoirs together
the guy that wrote in the wall street journal in october of 2002 don't attack saddam which was a
message from the father to the boy in the wall street journal that guy um uh you know poor seniors
man right he said we should not be doing this this is such a provocation it's going to drive
the Russians nuts, they're going to react. We're going to have a bad problem with this.
George Kennan, who had penned the so-called Long Telegram, and then the Foreign Affairs version
is called On the Sources of Soviet Conduct by X, which anybody can read from 1947 at Foreign Affairs.
And you can read the long telegram is easy to find as well. And this defined the policy of
containment during the Cold War. He's the father of the Cold War. And he said, no, we should
not be doing this. We won. These are the men who overthrew the
communist for us. Why are we going to rub their face in it? And look
man, I got a show in there. Dwight Eisenhower's granddaughter
Susan wrote a letter and it was a group letter and it was signed
by scores, man, like, I don't know, 50 or something.
Admirals, generals, diplomats,
cold warriors saying, okay, we did it. We won. Let's
not be bad sports about this and ruin what we've achieved by turning our new Russian friends
into our enemies by refusing to relinquish our former policy. But, as I'm sure you already know,
and as your audience, would and could suspect the worst of the Rockefeller men, Kissenger
and Brazinski, the most powerful of the CFR men who were, you know, and this absurd. It's
Nelson Rockefeller's man, Kissinger, is the foreign policy guy for Nixon and Ford.
And then Ford's replaced with Jimmy Carter.
And he's got David Rockefeller's man, Zabini Brzezinski.
So it's all the same shit.
Anyway, so that's who these two guys are.
And they said, and people can read all about that in Barry Goldwater's memoirs with no apologies.
He's got a great chapter called Jimmy, who?
What the hell is going on here with this?
Anyway.
Once I get to talking about Barry Goldwater.
So you said George Kennan, Pap Buchanan, and two-thirds of the CFR.
Two-thirds of the CFR and all kinds of, all, and Susan Eisenhower and all kinds of generals and admirals and everyone.
But Brzezinski and Kissinger led the charge, and there were great many interested parties on the intellectual level as well who wanted to do it.
But it was really the special interests that put them over the top.
It was the military industrial complex led by Lockheed Martin's Bruce Jackson that created the committee on NATO expansion.
And in an alliance with the Democratic Party political consultants who said this would be a great way to win Polish votes in Illinois and Pennsylvania, which was true that a lot of these Eastern European countries wanted very much to be brought under America's security umbrella to protect them from Russia.
and they have huge diaspora populations here in the United States who immediately lobbied for that.
The Polish-American lobby especially was very influential and very well-financed and coordinated.
They targeted the most important Polish-American businessmen and essentially coerced them to getting on board for the thing and all of this
and really used democracy against the rest of us in the country by pushing for the policy in that way.
set us, you know, under this path.
And when, but it's important, though, right?
That it's not just Ron Paul, because Ron Paul's right about everything and nobody ever
listens to him.
So it's almost like, I hate to say this, but you understand what I mean in context.
It's beside the point what he said.
They weren't going to listen to him anyway.
But here you got Admiral, what's his name with the four stars saying, no, man, what do we
doing and they're like yeah yeah yeah what do you know about it and it's like man you have the whole
foreign service had two thirds of the state department and you had the embassy in moscow saying don't do
this yeah what the hell do they know about it right keith you know so it did not have to be this way
it's a fact and the specific you mention a number of specific work
case scenarios that William Burns said could happen if NATO expanded.
Who was William Burns?
And what did he say could happen if NATO continues to expand?
Yeah.
So he was the, he, he was stationed at the embassy in the 1990s, the American embassy in Moscow,
in the 1990s.
And then in the W. Bush years, he was the ambassador there.
And he's the guy that wrote the famous Nietz-Means-Memmo to Conno Lisa Rice in February of
2008, warning her not to give a membership action plan to Georgia and Ukraine.
And not only that, he wrote a follow-up memo, and this is all thanks to Julian Assange that
we know this stuff.
You can find it all at wikileaks.org.
And he also talks about it in his memoirs and quotes himself from an email that he wrote
to her, urging her that, listen, I understand the political difficulty in the position that
you're in here and all the incentives and pressures on you and stuff.
But you really should not be doing this.
And he says, if you don't understand what I'm saying,
you might as well just stop reading now.
You know what I mean?
Like you can see where he's like throwing up his hands.
Madam Secretary, please.
I know that there's all this like office politics inside the White House.
George Bush wants this done and he's your president, right?
But you got to stop him.
You can't do it, man.
We can't do it.
But he's our current CIA director.
He's a guy who had the responsibility of,
stopping this war and you know Biden picked him because he wasn't a career intelligence guy he's a
career diplomat he knows Russia best and but Biden's marching orders to him were not stop this war bill
unfortunately but he's the one who knew better all along and he again another just great example
of how this could have gone the other way you know I know it's different depending on you know
what age you are. I'm old enough now that when I was a kid in school and I was learning about
World War I, World War I, World War II and Korea, all that stuff and even Vietnam, but especially
those three. It's all black and white pictures. And it's all a long time ago. And like the World
War I people, they'd all been dead by now anyway. There are a few World War II people left around,
you know, when I was young. But this has all happened. I wouldn't born until 76, right?
all this happened you know world war two ended 30 years before i was born so like whatever man
right it's all inevitable that's the point it happened what are you worried about there's
what there's nothing to argue about there's nothing to consider really this is the history
of things that were decided whatever right so i understand that well that's how like iraq war one
is going to feel, or maybe even Iraq War II might feel to people today.
Some of this just feels like, geez, it was before I was interested.
It's before I knew about the Bosnia War, the Kosovo War.
This is all the stuff that happened back in the 1900s, right?
A long time ago, depending on your age.
And so it all sounds so very inevitable.
But again, this is George Bush's right-hand man, Connolly's right-hand man, William Burns,
telling her no stop don't come back and they didn't and why public choice theory you could have
written the line yourself keith i know you you know the economics of politics this was a legacy building
operation for george w bush because it's big get it it's big and it's bold and it's something
and this is 2008 his lame duck year he's done it's an election between some other guy and some other
guy. He's on his way out. He completely botched the absolutely unforced error of Iraq War
2. He humiliated himself with his public announcement that, well, I guess it'll be for other presidents
to decide how this war ends. And a guy threw the shoe at his head when he went to try to do his
so-called victory tour in Baghdad. He's humiliated. I don't know if the shoe was before or after
Bucharest but anyway
this was to build Bush's
legacy. This wasn't about us
the American people
it wasn't about Russia
it wasn't about Ukraine or Georgia
it was about George W. Bush
doing something important and again
of course completely botching it
getting it wrong and ruining everything
for everyone else.
Did Dick Cheney
want George Bush
to go to war with Russia in
2008? Am I remembering this correct?
Yeah, afraid so. And I got a lot of multiple sources on that, too. This is when America's allies, Shakashvili, who'd been installed in power in the Rose Revolution, the fake coup, color-cota revolution of 2003, decided to launch a war to attempt to reabsorb the breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, starting with South Ossetia. The first thing he did was killed Russian peacekeepers who were there under a deal brokered by the EU and ratified by the UN security.
Council, et cetera. Perfectly legitimate presence there, not some occupying army or something.
And the first thing they did was, and then they bombed apartment complexes, killed hundreds of
people in their attack on Tishkan Bally, which is the capital of Sotho Setsia. And so the Russians
came under the tunnel. It's called the Roki Tunnel, Rokai, Roki Tunnel under the Caucasus Mountains,
and came to push the Georgians back out again. And when they were doing so,
Dick Cheney and or his staff, it's reported different ways.
And I bring you different footnotes from the different claims here.
But it was either Cheney or his staff.
I don't think we have names for who it might have been under him who was saying this.
If it was, we'll see, Libby would have been gone by that point.
Maybe it was Victoria Newland.
I don't know.
But some say it was Cheney himself was proposing that America launched missile strikes on the Rokey tunnel
and collapse the Roki Tunnel and kill the Russian soldiers coming through.
You know, like launch a cruise missile down the, you know, set it off under the thing and blow them up and kill him.
And the way the anecdote, I believe Barton Gellman's version of it was that Bush said,
okay, who agrees with vice?
So we had to bomb the Russians.
And then Hadley, who had been known as Cheney's spy in the first term,
apparently he was like Bush's bodyguard at that point.
and Hadley had already gone around and made sure that everyone was going to keep their damned hand down when Cheney said that when Bush said that and so nobody agreed and the issue was allowed to go.
He's a heartbeat away and not his heartbeat. Bush's heartbeat. Cheney doesn't have a heartbeat and that guy could have been very easily.
Bush could have tripped and fallen and broken his neck. He was dumb enough. He could have hurt himself bad enough that Dick Cheney could be, I don't know, I never bought the choked on a pretzel thing.
I always thought that was like some weird
like Freemason ceremony where his dad punched him in the eye.
His dad had been at the White House the day before that.
How weird the thing where they all have to get a black eye?
Like what is this weird little cult you guys are in anyway?
I never bought that pretzel thing.
Anyway, he could have, he is dumb enough.
He could have choked on a Dr. Pepper to death and,
um, on a near beer.
And then Cheney would have been the one to decide whether we fight Russia or not over Georgia.
And listen, here's how unfamiliar.
and therefore completely, of course, unimportant former Soviet Georgia is to the American people.
When you talk about it, you have to call it former Soviet Georgia so people know that you're
not talking about America's Georgia, the one that we care about.
And if you told people, it's over there between the black and the Caspian Sea, they'd be like,
I think I remember that from the last time I looked at a globe 25 years ago, the Caspiancy.
I've heard of that.
Isn't that in the middle of Asia somewhere?
Are you kidding me?
Former Soviet Georgia.
And when the war broke out in 2008, there were anecdotes like this.
There were Americans who were terrified because they know nothing about history.
They know nothing about geography.
They know nothing about context.
They really thought grown adults really thought, and I'm not making fun of them.
I'm just saying like whatever.
I don't know.
It's true.
People were really afraid that the Russians were landing troops in our Georgia.
Between Florida and South Carolina.
that they were killing our people,
that we were going to have to go to war with Russia.
And they were terrified out of their minds.
They're calling their families,
trying to get a hold of people.
Is everyone okay?
Because they can't imagine that what the hell?
There's another Georgia over there in Central Asia.
That probably belongs to Russia anyway, right?
Doesn't it?
And if the Russians are invading it,
then what the hell do I can?
What does that have to do with me?
You say the Russians are invading Georgia.
You scare the hell on me.
I thought you were talking about.
my friends live in Atlanta dude like what right and and so yes Americans are unforgivably ignorant okay
but also the American Empire was getting in trouble very far from home they had no right
to intervene fact I did a debate with a neocon a F-level neocon named Harvey Kushner at the
University of Texas and he was talking about how
you know yeah we got a no america's not an empire which over there keeping the world safe like
you know recently didn't you hear about the those dang ruskies invaded georgia and i'm like
i'm telling the kids at a and m i'm like oh yeah no america's not a world empire we just have a
border dispute with russia seven thousand miles east of washington dc in former soviet georgia
and the southern caucuses mountains that none of you college educated kids could point out on a globe without
labels. So, but no, Harvey's right. The U.S. Navy is just there to help the world when there's an
earthquake, you know. President Obama in his book, A Promise Land, mentions color
revolutions in Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, and Ukraine. When he talks about Ukraine, I believe he's
referring to the 2004. What are color revolutions?
Color revolutions are just coup d'etas, American coup d'etaz dressed up as popular uprisings.
And they have to take place in these, what the Americans call semi-democratic states.
What would they know about semi-democratic states, Keith?
I don't know.
But it's got to be a democracy enough that they have regular elections to dispute because that's the template is, hey, our exit polls say that those ballot results are wrong.
And everyone has to accept our exit polls instead of your ballot results.
You're definitely cheating and we're not.
And so that's usually what happens is it's when they lose an election and refuse to accept it.
And then with tens or hundreds of millions of dollars from the American National Endowment for Democracy, International Republican Institute, National Democratic Institute, and a great many different George Soros funded think tanks, they camp out.
They refuse to give up.
and this is often in very poor countries where this is absolutely the best job that you could have
would be being a professional protester outside and so that people flock to the capital city
and essentially you know riot hold hold protests and riot and force a change in regime
and that was how they did it in the rose revolution of 2003 and the orange revolution in 2004
really with the um there i have a whole list of them in there i mean they did this in slovakia and
even um against their friend in slovenia um and in croatia wait Slovenia no in Croatia they
overthrew their buddy touchman he was about to die he died right before the election anyway but that was
bill clinton betraying his own guy that he helped in the bosnia war um and in operation storm and all that
um and then they overthrew milosevic in 1999 or in 2000 90 yeah 2000 um and uh
And then, yeah, the Rose Revolution, 2003, they did the Orange Revolution in Georgia,
then the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004.
And then in Kyrgyzstan in 2005, they did what was called the Tulip Revolution.
Or sometimes it was called the Lemon Revolution, pink and yellow were the colors.
And they overthrew a guy who had been friendly with them.
And it was, you know, one of the main reasons is crazy.
but I even quote Daniel Fried is the one describing, you know, the Russia Hawk is the one
describing this group, Hyatt al-Tahrir, this Islamist group in Kyrgyzstan, and like these guys
are bin Ladenites.
I mean, they claim to be nonviolent, but they're actually not.
They've committed all these terrorist attacks.
Their propaganda justifies September 11th and all this stuff that happened to us.
And yet the Kyr government's persecution of that group that was supported by George Soros,
became one of the reasons, one of the excuses for doing the coup in the name of human rights.
And this is in 05.
George Bush had declared war against bin Ladenites who didn't even exist yet in Somalia.
They wouldn't be bin Ladenites in Somalia for another few years,
but he declared war against Islamist insurgents from Somalia to the Philippines.
But in Kyrgyzstan, we're very concerned that the government has been arresting these bin Ladenites lately
that are financed by the George Soros government there.
And then he had refused to allow America to station AWACS Air Force control planes there
and had allowed the Russians to open up, reopen up an air base,
about 30 miles away from the American air base there that was being used to service the
failed, ultimately failed war in Afghanistan.
And so that was another one.
They failed with the Cedar Revolution in 2005 in Lebanon.
They also failed in 2009 with the Green Revolution in Iran.
And then there's like the umbrella revolution, which I forget if that was under Obama or Trump,
the NED tried to do that umbrella stunt in Hong Kong.
Same kind of thing.
National Endowment for Democracy financing these groups, protesting to overthrow democratically elected governments
in the name of democracy, of course.
in 2014 there was a color revolution with amy klobuchar i think chris murphy and john mccain
were also there in 2014 in ukraine uh can you walk us through what happened in this
coup slash euro my don revolution yeah essentially they say he's the russian leaning president
it's not really true he's from the eastern party yanukovych is from the eastern party
the party of regions
and he wanted to join with the EU.
He ran on it.
People say Paul Manafort was Donald Trump's controller
working for Vladimir Putin
as a damn lie.
Manafort was, if anything, was CIA.
I don't think he was, but he very well could have been.
He had to fit right in with them
with his fancy cufflinks and all that kind of deal.
Like he's their social class of the CIA.
He absolutely was working at least as a cooperative
American-type asset. The entire premise of his employment with Yanukovych was to move him west,
to get him to sign up with the EU, and he wanted to. And Manafort explains, people should really
watch this. It's a great interview of Manafort on Patrick Bet David. And he explains how the eastern
oligarchs, the Donbass oligarchs, they hated the Russians because they were always treated like
the red-headed stepchild. And so, you know, they were ethnic Russians and all of that. They were sick
of being used and abused and having their companies seized from them and all.
It's extremely corrupt a country.
Oh, I hereby nationalize your corporation and give it to my friend, this kind of just insanity.
And they said, well, they can't do that if we join the EU.
EU rules won't let them be that arbitrary.
And so it was people who in the cartoon would be pro-Russian actually wanted to join the EU.
And that was who he was the agent of and was doing their bidding.
But the EU played way too hard of hardball, even according to George Soros, said Angela Merkel
ruined it because she was willing to give far too little in loans and was demanding
far too much in terms of austerity and restrictions and social welfare payments to the poor
and that kind of thing in order to get the deal done.
At the same time, the Russians were playing hardball and we're saying, look, if you sign
with them, you're not going to be able to sign with us.
and Putin did publicly contradict that, but apparently privately, numerous times he had also threatened that.
And so caught between Iraq and a hard place, Yanukovych decided not to sign.
It wasn't even a full deal.
It was just an association agreement with the European Union on the path toward EU membership.
When he refused to sign, the Soros groups came out in the street.
I mean, the original guy that called the Maidan was a guy from,
on Draghi TV that was founded with Soros money and was directly on the Soros payroll.
And he declared on Facebook, come on everybody, let's go to the Maidan and do the Orange Revolution
thing again. And that was how it started. And then Yanukovych was a horrible president and
statist. And just like virtually all presidents do, sometimes this works. I guess if you do it
effectively enough, it works. But oftentimes it only backfires. He clamped down with violence on the
protesters numerous times in ways that really only backfired against him, including in January when
the thing had really just petered out. People were going home and the groups, the NGOs were running
out of money and the thing. And right as it's all falling apart, they pass what we're called the
dictatorship laws is what the dissenters called them, that essentially outlawed the kind of
protest that you don't need to outlaw right now. They're going home. And then that just reinvigorated
the whole damn thing again and all that. So that was, you know, very clumsy policy on the part of the
serving president there. But then the whole thing ultimately culminated in a violent street
putt by, to put it very politely, the radical right in the street there on February
the 21st and 22nd of February 2014. And they threatened to murder the president if he didn't
leave town and he left town. And they took over the government buildings and then the American
government immediately recognized the new coup d'etal junta. They impeached the president with less
than the super majority required and literally with Nazi thugs with guns standing around inside the
parliament monitoring them to make sure they vote right but they didn't have the votes because
they had already banned his party from showing up there so they didn't even have the quorum that
they don't know if they had the quorum but they didn't have the numbers that they needed
for the vote but they just impeached him anyway and then they immediately went to war and one
of the first consequence was the Russian seizure of Crimea and then very soon after the war
broke out in the Donbass, and that's the war that ultimately blew up into what we call the
full-scale invasion, although that's not quite right. The Russians have actually not engaged
in a full-scale mobilization. If they did, it would look much worse and much different. But what we
call the full-scale war, the much worse war, since 2022. And Jeffrey Sachs tells us to imagine if
on January 6th, a bunch of Chinese officials were standing in front of Trump supporters saying,
saying, you know you won this election. This is your country. Do what it takes to make things right.
And once you get that analogy, you go, well, this certainly does seem like a U.S. coup that took place in Ukraine.
On page 319, you mentioned the 2015 Donbass referendum. I believe it was 2015. It might have been 2014.
What was the Donbass referendum and who are the groups going to war?
well
there was a referendum so this is after the warhead already begun
well it's a comcade timeline so
they do the coup in
at the end of February that's cool
and I close my eyes there's all bright ring lights
it's cool
the end of February
because you know the thing burning a hole in my retina
with it
the end of February then
the interim government takes over in March and first what happens is the Russian sees Crimea.
Now, if you listen to the war party tell this story, listen to TV, tell the story, they go, yeah,
this whole thing started when Russia sees Crimea.
No, the whole thing started when the American side backed this violent push that overthrew
the government.
And then as soon as they did that, the new government moved to, or at least prominent, the
former presidents all signed a thing, and I think the parliament had begun to move to repeal
the Harkeith pact that allowed the Russians to keep their Black Sea fleet at the city of Sevastopol
in the naval port of Sevastopol on the Crimean Peninsula. They said, now it's time to kick the Russians
out of Crimea. This is their only 24, I mean, pardon me, 52-week warm water port there. All the rest of
their ports freeze over in the wintertime. This is their access to the Black Sea, and therefore,
the Mediterranean. As Zabedna Brizinski put it,
John McCain tried to quote him that without Ukraine
and especially Crimea,
Russia is simply a Eurasian power, a regional power.
But with Crimea and its access to
the med, then that makes them a global power
and a real power to mess with. So it was
um i don't know if the americans were behind this or not they're crazy if they wanted to push
their luck this far and but the former president's cravchuk kuchma and um yushenko
all called for the russians to be kicked out of sevestopol and at that point the russians
they held sort of a bogus referendum in crimea that said do you want to secede
from Ukraine and declare independence.
And then they changed it to do you want to join with Russia?
And they did, I mean, I don't know if the exact numbers were right,
but they did have a supermajorie, solid supermajority support in Crimea for joining Russia.
And then this is the little green men that let their base, the Marines and,
and I guess special operations forces that essentially just let their base,
and Marines and sailors, who just let their bases and went and stood on street corners.
and took over the thing
in a virtually bloodless coup.
Four people were killed
in a virtually bloodless coup domain
in the seizure of Crimea.
And it's important because
you got to put yourself in the mindset
now of the new coup d'etal junta in Kiev.
That, uh-oh, that backfired
and now we just, God dang, lost Crimea.
And now we got people in the Donbass
talking about they want to hold referendums
and they want to declare their end.
independence, or at least, you know, if not full independence, at least they're declaring
sovereignty and demanding hard federalism and self-rule under Ukrainian, you know, the overall
Ukrainian state. And so they overreacted like crazy. And this was, we know, directly, I mean,
is widely reported at the time, directly under the influence of the leader of Jabat al-Nusra
from Syria, John Brennan. CIA director, John Brennan, the traitor, former
communist turned bin Ladenite supporter in the Syria war.
He was the one who went to Kiev and insisted that they launched this so-called counter-terror
operation.
Oh, al-Qaeda and Syria?
No, we like those guys.
Anyway, we need to launch a counterterrorism operation against a bunch of people in the
Dombas who are refusing to accept the rule of the new coup d'etalhunter that America just
installed in power completely illegitimately, overthrowing a democratic leader.
And, and then that's what they did.
They just attacked them.
And there was nothing that the people of the East had done yet that was an act of war.
They had seized some government buildings just like the people in the West had done, including, you know, the intelligence offices and stuff.
And then here comes Kiev launching airstrikes, bringing in tanks, calling in soldiers, machine gun and people and blasts him with artillery shells and attacking them from the air.
And the people of the East, they couldn't believe it.
they're like wait this is our government italians who is that they couldn't they didn't understand
what was even happening that they weren't coming to roused out the bad guys they were coming
to bomb the crap out of everyone and set an example that this is what happens when you mess with us
and i have the quote from Poroshenko or was it churching of the first um the first
president who launched the war the interim president who launched the war that no i think this is
after Poroshenko was brought in and escalated it.
He was the anti-terror operation won't last years.
It will last days.
You know, Operation Decisive Storm in Yemen, right, that lasted 10 years, right?
This is what we'll do.
We're going to go in there and we're going to whoop them good, he said, and then just
kicked off this horrific thing that, you know, the major peace deals brought the worst
of the fighting to the end in November and then in February of 2014 and 15.
But those are the Minsk, Minsk two peace deals.
They were never fully implemented and they led to a situation of essentially what you call low-level fighting where I think it was approximately another 4,000 people were killed in the time between the Minsk two deal of February 15 and the actual invasion of 2022.
So this Donbass war is between the new state in Kiev and the people in eastern Ukraine who voted heavily Yanukovych.
Yes.
And then as the war party says, and Russian troops, Russian troops, Russian troops, but that was always overplayed.
It was a denial.
It was like George W. Bush pretending that the entire insurgency in Iraq was all led by Zarqawi, you know.
Like, well, that's not exactly what's going on here.
in fact it was the locals fighting with some assistance by special operations forces
but the only major incursions by the Russians in the original war were in August of 14
and in February of 15 and then that was it you know other than that it was like
deniable volunteers just like we have American volunteers that go and fight on Ukraine's side
who really aren't necessarily sent by the Pentagon at all but just go and join
and any important information we need to know about Minsk 1 or Minsk 2 looking at them in hindsight
yeah i mean the the basic deal is and this was agreed by the germans and the french and the russians in
the in the ukrainians and then america obama and the u.n security council put their rubber stamp on it
so these are the official peace deals that's first of all um and they agreed to stop with the air strikes
stop with the heavy artillery and the kind of full-scale war.
They drew a couple of lines and called it the gray zone,
kind of a no-man's land between the two,
trying to keep the sides away from each other.
And then what was supposed to happen
was they're supposed to amend the Constitution
to grant hard federalism,
like real statehood almost,
to the Dombas oblasts,
particularly Donneska and LaHansk.
That's what they're called there,
make up the Dombas.
and then they were supposed to hold elections
and under international supervision
and the key to understanding what happened
is that Kiev with American support
refused to ever implement the damn thing
they said we won't we're changing the order of operations here
Russia has to pull all their troops out of the country
which mostly they were kind of mythological anyway
it's like George Bush saying
we'll know that Saddam has disarmed when he brought
all his chemical weapons to us.
You know what I mean? We'll know
the Russians have left when they all up and
leave. It's like, well, where are
they? But
they said, and importantly,
and this is the part, was
the real rub, that
they had to give up full control of the
eastern border to Ukraine
before they would hold elections.
And look, they have an argument
that, hey, you can't have
a fair election under foreign occupation.
But, oh, well, tough shit.
you shouldn't have launched a war against them then and you shouldn't agree to the deal then because
that's what the deal says now they're altering the deal Barack Obama and the Poroshenko government
we never meant to sign on to it and they all have admitted this later boasted about this that really
was a ruse just give us time to rearm just like they accuse the Russians of give us time to call
it time out and rearm and get ready for the next phase of the war when it comes soon enough
because they knew that that was a poison pill and a deal killer.
The Russians are never going to give the Ukrainians full control over the border
before they ever even hold elections or implement other parts of the deal.
But so, you know, it's funny to listen to them talk about, well, it was a bad deal.
What?
This is the rules-based liberal world order.
The Americans and their friends can do whatever they want.
They can kill whoever they want.
they can break any treaty they want and tell any lie they want, steal any amount of money
or any property that they want, and everybody else is the bad guy.
I'm going to do that next year on my taxes. Keith, how come you didn't pay? It was such a bad
deal. I saw what the money was going towards in Gaza, and I just didn't want to chip in this year.
It was a very bad deal. As far as...
You read by the 16th Amendment, Keith. You're responsible.
That's right. I shouldn't have done that. I had to be.
too much to during that day. What were the provocations that took place under President
Trump? Oh, well, he increased the weapons and he refused to implement the peace deal
because, as you remember, he was absolutely under fire, gun to his head, essentially,
he could not normalize with Russia. The U.S. permanent establishment just would not allow it.
And it's one thing that they absolutely threw them into a panic about him was that he just
wanted to get along and and he didn't know when to shut the hell up about it dude he was driving
him crazy with uh forget nato which look because they're all government employees they don't
understand a businessman making a deal and trump is not the most subtle type but he's like germany
hell they can fight their own wars look he's just trying to sell them american weapons okay
that's all he's doing i need you guys to increase the amount of money you spend on american
weapons my lobby contractor um you know uh donors that's all increase your nato spending that's all
but they hear him talk like that so they freaked and then of course we know now that brennan was
the one who framed the whole thing up in the first place and then the democrats got on board and
the fbi got on board for pretending to think that don't trump was a russian spy controlled by
Manafort and page and all this under the Russia Gate hoax, which is really incredible.
And I have almost, you know, I don't know, 75, 80 pages or so of the book is on Russia Gate.
It's an incredible story about the framing of a major American presidential party candidate for president,
and then the president-elect and then president for treason with the Kremlin of all things.
this is the most unbelievable thing none of it was true all of it was a lie all of it was a frame-up job
but it severely hamstrung um trump's policy and prevented him from making peace
i remember when he went to helsinki and he said man i don't even know of any real reason
to believe that russia interfered in the election much less collusion but like what even
interference i don't know he said he didn't i believe him well the guy's
standing right there.
So, like, maybe he's just being diplomatic.
I don't think so.
But, like, what's he supposed to do?
Be like, yeah, don't you ever rig an election for me again, dude,
or some stupid thing he's supposed to say to the guy right there.
So they all denounced this treason summit.
The treason summit.
I remember joking on Twitter.
I was like, me a year ago, or me a year and a half ago.
Boy, I wonder how the anti-war left is going to figure out how to come sling.
back after eight years of silence under Barack Obama, year and a half later, treason summit.
There was no return of the anti-war left at all. They were worse than Obama himself by the time
Trump was trying to get along with Russia. Amazing. What are the Russian interference
claims, Facebook ads and memes?
Yeah, and that Manafort and Page were his secret handlers telling him what to do,
and that Page had made a secret deal to get American sanctions on Russia lifted
and to abandon NATO and turn all of our allies over to Russia's tender mercies and all these things
in the steel dossier.
They claim that the Russians have been cultivating Trump as a spy for five years
and planning on installing him in power.
They claim that this guy, George Papadopoulos, had secret inside knowledge.
from the Russians, from a Russian spy, that they had hacked the Democrats' emails and were
about to release them, which is a total hoax. They claim that Mike Flynn had made a secret
deal to lift sanctions with the Russians, which is a damned lie. They claim that Senator Jeff
Sessions had, you know, done anything nefarious in some secret implied negotiations or agreements
when he very briefly met with the Russian ambassador under his duties as a senator.
as part of the campaign.
And, you know, a small little anecdote here,
not that this is a million percent this positive,
but dude, if I told you that,
yeah, Jeff Sessions,
Senator Sessions had a top secret treasonous meeting
with the Russian ambassador
in his Senate office in front of his staff
who are all retired Army officers,
wouldn't you say that that sounds like a stupid lie
and that I should shut the hell up?
Because, of course, that's a stupid lie.
how dare they say that they're accusing those army officers of treason too they're standing right
there letting sessions get away with selling america out to the russians why aren't they being
court-martialed like summon back to duty and court-martialed because it's a lie that's wise a
damned lie all of it all of it was lies oh facebook ads rigging the election and every bit of it
And that Trump was going to sell out our policy to them, that he was their Manchurian candidate,
that they had done a successful coup and had overthrown Hillary Clinton in a coup,
in a color-coded revolution, you could call it, and prevented Hillary Clinton taking her rightful place on her throne and all this.
And that Trump then was an illegitimate president who had no right whatsoever to sign or veto a law or to order troops to come or go or a single thing.
And it's just incredible.
It's just incredible.
It's unbelievable.
And I, you know, my section on it is great, but I'd encourage people to read the Durham report,
which is not complete, but it's the official investigation into the investigation and where
the thing came from.
And it is just an absolute outrage, dude.
You will not be friends with your Democrat friends anymore when you read a dude.
It's horrible.
It's just, man, it's unreal.
Literally the director of the FBI framing the president for treason.
The director of the CIA, framing him outright, all their staff, all of the top executives of the Justice Department and FBI, knowingly lying about the President of the United States in that way.
When they're all post-constitutional, you know, ad hoc agencies and departments that don't have any right to exist, they have no legitimate authority at all.
You know, John McLaughlin, who is the former acting director of the CIA, was asked.
hey man people say that there's a deep state overthrowing trump and he goes yeah well thank god for the
deep state that's a good thing because let me tell you something the problem is not at justice
and the problem is not at fbi and the problem is not at cia the problem is not the nsa the problem
is at 1600 pennsylvania right except that that was a damned lie it was all a lie so ergo in fact
the problem was at Langley, at DOJ, at FBI, at NSA.
How dare they come at the elected president this way?
And I'll tell you, man, if the Republicans had done this to Obama and Hillary over the reset,
I'd be just as pissed off and I'd have written 100 pages about that too.
This is absolutely unforgivable what they did.
And I'll tell you, when you read my Russia Gate part, you're going to be mad.
It is unreal what they did.
It's a hair to the left or the right, whichever you prefer, of shooting the guy in the face in Dallas.
Yeah.
It really is an absolute outrage what they did.
I remember my Democrat friends at the time were like, is it out yet?
Is Mueller's report out yet?
Refreshing their phones just waiting.
I know it's going to be.
We got him dead to rights.
We just have to put it in writing.
So the Mueller report came out and none of them ever mentioned it again.
what is in this Mueller report?
Is there anything interesting?
No.
The Mueller report is about how it turns out
none of it was right after all, guys.
Sorry.
And we did, they did an obstruction of justice investigation.
Half the damn report is about Trump
looking into whether there are ways
that he can stop the thing,
but never doing anything
or making a phone call and asking somebody,
would you please intervene here for me
and them say no?
Right.
And then, but there's no justice.
is to obstruct.
And quite frankly, if he had just arrested Comey and Brennan and their families and exiled them
from the United States forever, along with the top 50 people at justice, CIA, and FBI,
and ban their families from ever coming back to North America.
Again, that would have been perfectly fine.
That wouldn't have been obstruction of justice at all.
And they all deserve much worse than I would like to say on your podcast today.
They are literally not in the absolute.
absolute constitutional sense, but in every other way, they are the traitors to the American people,
to our constitutional system and the rest.
Of course, yeah, provoking war with a nuclear power, certainly more treasonous than anything I could think of.
Two more questions. Thank you so much for your time. How do you explain the videos we saw at the
beginning? We have President Biden and President Zelenskyy saying this Russian attack is unprovoked,
yet you have the nerve to title a big book like this provoked are they lying are they engaged in
a noble lie they know it's a lie but you got to stop these evil russians uh he's basically
vladimir lenin who wants to reinstate the soviet union are they just ignorant have they
not come across this material how do you explain so many people saying that this was an unprovoked
war well yeah first of all from the top they're lying and they know their line i'm sure just like
with the weapons of mass destruction or Assad committing genocide or whatever, there are unlimited
numbers of idiots who believe lies and repeat them and believe them. And so are not lying
themselves, but are just stupid. So there's plenty of that. But, I mean, in fact, as anyone
who was just reading the Post in the Times or whatever at the time could tell you, what was
issue was that Putin was demanding that America sign a treaty promising that we would never
bring Ukraine into NATO or expand our military presence into NATO. And he was also demanding
that they abide by earlier agreements and pull our military forces back to Western Europe
and so forth. All that was negotiable. The real issue was permanent neutrality for Ukraine
and America and Ukraine agreeing not to let Ukraine join the Western alliance. And here's the real
rub and this is the real sin of this thing man is that joe biden never had any intention of bringing ukraine
into nato but that's not to say that putin was lying when he claimed to be concerned about that
because what biden did was he said well we're not going to bring him in now we're not going to bring
them in you know probably in the next few years i mean they've got a lot of real bad problems with
their democracy and corruption and their economy and stuff.
And so, like, you know, we're not really going to bring them into NATO.
But what we are going to do is we're going to refuse to ever promise that.
We'll never put it in writing.
And we will continue to increase interoperability, you know,
training and production between our military and theirs.
We'll do everything we can to make their military,
essentially a de facto asset of NATO and the West, so that, for example, if Poland was invaded by Russia
and the NATO Article 5 Treaty kicked in, Article 5 of the NATO treaty kicked in,
and America went and fielded forces in Poland to go and fight the Russians that we would essentially
be able to bring the Ukrainians in on our side because they would already be NATO compatible.
They would already have our communications, our weapons, our standard size artillery rounds, and whatever.
That's what they were working toward, was making Ukraine a de facto member of the alliance.
And what Putin was worried about, he said this explicitly numerous times, and it's perfectly,
I'm not saying it's reasonable what he did about it, but I'm saying his concerns were perfectly reasonable.
was to say that look we think that they're going to put these anti-missile missiles like they're putting in
Romania and Poland that we think they're going to put them in Ukraine and then they're going to
decrease their flight time from cruise missiles down to 10 minutes and hypersonic missiles less than
five to our capital city and it is an intolerable security breach and we won't stand for it
It's as simple as that.
And so, but the West had a doctrine that said, no, see, we have an open door.
Which is just jargon.
It doesn't mean anything.
There's no door.
It doesn't mean anything.
This is a figure of speech, which means that only the West will say who can join our alliance
and no other nation will ever have a say who's allowed in our alliance.
no matter what even if it's the russians saying listen man this is our canada and we're just
going to not let you do it it'll lead to war we promise niet means yet if you do this
there's going to be a problem right the americans say we don't care we rather have a problem
than say okay fine and that's it and so they essentially have sacrificed
the people and the nation of Ukraine on the altar of their absolute, ridiculous, stubborn
bullshit, Keith. That's it. And Ukraine is never going to be a NATO member. If they ever intended
on bringing Ukraine into NATO, what is that? That means that they intend to defend Ukraine.
Well, here's Ukraine getting bombed every day and they're not defending them, are they?
They're not pulling our Navy into the Azov Gulf there or that.
that Azov Coast and bringing our heavy guns to bear on Russian forces, are they?
They're not bringing in our B-2s and B-52s to carpet bomb Russian forces in the Dombas.
Why?
Because then we'd all die in a thermonuclear war.
That's why, because it would lead directly to war between NATO and Russia.
And that would lead to general nuclear war.
And so no.
So in other words, Biden himself is saying, go ahead and take as much of it as you want,
go ahead we know you'll forever be able to prevent ukraine into joining our stupid alliance
but we're at least going to give them a bunch of weapons and make it very costly for you
that's it and now they admit which i think is true that they've known all along just as we've said
all along that russia's going to keep the dombaths ukraine is not getting they're not going
back to 2013 borders 1991 borders forget it pal you can now read this you can now read this you can
now, in the fall of 24, read this in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times that like, yeah, well, okay, yeah, okay. And then what do they say? They go, well, that was always the plan. We knew that we weren't going to be able to force the Russians out of Ukraine. Well, but wait a minute. What about two years ago when you said, yaha, the goal is to push them out of every square inch of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea. Remember that?
Remember this?
Huh, they say Russia has the second strongest army in the world.
Looks like they got the second strongest army in Ukraine.
Remember that?
No, actually, in fact, Russia is going to have as much of Ukraine as they want eventually.
And as I said, they have not even launched a full-scale mobilization and a real full-scale war here.
They're fighting with their reserves here.
They fought for a year, they fought with prisoners working for,
the mercenary group and saved
all their soldiers in the rear
people were like oh look how desperate
the Russians are they're using the Wagner
group they're using
the Wagner group because of how desperate they're
not
idiots they just tell themselves anything
bunch of damn Democrats
don't know the first thing about it
you know it's incredible
to read Dwight Eisenhower's
words talking about how
look Soviets are bad
and you know I'm open to
maybe making peace with them, but we will go to war in Guatemala.
The Soviet troops and Soviet weaponry is not allowed in Guatemala.
America doesn't even share a direct border with Guatemala.
So imagine, what do they share?
Ukraine and Russia have like 1,200 miles or something,
kilometers of a border together.
So I do not like statists from any country, let alone Vladimir Putin,
but to say that this is just some bizarre attempt at world takeover,
I think it's completely ridiculous.
And look, let's do the Canada-Mexico analogy here real quick.
The Canada one is easier, I guess, here in a way.
So we just start with that.
They're like, what if the Russians overthrew the government of Canada twice in 10 years
when the people kept voting wrong?
And then on the second one, they used a bunch of Nazis in the street to get away with the putch.
And the new regime immediately launched a war against the people of Vancouver, British,
Columbia who refused to accept the rule of their new of their new coup junta that overthrew
their elected president and then they started threatening to kick us out of our naval bases in
Alaska right America would invade Canada and probably nuke Moscow that's what would happen
America would sack Ottawa if America had to call up every last reserve and policemen in
America to sack Ottawa they would do it if they had to conscript 10 million
to conquer Canada, they would stop at nothing to prevent a hostile military power from
controlling Canada. You know it and I know it and your mama knows it and everybody knows it.
That's a scientific fact, okay? We would kill them. We would probably at least threaten and
probably just go ahead and follow through and start a thermonuclear war over it. And by the way,
you notice that when I say, what if the Russians did that? How completely in their
and stupid and ridiculous it sounds. It sounds like I'm this ridiculous one. Because you know and I know
and your audience knows and everybody knows. Russia's not going to overthrow the government in
Ottawa. Russia wouldn't dare try to overthrow the government in Ottawa. Are you kidding? You
know why? Because we nuke Moscow and they know that. It's stupid to even bring it up. It sounds
crazy. But we do that to them and it's perfectly fine. The shoe, no, you're just not allowed
to put the shoe on the other foot. You're just not allowed to think of it in that context.
Then let me bring up the China analogy as well. Because this is one that comes from Alexander
Solzhenitsyn talking about Ukraine and saying, what if he doesn't say exactly like this,
but for our purposes, what if when the American Empire falls, we don't just
lose our dominance in Europe and Asia and the Middle East. What if the East Coast
loses some of the Western states? Right? What if we lose not just right? Just like
the Russia, their Soviet empire, they didn't just lose the Warsaw Pact states. They lost the
republics too, right? Belarus, Ukraine, the Baltics as well as Kazakhstan, etc. Right? They lost
their so-called republics as well.
So now the Empire falls and USA, Washington, D.C., starts losing countries west of the Mississippi
states west of the Mississippi River as well.
And they lose the southwest.
And the southwest then falls under the dominance of Mexico.
And then Mexico comes in and starts persecuting the Anglos, outlawing our Protestant churches,
outlawing the English language, confiscating.
our property and mistreating all of the whites of what's now new New Mexico in the American
Southwest. What would presumably still Anglo-controlled USA East of the Mississippi River do
about that? Well, they would invade Texas again, and they would force the Hispanics to stop
mistreating the Anglos, or at least they'd threaten to, or at least they'd back right-wing
militias, or at least you understand the analogy here. They would not let that happen. It's the same
thing here. It's the same thing here. People don't want to put the shoe on the other foot because
you know why it means that their political heroes are damned devils and that they are damned fools
for loving them so much. Sorry. It's so ridiculous. They're like, you know what, we might
need to stop people from voluntarily downloading an app on their phone called TikTok because
there's three degrees of separation from TikTok and the Chinese government, well, if that
counts as a violation of our sovereign independence, my gosh, what's going on in other parts
of the world, of course, certainly qualifies as violations of the independence of other
countries. So I want to end on a somewhat optimistic note. When it comes to peace talks in the
past that have worked, so many people say, well, you can't talk to Xi Jinping. You can't talk to
Vladimir Putin, these guys are crazy dictators who want to take over the world. What are some
examples of peace talks in the past that have worked out that can keep us optimistic about the future?
Well, America signed all kinds of treaties with the Soviets and including did work with them
on the dismantling of the Soviet Union itself, ultimately. And H.W. Bush, for all of his
horrible flaws, did push very hard for new treaties and including made massive unilateral moves
to disarm America's thermonuclear missile force at the end of the Cold War.
And the Russians reciprocated.
And we went from about 40,000 nukes on our side and was 30 on our side and 40 on theirs
to about 7,000, 6 to 7,000 total on each side with only 1,500 deployed and the rest in storage.
So this is a massive improvement over the previous state.
It's almost impossible to explain.
what an improvement that is um over the the previous arms race so that's a huge one and then
you know um the uh i'll just look at you know trump's potential almost success in winning over
north korea in uh his last term the president of south korea said please let me go over there
and open up man i want to work with them and see if we can get a peace treaty and end this war and all
this and trump goes yeah let's do it
Well, I bet that'll piss off my national security advisor.
And so we told them to do it.
And it was working.
And then, of course, at Sheldon Adelson's insistence, Donald Trump hired John Bolton and
John Bolton, who's, you know, just for Israeli interests, I don't know what Adelson
cares about North Korea, but Bolton's horrible on it.
It's all Bolton's fault that North Korea has nuclear weapons in the first place because
of the actions he took working for Bush and the State Department in 2002, which is I can get into,
But it's 100% his fault.
He shares equal.
Bolton shares 100% equal responsibility with George W. Bush and Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-il's top nuclear weapon scientists for the creation of that arsenal.
I mean, he might as well been a supervisor on the damn project.
And then he's the one who ruined the potential piece there.
But you saw what happened.
Trump stuck his hand.
I said, ah, what the hell crossed over into North Korea?
Why not?
And I mean, that's a war that.
We've had a timeout, a ceasefire, but no real armistice since 52.
And a real threat of conflict between those countries this whole time.
And then, you know, I don't know.
We negotiate our ways out of war and negotiate the ends of wars all the time.
They all eventually come to an end.
Iran and Iraq fought for eight years, ended right where they started from,
only a lot more dead in this case we have a situation where all reasonable people in all places know
that russia's keeping the donbass the question is are they going to keep all of zaprocia and
curse on or only part of them are they going to annex the city of harquiv or are they going to
restrain themselves they're going to try to annex and go as far as odessa or can we call the thing off
short of that. And those are the questions. Only a damn liar and the damn fool who believes them
says that the Russians are ever leaving the Donbass. And frankly, I don't think they're going to
leave the Projure-Curson either. That's their so-called land bridge to Crimea. The last time they didn't
control it, the damn Kiev government dammed up the freshwater supplies from the Nipa River
through the canal down to Crimea. So they're just going to not let that happen. So they're just going to not
let that happen again Keith I don't know
they shouldn't have let their government be run
by a bunch of American back Nazis in the
first place if they didn't want that consequence
but they're losing
formerly Novo Russia
there the four eastern
oblasts
and maybe six maybe
Harkev and Dipranoska
Flapflam jam whatever you call
it there that nobody can pronounce because nobody cares
between
the Don Bass and the river
there
I don't know, but, you know, I'll tell you what, after Ukraine's big success, they're faint in Curzon and their massive success in Harkiv and the very north of Lohansk in September of 2022, wiser Americans said, you should negotiate right now.
You should negotiate now while you're only this far behind and not worse, because this is the high of your power, man.
It's only downhill from here, including at that time, and I know everybody hates them and they should for other reasons, fine.
But Millie, the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, was absolutely right about this.
His predecessor, Mullen, who had served under Obama, Admiral Mullen, said the same thing.
Deal now, man, before it gets worse.
And that was two years ago.
And they should have dealt.
They've done nothing but lose men and land and wealth since then.
And it's only getting worse.
the thing is a catastrophe man it's it's a it's a real tragedy for those people and i don't know
what the what the ultimate consequences will be but i know that they'll reverberate for the
rest of our lifetimes for sure the book is provoked how washington started the new cold war
with russia and the catastrophe in ukraine thanks to everyone for watching keith and i
don't tread on anyone in the libertarian institute scott horton thank you for your time thank you keith
President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and he actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement.
That was what he sent us.
And that was a precondition for not invade Ukraine.
Of course, we didn't sign that.