Scott Horton Show - Just the Interviews - 3/12/22 – Scott’s Speech on Yemen and Ukraine at the New Jersey Libertarian Convention

Episode Date: March 14, 2022

On Saturday, Scott delivered a speech to the New Jersey Libertarian Party Convention. He covered the Saudi war in Yemen and the Russian war in Ukraine. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: The War State and Why The Vietnam War?, by Mike Swanson; Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott; EasyShip; Free Range Feeder; Thc Hemp Spot; Green Mill Supercritical; Bug-A-Salt and Listen and Think Audio. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All right, y'all, welcome to the Scott Horton Show. I'm the director of the Libertarian Institute, editorial director of anti-war.com, author of the book, Fool's Aaron, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, and The Brand New, Enough Already, Time to End the War on Terrorism. And I've recorded more than 5,500 interviews since 2004. almost all on foreign policy and all available for you at scothorton dot for you can sign up the podcast feed there

and the full interview archive is also available at youtube.com slash scott horton's show Scott wharton Thank you very hi guys thank you this thing on

check check All right. Thanks for coming out, or, well, it's your event. Thanks for having me out to it. And congratulations to the good guys who I hear one today, huh? Huh? And to everybody else, too, because after all, libertarianism is awesome. And we're all good sports and our win, right, Missus Caucus, guys? And congratulations to me, because I'm now a delegate to the Texas State Convention from Williamson County.

And thanks to everybody who voted for me when. I was here and not there. Alternates can get drunk for. Oh, there you go. I need more habits. All right, well, you guys know how it is. I'm the bearer bad news. So I'm going to try to do half of my talk today about Yemen

and then the other half will be about the conflict in Ukraine and the threat of the imminent extinction of mankind. But no, we'll start off with the less worse news, which is the genocide in Ukraine. I mean, pardon me, in Yemen. All right, so you flip the switch and throw Yemen up on the board here for us here real quick. Americans, I don't know who coined this cliche, best learn our geography from our wars. We're way over here in the new world just trying to be free and mind our own business, but our government isn't mining its own business.

And so it has us involved way over here in the southwest corner of the Arabian Peninsula. East Africa, the Horn of Africa there on your far left of the screen. That's the Bab al-Mendeb is the gates of the Red Sea, and of course to the Suez Canal, to the Med. So you can put that back up there for one more second? You can get to you on there. All right. So no, it's okay.

Just the point being a lot of people don't even know where Yemen is. We have a war in Yemen, and I got to remind you, you know the Arabian Peninsula over there? Well, this is the southwestern tip of it. You can see why it matters. It's obviously a strategic location for control of the sea lanes and this kind of thing. But America is up to our eyeballs in a war that's going on in Yemen now. And for the last seven years, that's every bit as bad as Iraq War II, except that we don't have our entire third infantry division and Marine Corps in there on the ground, taking IED

hits and their Humvees, and so it's not brought home to us in near as severe of a fashion Iraq War II was, but in terms of the severity of the war for the people of Yemen, it's every bit as bad. But because it's bad for them, but essentially not at all for us, at least yet, it goes mostly unremarked upon in America. So what are we doing here? First of all, when I talk a lot about north, south, and the middle part of Yemen, we're talking essentially about the western half of the country here.

Most of the east is barren desert and much lower population. The real struggle for power here is in the far west of the country there. You can see Sana'a is the capital right around in the middle. You see the Sada province in the north, that's where the Houthis are from. We'll get to that. So Barack Obama becomes president in 2009, and the first thing he does is he starts a drone war. Essentially, he says, we're not going after Ba'athists, we're going after actual al-Qaeda guys. And where do we have actual al-Qaeda guys in the world?

There's, as we know now from John Kiriakou, 29 of them in Pakistan that we're after. And there are another probably a few hundred in Yemen. And these are not like al-Qaeda-linked militias somewhere. These are real-ass al-Qaeda guys. They had helped to coordinate the September 11th attack. They had attempted to blow up a plane over Detroit with the underpants bomb on Christmas Day 2009. So Barack Obama's killing people

because what he did was he hired the CIA. He ordered the CIA to launch a drone war. And this, as they called it, was surgical strikes with the drones as the scalpel. And this means we're targeting just the bad guys and supposedly leaving everyone else alone. And because our guys aren't on the ground getting shot, We're not supposed to mind that much.

It's very counterproductive in Pakistan for a lot of reasons, including leading to the rise of Afghan ISIS, and it was terribly counterproductive in Yemen as well. Every time they would bomb a bad guy, they would kill a bunch of civilians. And then as Stanley McChrystal, who had been the general in charge of the war in Afghanistan, talked about in his insurgent math,

for every two you kill, you get 20 more. And so the whole process is counterproductive. It's not really a surgical strike at all. It's an hellfire missile or a 500-pound bomb. And one of the first major strikes there, they killed 20 civilians, and the second they killed 80. And there was a Yemeni reporter. In fact, I completely spaced this out and left this out in my book. I'm kicking myself for it.

There was a Yemeni reporter who told the truth about this, and Barack Obama intervened personally, not even had his guys to it to make sure this journalist was arrested and locked away. for reporting on the truth of the war that was killing hundreds and hundreds of innocent civilians, okay? So the whole thing was counterproductive against AQAP, we're talking 2009, all right? Now, in order to wage this drone war, oh wait, I'm gonna, pardon me, a couple more points on that.

Oh, I'm sorry, I gotta really hurry here. The Director of National Intelligence at the time was a guy named Dennis Blair, and they did not give this much attention at all, but he resigned in protest over the drone war, and said, this is way too easy a war you think, but there'll be consequences. Said, I don't think you people understand.

In fact, Stanley McChrystal also said, you don't understand how much resentment this causes to have it where, I mean, hell, even in a B-1 bomber, a pilot could conceivably run out of gas or have engine trouble and have to parachute down. There's some risk involved. There's no risk involved when you're sitting safe in a trailer in Nevada or in New York

state, flying a robot around in the air, killing people on the ground with literally the diameter of the planet Earth as your shield from retribution from the people that you're fighting against. There's never been a more unfair fight, probably in the history of the world. The people on the receiving end of that notice that, and Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, resigned in protest over that fact. Nobody cared. Leon Panetta, who was the head of the CIA at the time, was asked on Meet the Press.

But, geez, we keep hearing that this is counterproductive. You're just growing, Al-Qaeda, every strike that you do. And Panetta stammered something like, well, these are the tools we have, so what are you going to do? All right. So in order to wage this drone war, Barack Obama had to bribe the dictator of Yemen, of course, Abdullah Salah, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush's guy. And he said, listen, we'll give you a bunch of money and a bunch of money. a bunch of weapons if you let us kill these al-Qaeda guys. Sala said fine.

What does Sala do? He took the money and the weapons and some of the al-Qaeda guys, and he lied with them and went to war with his enemies in the north, a group of Zadis Shia called the Houthis. That's a family and a tribal designation, the Houthis and their political movement, essentially.

Now, he attacked them over and over again, four, five, six major assaults against the Houthis, and every time he attacked them, he lost. and they got more powerful. Now that might be because this dictator that we were bribing to let us kill al-Qaeda guys, who was using al-Qaeda guys and Muslim Brotherhood guys to fight against his enemies, the Houthis in the North?

Well, he was actually also arming the Houthis to fight against his own military and the al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood guys. He was betraying us by backing in order to weaken his own damn military because he was afraid they might overthrow him. So these are the curved daggers of Yemeni politics, okay, under Abdullah Sala.

Now, then comes the Arab Spring. And Manning leaks to Julian Assange, who posts the State Department cables, and the full corruption of the government in Tunisia is laid bare, and their bread riots and a somewhat successful

revolution in Tunisia, leading to a very quickly failed one, but initially successful, peaceful revolution against America's dictator, Hosnamu, Berwick, and Egypt. And then all across the Middle East, This is in the beginning of 2011. All across the Middle East, they had what were called the Day of Rage protests,

where people essentially, they looked at Tunisia in Egypt and said, you can do that? We can overthrow a monarch, a dictator, let's try it. And all across the Middle East, they tried it. Now, with varying degrees of success and horrible failure. But the way it worked out in Yemen was essentially all factions descended on the capital city and said that they wanted to overthrow. the dictator and that included the Houthis and they didn't bring their guns. It was a peaceful

protest and everyone said they wanted rid of this guy. The Americans stood by their guy until he was, there were two different assassination attempts against him. And on the second one, it was a bombing and he was somewhat injured and had to go to Saudi Arabia to convales. While he was in Saudi Arabia, Hillary Clinton and the Saudis decided they're going to throw Abdullah Salah overboard and they're going to ease his vice president into position. Now, by president, we mean dictator. El Presidente, sort of pseudo, you know, like a Soviet republic. It's just a word. And this guy was not just a dictator, but he was a really lousy one. And much worse at the job in terms of balancing the different power factions in the country than his predecessor, Abdullah Salah.

And he wore out his welcome very quickly. They literally, in the beginning, they held an election with just one man on the ballot. And you can even look at NPR News covered it. If you just put in Google Images, Hadi election, Mansur-Hadi election in 2011, go ahead, do it. Mansur-Hadi election in 2011 or is it 2012, you'll see there's one man and one oval to fill in on the ballot. That's it. And so that was how he took power in the first place. And then he canceled all future elections, never held another election again. And on top of a lot of other sins, he tried to make, he made the same mistake as Sala had made. He tried to attack the Houthis, and the Houthis defeated his guys.

And part of the way that they were able to do that is that Abdullah Sala, the previous dictator that America had eased out, well, instead of retiring to a life of quiet study like Mullah Omar in Afghanistan, or go back to his farm like George Washington, Abdul Sala went away mad, and he took about two-thirds of his army with him, and they remained loyal to him. And then what he do? He went up north, and instead of attacking the Houthis, he allied with them. It turns out, Abdullah Sala was his Adi Shia, just like them, just not a Houthi. But close enough, so they teamed up. Now Abdullah Sala, the dictator, teamed up with his old enemies, the Houthis in the north,

and they marched down on the capital city of Sana'a and took it by the end of 2014. Now let me check my notes and make sure I'm not missing anything important before I move to the next step here. All right, I did that and I covered that. All right, great. So the Houthis come in, they take over, and you guys can read this in the Wall Street Journal from January the 29th, 2015, and from a few days before that in Almonitor

by the great journalist Barbara Slavin, who was at the Atlantic Council when the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Michael Vickers came and gave a presentation and said, we kind of like the Houthis. These guys are all right. You know what we're doing? is we're passing them intelligence

that they're using to kill al-Qaeda guys. Because we all like that al-Qaeda guys. And you know who really does? The Houthis. You know why? Because to the al-Qaeda guys, the only good Shiite is a dead Shiite. And so these guys are al-Qaeda's number one targets

for extinction and extermination in the country. They have every incentive in the world to take on a QAP for us, right? And so he explained that to Barbara Slavin. She asked him follow-up questions. explained the whole thing. Same story was also repeated then again, as I said, on January the 29th in the Wall Street Journal. Well, two months after that, Barack Obama stabbed the Houthis in the back and took al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's side against them.

The reason why he did that is because the Saudi said so. And so here's the back story to that. Barack Obama was in the middle of signing the nuclear deal with Iran. Now, truth is, we didn't need a new nuclear deal with Iran in 2015 because we already had a new nuclear deal with Iran that they signed in 1968. It's called the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It was Lyndon Johnson's project. America's a signatory as well. And under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, every non-nuclear weapon state is mandated to have an agreement

with the International Atomic Energy Agency to safeguard their nuclear program and make sure that they don't have any weapons or anything like that. So the Iranians already were verified over and over again, as Muhammad al-Barad I used to say. We have no evidence, no indication of the diversion of nuclear material to any military or other special purpose. Now I know you guys have heard 100,000 times in the last 25 years, the opposite of that, but just ask yourself, if it was really true the Iranians were making nukes for the last 25 years,

wouldn't they have a single atom bomb by now when we're talking about 1940s technology in Persia, the land of uranium, think they could have. We know, in fact, that they mastered the fuel cycle and the ability to enrich uranium as early as 2005. And they absolutely could have made weapons-grade material

and attempted to make a nuclear bomb right now or any time since then if they had been trying to. But it is also true to give the devil as due, the devil being Barack Obama, that this wasn't good enough, right? The narrative was NPT, we never heard of it. Safeguards Agreement, Mohammed El Baradai verifying the non-diversion of declared nuclear material

in Iran to any military or the special purpose? They're making nooks. They've got a secret nuclear weapons program, nuclear weapons program, nuclear weapons program. And there were a few different times, particularly in 2007 and in 2012, where America almost went to war with Iran over this lie. So you could see how from Obama's point of view, this is probably the best thing

he ever did, was trying to put this issue to bed and say, not only do we have the NPT, but we have the JCPOA, which is the double extra verification regime beyond any historical precedent, scaling back their nuclear program, their civilian nuclear program, far from the capacity to produce nuclear weapons. Now here's the problem with that, guys. Back to the fact of what a hoax the Iranian nuclear weapons threat always was, is that the Saudis should have been celebrating, right? That America was now guaranteeing their military security from their enemy across the Gulf. And we have locked down their nuclear program beyond all reason. It could have run wild. We got it locked down. But they were mad. Why were they mad?

Because they were never afraid of an Iranian nuclear bomb in the first place, because that was a hoax. The Iranians weren't making nuclear weapons. Why would they be afraid of that? What they were afraid of was they were going to lose their place in the American dominated military order in the Middle East, that America was going to tilt back towards our old friends, the Iranians, and used them to pressure the Arabs. And the Saudis were concerned and wanted to solidify their place in the American order. So in other words, prove your love to me by going to war with Yemen, the Saudis demanded. And Obama's government said, fine.

And as they explained it to the New York Times, they knew the war would be long, bloody, and indecisive. Meaning they have no idea what victory is even supposed to look like. Long, bloody, and indecisive, but we had to, quote, placate the Saudis. And that's all it was. Now, you guys are all familiar with Muhammad bin Bonesaw, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, who cut up a Washington Post reporter to death with a bone saw.

Don't cross him, man. He is essentially the de facto king of Saudi Arabia now. His father is a senile old man, and he is de facto in charge of the country and is likely to be the king of Saudi Arabia unless somebody intervenes violently for a very long time. Well, in 2015, he was just the two thousand 29-year-old deputy crown prince and brand new defense minister.

So, just like in public choice theory, this war was good, not even for Saudi Arabia, really, but good for his political career as the new defense minister. And he launched this war in order to solidify his power inside the royal family, which is exactly what he did. He arrested all of his competitors, including his cousin, Muhammad bin Nayef, the crown prince, and replaced him as crown prince of the country. This was essentially part of his palace coup was by creating the rally around the flag effect of putting Saudi Arabia at war.

Good for him, but bad for a lot of other people. Now, when they launched this war, they called it decisive storm. That's how you can tell it was seven years ago. And by support for the Saudis war there, to be specific, that means we supply two-thirds of their planes, they're at 15 eagles. They also fly British typhoons.

As you guys know, the U.K. is just airstrip 1 in the American Empire, and that if Barack Obama, Donald Trump, or Joe Biden had at any time picked up the phone and said, we're canceling the Yemen War and you guys are going to stop supplying planes and support to. The British, of course, would do whatever we said on that. And so they're essentially acting as auxiliaries of the United States at that point anyway. So we're supplying all the planes. all the bombs they drop and not only that but of course all of the contractors who do all the care and feeding of the airplanes these Saudi princelings don't maintain their own F-15s these are all American contractors and servicemen and civilians you know Pentagon employees contractors and so forth who come in and take care of all of that and of course then it's our guys who do all of the logistics just in terms of air traffic control and all of just the the process of

of maintaining all of the equipment for the war and the process of waging the war. And then they also provide all the intelligence for picking the targets of who it is that we're going to bomb. On top of that, it's the US Navy that's enforcing the Saudi blockade off of the coast. In fact, I have a new friend of mine who just told me yesterday,

how he helped to enforce that blockade. Intercepting these small dows, they call them, these small boats that would be half full of hash and half full of medical supplies, and how he personally would throw those medical supplies over into the ocean, in order to enforce that blockade to prevent anyone from aiding the people of Saudi Arabia.

So in other words, Barack Obama and his government, like in Libya, remember the phrase leading from behind? Oh, no, this is the French and British war, and people bought that. Well, they do the same thing here. This is the Saudi war. Well, we support it. It's the Saudi-led coalition.

We're lending our aid. And yet, as you could tell, America runs the whole damn war for them. Of course we do. America is the world empire. Saudi Arabia is our client state. Their military cannot even operate without Americans doing it all for them. As Bruce Rydell explained, the former CIA officer who's bat on a lot of things, but has been very good on this, he said, and this is slightly hyperbole, but essentially those

F-15's tires need to be replaced after every few landings. That's all we'd have to do is stop sending them new tires, and the war would be over. The whole thing is dependent on the goodwill, the grace of the American government and empire to enforce. Now, it is treason. And when I say that Barack Obama stabbed the Houthis in the back and took al-Qaeda's side in the war, that's been clear from the very beginning of the war. You can read the great journalist Mark Perry in a piece that he wrote in March of 2015, where

He's quoting the generals at CENTCOM, the guys who had been backing the Houthis against al-Qaeda. These are the guys that's, their Pentagon got hit on September 11th. They just want to kill al-Qaeda guys. But America's government hates the Shiites more. So they resent it. And there was a quote in there from a guy named Michael Horton,

no relation to me. He's a real expert on Yemen from the Jamestown Foundation, which is genuinely a very hawkish group of guys at Jamestown. And he said, listen, And John McCain complains right now that we're flying as Iran's air force in Iraq, which was true in the year 2015. And whose fault was that, everyone?

John McCain's fault, exactly, right? But John McCain complains that we're flying as Iran's Air Force in Iraq right now against the Islamic State, he was talking about. He said, well, we're flying as Al-Qaeda's Air Force in Yemen now. That's been the case for seven years. And at one time, early in the war, they took over a major city called Makala and about 10 other significant towns.

Military bases, sack their armories, all their weapons, and they controlled literal tax bases, made tens of millions of dollars, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars, collecting the tolls at the ports and all this stuff. It wasn't until, I think it was probably two years into the war, in early Trump years, that the Americans put pressure on the United Arab Emirates,

co-conspirators in the war, that you guys, You guys better do something about AQAP here because they're an embarrassment. This is bad public relations for the war, that AQAP now rules 10 towns. So the UAE went in there and killed them all. The UAE hired al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and integrated them into their militia. And that is who the Americans have been backing and supporting in this war on the ground there this whole time. And so now the excuse, oh, and I want to add here, too, about the UAE has been caught red-handed,

committing horrible war crimes, including torturing people to death, and credible reports. I know this sounds like war propaganda, but it's the kind of thing that is against interest. They're talking about our allies doing this, not our enemies. And there are credible reports that the UAE soldiers roast their prisoners alive on spits. So, the United Arab Emirates has been caught red-handed numerous times committing war crimes against the civilians of the country. And they also not only have integrated AQAP forces, but also the Muslim Brotherhood group in Yemen, which is called Al-Isla, into their fighting forces as well.

And you may have seen, again, it's CNN, but it's against interest. CNN reporting that here are al-Qaeda guys driving around in American armored vehicles, not captured from American bases, like in Western Iraq or in Afghanistan, but handed right over to these al-Qaeda fighters by our allies in the United Arab Emirates. It's their militia on the ground, AQAP. That's who we're fighting for in this war. Now, the excuse for this is Iran's role.

Well, the Houthis are Shiites, and that's all you need to know. But that's not really all you need to know. In fact, they're an entirely different branch of Shiites, whereas in Iran, they're called the 12ers who revere the 12th the mom who's gonna come at the end of the world and all this. The Zadis Shiites don't believe that. They're much closer to Sunnis,

and oftentimes I've prayed side by side with Sunnis. And it's just false that, oh, anywhere there's a Shiite in the world, he's just the slave of the Ayatollah Khomeini. It's just not true, it's not how it works at all. And if you look at any of the real experts about the Houthis and their relationship with Iran, who aren't part of the war party, who don't clearly have a dog in the fight,

fight propagandizing you. They'll all tell you the same thing, that there is a real separation here. As Yus Tilterman wrote in foreign policy back in 2015 or 16, he said the Houthis are not Hezbollah. And even Hesbala are somewhat independent from Iran. They're very close to Iran, but he was making the point that these guys aren't even as close as Hizbalah are.

So it's just completely an overblown connection. And in fact, the head Houthi was not invited to Iran and recognized as the leader of Iran until 2019. And these guys had sacked and taken control of the capital city in 2014. And I shouldn't leave out that they killed Abdullah Saleh, their ally, when he tried to stab them in the back and make a deal with the Saudis.

They should have all come together and made a deal, right? If Salah was good enough for the Saudis and the Americans for 30 years, and he's good enough for the Houthis now, well, hell, let's just put him back on the throne or his right-hand man or something, right? He should have gone to the Houthis first and said, let's compromise.

Instead, he tried to do it behind their back, so they'd kill them. So now it's just them. But anyway, they're not just the sock puppets of Iran. And if America and the Saudis and our side of the war would just quit right now, that would not mean that Iran now has a beachhead and has taken control over the southwestern corner of the Arabian Peninsula.

That's just hyperbole. It's not that simple whatsoever. And the amount of support, I mean, the country's been under total air and sea blockade for years now. The amount of support that the Iranians even possibly could give to them is extremely limited. They can send them money. They're accused of sending them blueprints for drones for their 3D printers. And this is the level of support that we're talking about here.

It's hardly an excuse for the war. It's really the reaction to the war. Now, the humanitarian crisis. First of all, before the war, according to Martha Mundy from the London School, economics, the IMF and the World Bank had essentially gangsterized the humanities or convinced them that, listen, you guys should abandon your millet and your sorghum and your sustenance crops and you should plant coffee and cotton instead and sell it on the world market. Welcome to global capitalism. It's wonderful, right? Until the Americans come and put you

under blockade. Now you have a country that was importing 80% of its food from outside that is completely blocked off by the most powerful Navy in world history. So instead, what happened was they've been laying down and starving to death in the country by the hundreds of thousands. The official count is a quarter of a million people, but that's from three and a half years ago, four and a half years ago, three and a half years ago, three and a half years ago. Numbers are completely out of date, and that was the official UN, the best that they could tell. I guarantee you by the time this war is over, and they do a real estimate of the excess death rate over the last seven, eight years, whatever it is, by the time they fly. finally wrap it up, that it'll be more than a million people have died in excess to the death rate before the war began.

When you, just from approximately 100,000 or more 150,000 people killed from direct violence, which is a hell of a lot, but then, you know, essentially the weakest people laying down and dying of starvation and of malnutrition and of easily treatable diseases that, you know, a common cold will kill you when you have absolutely no nutrients in your body. than there has been the worst cholera outbreaks in recorded history since World War II, and that means worse than the cholera outbreak inflicted on the people of Iraq by H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton in the early 1990s under the sanctions blockade then when they denied them chlorine and all that. This has been worse. There's estimates, you know, they said a million cases, and I think that that was an overestimate.

I talked with people from Doctors Without Borders at the time, and they said, well, pretty much, Anybody coming in with diarrhea, we assume it's cholera because we don't really have the ability to tell. But there is diphtheria and other waterborne diseases going around. But the point about cholera is this, is that it's actually very easily treatable. You don't even really need antibiotics. It's a bacterial infection. You don't even really need antibiotics. You just need clean drinking water, but they just don't have it.

Because the Americans and the Saudis have bombed the waterworks and the sewage and the electricity and the hospitals and reduce their infrastructure absolutely to the ground, so they have nothing. And in fact, they even bomb the cholera hospitals when the cholera hospitals are full of dying people. And when I say dying people, the people who dive cholera are mostly little children, babies and toddlers, end up vomiting and diarrhea in themselves to death, and die of dehydration. And that's tens and tens of thousands. The official number now is they think 85,000 children have starved to death from the war in the last seven years. And I'm telling you, these are way low-ball estimates.

No question about that. It's by far the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today. Now, there's another group that's worth mentioning here, the Southern Transitional Council. They're essentially socialists down in the port town of Aden. where the U.S.S. coal was bombed in the year 2000. And they're essentially commies. I actually saw, I swear to God, I saw Yemeni on horseback with an AK-47 going,

Viva Hugo Chavez, chich, chich, and firing his gun in the air. I can't find it anymore. I think it was a BBC thing. So these Southern Socialists then have had their alliance with the United Arab Emirates, but which is also allied with their enemies in al-Qaeda. This is a very precarious situation that they've put themselves in in the south of the

the country there but that's how the war has progressed and now a big part of how far am I on time here okay I'm 36 minutes in okay man I got a hurry I'm sorry guys so it's really worth mentioning here Trump kept this war going for four years straight and it's very clear why and I know this is a New York Times story but a lot of it comes straight from Pete Navarro, his trade representative's own account, as he explained it to them. And when Trump put all these sanctions and trade tariffs on China, that really angered a lot of American industry that had lines of supply already set up and were being disrupted.

And so in order to make it up to, and this is extremely vague and ridiculous kind of collectivist thinking, to make it up to the manufacturing sector. they would dump a bunch of money into the military industrial complex because that's what they could do. That's where they had direct access to cash that they could direct straight into the industries. And so that was what they did. And they made a deal with Raytheon.

And you guys might remember, for the first time ever, it was really a historic event. The House and the Senate invoked the war powers resolution of 1973 to try to force Donald Trump to end the war, and he vetoed it. And according to Pete Navarro, He vetoed it because Raytheon lobbied that we have to keep this war going. You guys said you're going to make it up to us and keep the money flowing.

We want this war, and we won't let you stop it. And that was the deal that Trump made, was with Raytheon, who provide the missiles and collect the cash to keep the war going. That is, in a snapshot, a portrait of the entire American war machine and how it operates there. and what their priorities are. Now, when Biden came into power, he promised to end the war. And he had promised all during the campaign to end it. And about just a few weeks in his presidency,

the beginning of February last year, he promised he was ending, just as I went through the litany, resupply of bombs and other equipment, the maintenance, the logistics, the intelligence, and the blockade. We're calling it all off. And then they just didn't. And a few months later, they admitted that, yeah, we just didn't.

And the war continues on. Now it's been another year, another 100,000 people killed in a war of genocide and treason. And so I guess I'll switch now in the time I have left. I'll go ahead and switch to the current crisis in Eastern Europe. But I guess, let me just say about Yemen real quick, that You know, MSNBC, it was documented by fairness and accuracy in reporting, MSNBC didn't utter the word Yemen once for 365 days. This story has just gotten no coverage whatsoever.

Essentially, there is no Yemeni lobby in America other than just a few expats who live here and care. They have no connected oil company interests. They're not friends with the Israelis. They're their enemies, so they don't get any, you know, help from the Israel lobby in D.C. the way the Turks and other Middle Eastern countries do who cozy up to the Israelis. They essentially have no one to speak for them. And so I think it's really important, especially, and this is, I'm going to say the same thing again at the end of my

next segment here about the East. This is our comparative advantage here as libertarians that, you know, we don't have any power to lose. So why don't we just tell the truth, right, and lead the way on this, okay? All right. Now, I'm going to take a sip of Dr. Pepper for a second. All right. Thank you. Appreciate that. So, I think it's fair to say this.

I think everybody agree with this. I can't think anything else that sticks out. We're right now closer to thermonuclear war with Russia Russia than any time since 1962. 1983 was pretty close, but we didn't really know it until it was after the fact during the Abel Archer exercises. We almost went to war. The Soviets were convinced Reagan was going to launch

a first strike attack against them, and they were only dissuaded from that belief at the absolute last second. So, we would have never even got to see Return of the Jedi. which was really important to me at the time. I was seven. It still is. All right, so that being the case, you guys want to know how we got here,

but let me say, first of all, what is going on? As you all know, Russia invaded Ukraine at the end of 2014. Good, there's a map there you can look at. I'll be referring to it here momentarily. According to the latest numbers posted on anti-war.com, the UN has verified more than 500 civilian casualties. I'm sure they're much higher than that. It has not been an American-style war in the sense that the Russians did not go in with heavy air power and hit as many available targets as they could in a shock-and-a-type campaign as Bush,

senior and junior did against Iraq, for example. Instead, they've rolled in kind of slower, seemingly taking their time and possibly bogged down in some places. But I don't think there's any question that the Russians will be able to win the war. I don't think anyone doubts that they have a military of almost half a million men and sophisticated armored divisions and so forth. Heavy air power if it really comes down to it. So it's not too much of a contest. And unfortunately, it's dragging on. The solution is not entirely clear, although I have some ideas, but frankly, Putin's

goals are not entirely clear. When he declared war, his argument was broad enough to justify taking all of Ukraine and keeping it forever. I'm not saying he made it clear that that was his intent to do, but his argument was broad enough to deny Ukraine any independence for the indefinite future. So it remains to be seen exactly what's going on there. Now, of course, I'm against that. We're at anti-war.com, and in the libertarian movement and the libertarian party are against that.

We're against war. If there's anything good about the UN Charter, it's not that it's some supposed building block of world government. It's simply it's a treaty promising the different nations to respect each other's sovereignty. And if they're going to change borders, they'll do it peacefully by negotiation. Well, I think we can all agree with that. That's how it should be. That is the law. And the Russians are breaking that law.

And they're killing a lot of people. So now I'm going to tell you why this is all America's fault. I just want to make it clear that what Putin is doing is wrong. What he and his men are doing is their responsibility. It's the choices they've made. Of course we all agree with that. It's only 99.9999.99% of America's fault. The rest is squarely on Putin's shoulders and his men.

Okay? But that's the truth of it, right? So here's the background. Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War. And essentially what happened was in his first term, there was severe brinksmanship and the buildup of medium-range missiles in Europe. And as I said, the brinksmanship almost led to a nuclear war in 1983, but he changed his mind about that.

And the biggest thing that happened to change his mind was, well, there were two major things. One of them was the TV miniseries called The Day After that depicted a nuclear war in America and its aftermath. Start Steve Gutenberg, you'll love it. And he saw that, and he saw, this is what, I think it was Kansas City, would look like after a few H-bombs went off over it and said, wow, you know, really realize what the danger he was playing with there. And then the second thing was, all the old commies died.

And Mikhail Gorbachev, who was, I think, 41 years old or something, came into power. And Ronald Reagan immediately just took a liking to him and said, I can do business with this guy. So that was the real watershed. Now, most of you guys don't know probably that all the neocon hawks called Ronald Reagan, Neville Chamberlain, sell out wimp, traitor to the commies

for daring to deal with these guys at all. Just like when Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler at Munich is what Norman Podhoritz said about Ronald Reagan. But Ronald Reagan was right, and by ending the Cold War and that tension with the Soviet Union, it gave the dictators of the Soviet Communist Party, essentially the leeway to begin loosening up,

their totalitarian regime in an attempt to preserve it, but that was enough to unravel the whole damn thing, and it all fell apart. And so the wall began coming down in 1988, and the people of the East were then allowed to go to the West without be a machine gun to death for trying to escape. And by the end in 1991, in the H.W. Bush term, the whole thing was over.

Now, a couple things about Bush Sr. First thing is, he may be history's greatest hero in the sense that he and Gorbachev together signed these treaties, and later Yeltsin too, signed these treaties to dismantle our thermonuclear weapons stockpiles from the tens of thousands each, down to the single digit thousands of missiles. And he took them off of Navy ships,

and I forget which all, but he just absolutely slashed America's bomber force and way completely reduced America's Cold War nuclear military buildup in a heroic fashion. And something that's kind of shameful and embarrassing but important for us to note here is that H.W. Bush and his partners, James Baker and Brent Skowcroft, they tried to save the Soviet Union. Did you know that? They tried to save the USSR. They wanted to see Poland and Hungary and the other Warsaw Pact states go free. But they didn't want to see the so-called Soviet republics go free. And that is the Baltic states, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and then Belarus and Ukraine.

They wanted to keep them in a federation with Russia, no longer communist, but still in the Soviet Union, and they still wanted it to be the USSR. And in August, hopefully you know, or many of you know, the final end of the Soviet regime was on Christmas Day, 1991, 30 years ago, just this last Christmas. That was the final end of it. But six months before that, in August, H.W. Bush went to Kiev, Ukraine,

and he gave a speech that William Sapphire, the Hawk at the New York Times, later dubbed the Chicken Kiev speech. Because what he said, instead of really trying to stick to the Soviet Union and destroy the thing at all costs. He was being cautious, even too cautious. But here was what he told the Ukrainians. And this line was written by Condoleezza Rice, by the way. And the line was,

independence is not the same as freedom. And America will not support an effort by the people of Ukraine to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. And we warn you against the dangers of ethnic hatred. And we will not intervene on the side of those who want to disassociate from Moscow

on anything but Moscow's timetable. Read me, that was what he told him. And of course, Sapphire attacked him for that. It's pretty embarrassing. A president of the United States trying to save the Soviet Union, especially when we know it didn't work and the damn thing fell apart

despite his best efforts anyway. But there's a couple important lessons in there for us. One, H.W. Bush's, hey, easy-going kind of policy toward Moscow during this time is what allowed for the Soviet Union to fall apart. As he put it, he could have gone and danced on the Berlin Wall as it came down and spiked the football and mocked him to their face, and he didn't do that. And in not doing that, he made it easier for the reformers inside the Soviet Union to go ahead and go through with what they had to do without feeling like they were under threat from America. And then secondly is, what's all this about ethnic hatred in Ukraine that we need to be aware of? And who in Ukraine would rather create a new despotism rather than simply gain their freedom along with their independence? And what do Americans know about that?

What does George H.W. Bush, the former director of the CIA, know about that? Of course, the CIA backed right-wing forces in Ukraine during the battle days of the Cold War against the Soviet Union back in the 1950s. And we'll get back to this in a minute, but it's worth bringing up now, I guess, that a guy, a national security historian, just wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times last week. We talked about this. He said, we have backed insurgencies in Ukraine before, and we should. should learn these lessons.

And he quotes from a CIA historian. This is, you know, they do their own classified histories for their own guys to read, and then some of these end up getting out later. And in this declassified history, the CIA historian's words were that we knew that these Ukrainians could not win. And that essentially by arming them

and sending them against the Soviet Union to bleed Russia, we were sending them to their deaths. And we should be careful about whether we want to participate in things like that. And then who were the day that they were sending? Not just right-wing forces, but Nazis. The proud grandsons, at that time, the sons of the Galatian SS,

who had served Hitler in World War II and helped perpetrate the Holocaust against Jews and Poles there. Now, these are, as Timothy Snyder, the raving lunatic, correctly titled his book, The Bloodlands, the poor unfortunate space between Germany and Russia fought over in the two bloody world wars in the 20th century. And so what you have is domination

by the Soviet communists, Lenin and Stalin, as you libertarians all know, the history of the Holodomor, when the communists came into Ukraine and starved them all the death, stole their grain in the 1930s, killed millions of them, right? And then who comes to liberate them? Hitler and the Nazis come to drive the commies out and then perpetrate the Holocaust there.

And then we all know what happened. The commies won the war anyway and drove the Nazis back out again. You're talking hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people died in this space, oh, certainly millions of people died in this space during that time. So there are a hell of a lot of hard feelings from the people who lean pro-Russia

in the east of the country and those who are considered ethnic Ukrainians in the West, and not that all of them are that right wing, but just that there are these very significant factions, and they're not just right-wingers in the sense that American Republicans and Democrats call each other Kami and Nazi, right? But this is, yeah, they mean it much more there, and the divisions are much sharper. So, but you know what Bush Sr. also did, of course, was he declared the new order. for the planet Earth. Yeah, sure, there's a UN charter with a world law,

but we'll enforce it, and we'll decide what it says. And by the way, it doesn't apply to us. We could do whatever we want. And at the core of his strategy, of course, it was written by the neoconservatives. And you can read, for example, in their foundational document for the Project for a New American Century from 1998, rebuilding America's defenses,

that justice with taking over Iraq and Mesopotamian dominating the Middle East, NATO expansion was at the heart of their politics. the heart of their policy. This was always in their plans. Now when Bill Clinton came into power, and I know I'm taking too long, I'll try to hurry. Clinton comes in and he gets the idea to expand NATO. Now at the time this did not come from the Council on Foreign Relations and the State Department and the Defense Department and the Brookings Institution and the standards of American foreign policy. This came from Lockheed. The Council on Foreign Relations tried to stop

him. Henry Kissinger said it was a bad idea. Brent Skowcroft, George H. W. Bush's number one right-hand man and national security advisor and co-author of his memoirs, said this is a bad idea. George Kennan, who had coined the containment doctrine after World War II, and Paul Nitzha, who had been his rival to his right, who advocated Soviet rollback, the author of NSC-68, Paul All opposed it. Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense during Vietnam, opposed it. William Perry, Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense, almost resigned over it. Jack Matlock, second to last ambassador.

And then get this. Susan Eisenhower, the president's granddaughter, got together a group of 50 of the most influential foreign policy hands in America to sign an open letter saying NATO expansion would be a historic mistake. We absolutely must not do this. And they all said the same thing. It was not Ron Paul's right. This is a big waste of money and other things. Ron Paul said a lot of things. But that wasn't it. And it wasn't, well, we don't care what happens to the Baltic states. That wasn't it. They all said the same thing. All of them. This is a

This is an unnecessary provocation against our new friends, the Russians, the men who overthrew the Soviet communists for us. And they will see this as a provocation and they will react and then we'll be in a world of trouble. That's what they all said before they ever even started this project. George Kennan wrote an essay for the New York Times in 97, but even better he gave an interview to Thomas L. Friedman in 1998. And you can read it, it's called,

and now a word from X. Now he's called X because when he coined the containment policy in 1946, Kenan had signed his foreign affairs article anonymously with an X. It's called On the Sources of Soviet conduct because he was the ambassador to Russia at the time. So he had to publish it anonymously.

So that's why the cutesy title there, Thomas Friedman. Now a word from X. And here, George Kennan is like 93 years old. And he's screaming, mad, he's stomping his feet, hollering at Thomas L. Friedman. And he's just mad as hell. He's saying, why are we doing this?

There's no reason to do this. Nobody was threatening anybody in Europe. Now, we're the one who's threatening. And look at what happens. We bring some countries in. Some countries are left out. And how about the Russians? We're gonna make them a full partner?

No, I don't think so, but then what does that mean? That means that we're a dagger pointed right at their heart. And he said, I'll tell you exactly what's going to happen here. We're going to expand NATO into Eastern Europe. And all the people now who are telling us that this is no big deal, that this is not directed against the Russians, and that they're not going to react, because why would they react since this is not directed against the Russians? All those same people will then tell us, see, that's just how the Russians are.

They're so aggressive, and that's why we need this defensive alliance to protect Europe from Russia. And then George Cannon said, but this is just wrong. There you go. His prediction are present right now. That's exactly what happened. And listen, it's true that Ron Paul absolutely got this right at the time. It's true that Pat Buchanan absolutely got this right.

The Libertarians at Cato Institute, Doug Bondo, Ted Galen Carpenter, all our heroes. Of course they got this right. That's why they're our heroes. But Brent Skowcroft got this right. you know, Mr. New World Order's right-hand man said, hey, hey, hey, this is a bit too much, though. The butcher of Vietnam, Robert McNamara, said, we should not do this.

But they wouldn't listen, and the reason they wouldn't listen? Money, money, money. It was Lockheed Martin Marietta that makes the jet fighters. That's all it was, guys. A guy named Bruce Jackson, Executive Vice President at Lockheed, created the Committee on NATO Expansion and let the dollars flow. Every congressman, every senator wants a nice steak

and a nice drink and a nice warm girl for the night. Lockheed's buying. And we'll buy you up all you, and Polish votes in Illinois for the Democrats, and Hungarian votes and wherever the Hungarians live for the Republicans. Newt Gingrich in the House and Trent Lott and the Senate led the Republican Party charge on this

in supporting Bill Clinton's policy. And Justice Jester Ramando wrote, in his foundational essay about the doctrine of libertarian realism. All American foreign policies are rooted in domestic politics. Has nothing to do even with Saddam Hussein or Russia or anybody else. It's all about public choice theory here in our country

and who's Greece and whose skids. And that's all it was. The wisest gray beards in the world could not hold off the deluge of Lockheed Dollars. And of course, by Lockheed Dollars, I mean you're tax dollars, right? They don't actually earn anything. These are our tax dollars that they simply recycle back

into propagandizing us into expanding the war. And I know you won't be surprised when I tell you that Bruce Jackson was also the founder of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq that pushed and spent millions of dollars lobbying for war against Iraq back before that. And it was simply a racket, as simple as that. And now also, very importantly, Bill Clinton intervened in the Balkans against the Serbs,

twice in 94 and 95 and again in 1999. And doing so, he's crushing the Russians' closest allies in Europe, the Serbs, their fellow Slavs, and longtime allies. They were our allies in World War II. They fought the Nazis and in alliance with the United States and the Soviet Union in World War II. But Bill Clinton took the Muslim side against them. And partially, I really think that this is true, that they thought if we take the side of

the Muslims here, that'll kind of bribe off the terrorists from being anti-American terrorists who are motivated for other reasons. In fact, after September 11th, Bill Clinton and two of his Democratic allies from the House of Representatives, Tom Lantos and Brad Sherman, all three said something very close to, geez, how could the Muslims attack us after all that we've done for them lately? But of course, it was the same Bill Clinton government that was expanding NATO and Eastern Europe was the same Bill Clinton government that was bombing Iraq from bases in Saudi Arabia for eight years straight. The fact that he was supporting the Mujahideen in Bosnia and in Kosovo and in Chechnya,

that didn't buy their loyalty. I'm sure they were grateful for the guns, but that didn't mean that they forgave the fact that we were occupying Saudi and bombing Iraq and supporting the Israelis in Palestine and Lebanon and supporting all the dictators of the region and the rest of their litany of reasons to go to war with us. But I think that was part of the motivation for backing the Muslim side in Bosnia. And in fact, you might be interested to know that colleague Sheikh Mohammed, the primary organizer of the September 11th attack, earned his stripes in Bosnia.

He was too young to have fought in Afghanistan in the 80s for Carter and Reagan. He didn't earn his stripes as a Mujahideen leader until fighting for Bill Clinton in Bosnia in 1994. And now, he also backed the Chechens. I'll get back to that in a second if I have time. And then one more thing here is the Harvard Boys. Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, you know these crooks from the 2008 financial crisis, Bill Clinton sent them over there to gangsterize the Russian economy.

The plan truly was to be the world's worst sports, to kick them while they're down, to completely destroy the rubble, to completely destroy any scheme that they had. Some of the Eastern European states, they came up with fair ways to essentially privatize ownership of the collectively owned industries to the masses. Everybody got a share and the courts recognized those shares as the legitimate pieces of paper and the thing works sort of like we would want to see it happen, right? How do you turn a communist country into a capitalist one? You want to do it fairly, right? The Americans came and made sure to destroy any attempt to have any kind of free and fair economy or what we would consider a capitalist economy at all. Instead, they destroyed the currency and then they came up with these new vouchers and these loans for shares and all of these schemes that essentially hands.

handed the entire Russian economy over to very few extremely corrupt gangsters. I mean, throat-slitting, murderer, just private market criminals who took over. And this led to, I swear this is true, you can look this up and check me on this. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the fall of a Marxist economy and a government centrally planned, planned state system, life expectancy fell double digits. Across the board, young and old, town and country, east and west, and whatever you got. The people of Russia's life expectancy fell double digits after the fall of communism and the introduction of American-style capitalism, meaning letting corrupt Wall Street interests

use state power to gangsterize the economy at the expense of it. at the expense of the people. You think they ever forgot that? And that was a big part of how Putin came to power. One, he was one of these corrupt gangsters. He was the right-hand man. I learned this from Matt Taibi recently. He was the right-hand man of the mayor of St. Petersburg.

And he, Putin helped him escape to the west, to, sorry, stage right, to escape corruption charges. He was going to go to prison. And Putin helped him escape. And that was when Boris Yeltsin said, hey, this Putin guy seems really talented and loyal. So I think I'll hire him.

And that was how he got the job. And then because Bill Clinton was supporting the Mujahin'in in Chechnya, that gave Vladimir Putin something to do and launched the second Chechen war in 1999, which he ran and rode right into power and was named prime minister at the conclusion of the war. And then Yeltsin appointed him president and resigned on New Year's Eve, 99, and handed him the presidency three months before the election. to make sure he was solidified in power and would be the new leader.

So he was the guy of America's guy. And that's how he came to power. And by the way, as Bill Clinton was backing the terrorists in Chechnya, he was also paying Russia's entire cost of the war against them at the same time too. So he was paying Putin's tab to crush the insurgency that he was supporting in alliance with the Saudis.

Can read about it in the Stratford League. Thanks to Julian Assange, who's rotting in solitary confinement right now for bringing us this information, by the way. All right, then W. Bush comes. I'm sorry, I'll try to go faster here quickly. He expands NATO by seven new nations. He tears up the anti-ballistic missile treaty that Eisenhower had signed that says, we won't

build defensive missiles to shoot down your missiles. It's just an escalation. You're just going to build more missiles if we make anti-missile missiles. So let's not get on that conveyor belt on that track. That was the promise, and he tore it up. He tore it up in the name of putting anti-ballistic missile missiles in Romania and Poland to shoot down incoming missiles from Iran.

Iran that doesn't have missiles that can reach Poland. You know where Iran is compared to Poland? Can you put up a map of Eurasia? It's really freaking far away, okay? There's no enmity, there's no reason for a fight between Iran and Poland. This is, what kind of hoax is this? But as W. Bush said, look, this isn't directed against Russia

because there's not nearly enough missiles to shoot down a salvo from Russia, so it couldn't possibly be for that. Well, then what the hell is it for? One answer might be that those anti-missile missiles are fired from the MK41 missile launcher that is a dual-use piece of technology that can also be used to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles,

which can be tipped with hydrogen bombs. So, they installed them in Poland. Think the Russians saw that as no threat at all? Something about Iran, you say? No. They took it, of course, directly as a threat to their own interests. In fact, in one of the Oliver Stone interviews with Putin, he says to Putin, come on Putin, you know this anti-ballistic missile stuff doesn't even work.

The whole thing is just a boondoggle ripping off the American taxpayer. And Vladimir Putin tells Oliver Stone, he goes, listen, I don't really doubt that. That sounds right to me. Oliver Stone, I gotta tell you. However, I'm in charge of security here, man. What do you want me to do? You know, ring my country with anti-missile missiles. I have to make more missiles, don't I, Oliver Stone?

Yeah, and it was just a couple of years after that. I'm skipping ahead in the story a little bit here, but in 2018, Vladimir Putin in his state of the nation address, unveiled an entire new generation of nuclear weapons, 15, 16 years after W. Bush had torn up the treaty, he said, now we have a new heavy multiple reentry vehicle missile that goes around the South Pole, so you have no defense against it whatsoever, and one heavy rocket has enough multiple reentry vehicle warheads on it that could kill every city in Texas. One missile could kill every city in Texas. Then he said, got a new nuclear powered, therefore silent torpedo.

to take out any of your coastal port cities or naval bases anywhere in the world. He says, I got a nuclear-powered cruise missile that has essentially unlimited range. Could fly around the world ten times, and I can fly it all the way around your defenses and sneak up from behind and get you wherever I want. And he said, on top of that, they've got the new hypersonic gliders that break Mach 5. He claimed to even Mach 10, and that reduced warning time on a first strike to mirror minutes from 15 to 30 minutes down to say five if a missile was launched from the mid-Atlantic

traveling at speeds above Mach 5 to Mach 10 there. And then he said in this speech very close to the translation was I told you to listen. I said, please listen, please listen, and you wouldn't listen. But I bet you can hear me now. And that was a direct reaction to W. Bush tearing up that ABM treaty. He had no reason to do it. Again, and I just interviewed the nuclear weapons expert

Joe Serencioni about this two weeks ago. The damn thing doesn't work. You can't shoot down an ice cold warhead in outer space with a heat-seeking missile going, when the thing's going 10,000 miles an hour or whatever it is. Just forget it. It doesn't work. It cannot work.

The only way to take out incoming ICBMs is with hydrogen bombs in space, neutron bombs essentially, enhanced radiation bombs to knock out their avionics in space. and with a blast radius enough to miss and still hit. You can't shoot a bullet with a bullet. The only times they've ever successfully pulled it off was when they had completely prearranged beforehand the exact point in space that the missile would be at the time.

They've only ever succeeded in rigged tests and never in the wild. And of course all you'd have to do to defeat it is launch a bunch of balloons. They're in outer space, right? So the decoys travel, there's no friction, they travel just like a real warhead. And so you can't even tell apart a balloon.

The systems would be able to tell apart a balloon from a real warhead. The whole thing is a hoax. And one of those could launch 100 balloons in terms of decoys and countermeasures, along with its real warheads. And then also, he did the color code of revolutions. Now this started under Bill Clinton,

but W. Bush really pushed it. And they overthrew Molosevetch in 2000. Then they did the Georgia Rose Revolution of 2003. and installed Mikhail Shokashvili there. In 2005, they did the failed denim revolution in Belarus right there, just north of Ukraine there, Russia's most important client state, which failed. Then they did the tulip revolution in Tajikistan. Oh, I'm sorry, I skipped 2004.

It was the orange revolution in Ukraine. Very important. We'll get back to that a second. Then in 2005, the denim revolution in Belarus, the tulip revolution in Tajikistan. and the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, and there are a few more, I'm forgetting them. There's like more than half a dozen of these.

About 10 of these color-coded revolutions failed and succeeded. And then, let me make sure of, oh yeah, yeah. So importantly, in 2008, Bush was determined to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, as we say, former Soviet Georgia, because we don't want you to think We're talking about the state between South Carolina and Florida.

They're a part of NATO, don't worry, guys. But we might kick them out, it's a fancy. But former Soviet Georgia is over there on the far side of the Black Sea, in between the Black and Caspian Sea and the Southern Caucasus Mountains. Most Americans have absolutely no idea where it is and they couldn't even find it after I told them that. What's the Caspian Sea?

Sounds like something, didn't Prince Caspian and not one of them lying on the witch, the wardrobe, Narnia things? So the idea was we're going to bring Georgia into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Pretty crazy on the face of it, it sounds like. Now here's what happened though. They issued, Germany would not allow this to take place.

They absolutely put their foot down. But Bush and Connoisse-Rice went ahead and issued what was called the Bucharest Declaration, promising that we're putting Ukraine and Georgia on the fast track to join NATO one way or the other as soon as we can. So there's not quite NATO membership, but a promise to bring them in.

Now, just, that was in April of 2008. Just a few months later, based on that, and based on some kind of hints that America would support him, the leader of Georgia, a guy named Mikhail Shakashvili, who is, you know, educated in the United States, and put in power in the Rose Revolution of 2003, launched a war to try to conquer a breakaway province called South Ossetia in the Southern Caucasus Mountains.

Now, whether the people of this, you know, very small little city, state, want to be, you know, prefer in the majority to be ruled by Georgia or Russia or nobody, I don't really know, I don't know who knows, but they, clearly at the time, there was enough dissent, they did not want to be ruled by Georgia,

and there was a peace deal, that had been orchestrated with the European Union, our German and French allies, had essentially signed a deal with Russia that allowed Russian peacekeepers to occupy South Ossetia. Well, when Shokashvili launched the war at the beginning of August 2008,

the first thing he did was kill a bunch of Russian peacekeepers. So Vladimir Putin then, of course, reacted and sent his forces south over the mountains and under the mountains. They have tunnels, or one major tunnel, I guess, under the Caucasus Mountains. At the time, it's reported from two credible sources.

One of them is Ron Suskind, and I forgot who was the other reporter who covered this. But evidently, Dick Cheney, the vice president at the time, proposed that W. Bush strike the Russians, shoot missiles into the Roki Tunnel under the Caucasus Mountains and collapse the tunnels and kill the Russians. Bush is said to have asked his cabinet, who here agrees with Vice that we should bomb the Russians? And nobody raised their hand. And he said, all right, then thanks a lot for your opinion, Dick, and went on without him. At this time, finally, Bush's cool, patient wisdom saved us from Dick Cheney's worst impulses. This still was the Vice President of the United States.

One heartbeat away was a guy who was perfectly willing to get us into a war for Georgia. Not even for Georgia, for Georgia's sovereignty over South Ossetia, 2008. So, Obama comes in. First of all, he continues the process of installing the missiles and the radars in Romania, Poland, and the Czech Republic. And extremely importantly, he does the coup of 2014. Now, I'm sorry, I really would like to elaborate here about the American Dirty War in Syria that read to the lives of the, well, go ahead and say it, led to the rise of the caliphate, and then led to the Russian intervention in late 2015 in order to protect Damascus. And it's not to take Russia's side here. There should be no question.

The worst things that Russia has done in this century are in Syria and in Ukraine. But in both cases, it's all America's fault. It's all Barack Obama's fault. It just is that, you know, John Kerry, the Secretary of State himself admitted on a secretly recorded meeting with Syrian dissidents in London. He said, listen, Russia intervened because he didn't, because Putin didn't want a dashed government in Damascus. That's the direct quote. Well, DASH means ISIS, the Islamic State, Baghdadi's caliphate that conquered Eastern Syria and Western Iraq with America and our allies

help in 2013 and 14. And John Kerry admitted it himself. They would have taken Damascus. That would have been the end of the regime there and then even the New York Times will begrudgingly admit that that would have meant absolute genocide. The bin Ladenite forces in Syria then would killed all of the Alawites and all of the Drues, driven all of the Christians to Lebanon or worse. And at that point, Vladimir Putin intervened in Syria to save civilization from the CIA's bin Ladenite head shopper marauders.

So tough shit. And then in Ukraine, they overthrew the government in Kiev twice in 10 years. The wrong guy kept getting elected in free and fair elections. His name is Victor Yanukovych, and he is from the party of regions, which they say is the pro-Russia party. But he wasn't really a pro-Russia guy. He was trying very hard to tread a neutral line between east and west and keep everything cool. Now, of course, as I said, W. Bush overthrew him.

He never took power. He was actually won the election of 2004 and was prevented from taking power from the Orange Revolution. But then America's sock puppets had failed so bad. He was re-elected in 2010, in a free and fair election that the European Union said was free and fair. And you guys will remember this from, I'm skipping ahead, forget that. Here's the thing. In 2013, he was supposed to sign a deal with the European Union, a new trade deal. When he showed up to sign the deal, they changed the deal on him and gave him an offer he couldn't possibly accept. I don't know if they did that deliberately.

I think they probably did. They decided they didn't want the guy to do what they wanted. They wanted to just overthrow him and have their guy instead. So what they did was they said, if you're going to have a deal with the EU, you can't have one with Russia. And if you have a deal with the EU, you're going to have to adopt all these new austerity measures and increase your pension age for your old people and all these other things. And you're going to have to take out a $15 billion loan.

I'm not sure who's 15. You have to take out a billions of dollar loan from the IMF, which as we all know from the economic hitman, they don't want you to pay the loan back. They want to steal your wheat fields, okay, and turn them over to Cargill and Archer Daniels, Midland. That's how this works. So Yanukovych said, geez, I kind of feel like a bride

who showed up at my wedding to be greeted with a prenuptial agreement. And now I'm not really in the mood anymore. I think I'm going home. And he went home and he didn't sign the deal. That kicked off the Maidan Revolution in Kiev, where the ethnic Ukrainian nationalists occupied, and some liberals and socialists, I guess,

occupied the major town square there in Kiev. And then lo and behold, through the entire month of November and December and into January and February of 2014, somebody's paying to keep them all. all fed, to keep them all warm, to keep the TVs on, to keep rock shows playing on the stage, to keep everybody entertained, to keep the porta potty serviced, and to keep this whole festival going for four months.

That was you. That was putting up the money for that. It was another American coup d'etat disguised as a revolution. When it came down to it, in fact, before it came down to it, two weeks before the coup, you guys are familiar. I know you've at least heard of this. It's the F-The-EU phone call from Victoria Newland, who is the, essentially, she's the,

was the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, which is like being the ambassador to the EU, basically. And she's on the phone with Jeffrey Pyatt, the ambassador to Ukraine. And it's clear that the Russians, or maybe Ukrainian intelligence intercepted this and leaked it and put it online. And she's caught red-handed.

Now, if you watch TV, they go, oh my goodness, a diplomat used the F-B, word. Well, that's not a very diplomatic thing, especially for a lady. Jeez, that wasn't very ladylike, Ms. Newland. What do you have to say for yourself? Yes, I'm very sorry I used a no-no word on a private phone call. Okay, that's the end of the story. Now here's Tom with the weather, yeah. Except that the word F was at the point. Aren't you curious why she was mad at the EU? Aren't they are guys? She was saying F the EU? Because they're taking too long to do the coup. The Germans don't want to overthrow Yanukovych, they want some kind of stupid compromise.

We don't want to compromise. We want rid of this guy. So F the EU, we're going to get with our friend Robert Seri from the United Nations and we're working with the vice president's office and we're going to stick this thing, we're going to glue this thing, we're going to midwife this thing, we're going to make it stick, we're going to do this. That's what she says. She says, we don't want Vitali Klitsko, the boxer, in government.

He's not ready. He's too green around the gills. We don't want him. What we're going to do? We're going to keep him outside of the government to do public relations. And we're going to have Oleg Tanibach school him regularly. Well, who's Oleg Tanibok? Put him in your Google Images.

He's the guy with the Hitler salute and the SS lightning bolts behind him. He's the founder of the Social Nationalist Party. We're going to have Oleg Tanibok, says the Jewish Victoria Newland, Robert Kagan's wife. We're going to have Oleg Tanibok. He's going to school Klitsko and tell him what's in what, but Yats is the guy. Yatsynuk. Yats is the guy. We want him to be prime minister. He's the one with the experience. He's the one who's going to put this thing together and do what we want. Well, lo and behold, two weeks later, some Nazi snipers start shooting their own side in the crowd

and agitate the crowd to full fervor. And then the Americans insist that Yanukovych better sign this new deal being proposed by the Germans that says that he will allow new elections. I forget if it was March or May. I need to check this. But he's going to hold new elections in just a couple of months, and he will pull back the police who are being accused of this false flag sniper assault. He agrees to that. Now, of course, as soon as he pulls back the police, the neo-Nazi-led crowd, and that is the right sector and Svoboda Party's militia, C-14, you know, 14 famous white supremacist slogan,

a 14-word slogan, that's what that comes from. They seized all the government buildings and ran Yanukovych right out of town. Now, once that was, as soon as they took power, the new government, guess who is the new prime minister? Arsenian Yatsunuch, and guess who's on the outside doing public relations? Vitaly Klitschko, the boxer, and his handler, the Nazi Oleg Tannenbach from the Social Nationalist Party.

Just like in the phone call two weeks before, they were caught red-handed, plotting a coup, and then they did it anyway, and it worked. And it was just the most blatant thing in the world. In fact, that was the quote from George Friedman from Stratfor. He called it the most blatant coup in world history. So then what happened was the new junta outlawed Russian as a second language, which was a declaration of full culture war, like real culture war, by the national government against

the Russian-speaking people of the east of the country. Five minutes? Yeah, I'm going to hurry here. So then, sorry guys. And then, oh, where the hell was I? Oh, no, no, it's okay. So then what happened was three former presidents from the western-leaning side wrote a letter demanding that now is our chance to kick the Russians out of the Sevastopol Naval Base on the Crimean Peninsula.

And only then did the Russians, Vladimir Putin ordered his Marines and sailors to go outside with their rifles and essentially occupy the Crimean Peninsula and take it. It wasn't a violent action. It was a coup to Maine, not even one big battle. They just took the whole place. reportedly six people were killed, but I don't think it's proven that any of them were killed by Russian forces.

It was very low-level fighting by some militia for half a day or something, and very low casualties, and then the whole thing was over. I actually saw the clip of the Russians telling the Ukrainian military, you boys better turn around and head the other way, and they go, you know what?

Well, I don't speak Russian, but they said, yeah, that sounds like a good idea and turned around and walked. And that was it. And they weren't killed, warning shots only. So that was how they took the Crimean Peninsula. But then the real hell broke out when the people of the far east of the country, the Donvass region, here, Donetsk and Luhansk are the capitals, and it's kind of right around this whole area here is Donets. These two kind of large provinces in the far east.

Well, these are all ethnically Russian people and politically lean pro-Russian. It was their president, Yanukovych, who was their democratically elected president, who was overthrously. in this bloody street pooch. And they said, well, if you guys can occupy government buildings and overthrow the damn government, we can occupy government buildings and refuse to accept your authority over us. Kiev then declared a war on terrorism

and sent their full military capacity to assault the people of the East in a bloody war that killed more than 10,000 people in the year 2014 and into about halfway through 15. Now, over and over during that time, the New York Times ran top of the fall, full, top of the page headlines, Russia invades Ukraine over and over again. Never happened. I mean, if they did, how come they had to invade just a few weeks ago? What happened was they

had sent special operations forces across to help the people defend themselves, but essentially clandestine, deniable forces, not armored divisions and infantry divisions to take that territory. And in fact, the Germans and the French, sick of the war. They actually, Angela Merkel and Francois Holland, came to the United States to visit Obama just to tell him we are going to make a deal with the Russians. They weren't asking, they were telling. Angela Merkel told Obama, we're ending this war. But she came all the way to the United States to pay him the respect to tell him, but they're independent enough still. They said, this is enough.

And so they signed what was called the Minsk and then the Minsk two peace deals to try to end the fighting in the east. east of the country. And at that point, then once those peace deals were on, the people of the Dombas voted in a plebiscite to join the Russian Federation, and I don't know the exact numbers, but it was supermajorities, voted to join the Russian Federation,

and Vladimir Putin told them no. He already had the Minsk two deal, or at least the Minsk one deal by then, and that meant that the government in Kiev was supposed to respect a new level of autonomy for the East, and so he didn't take them. And there are other reasons why he didn't take them, probably because by incorporating all these pro-Russian people

from Ukraine into Russia, they would no longer be Ukrainians and no longer even potentially serve as a political balance against the more nationalist forces in the West. So that's probably one of the problems that he faces now, that he's guaranteed the independence of the Donbass. But that was surely part of his thinking at the time. So if this was clearly, you know, simply as they portray it, about ethnic conquest and the reincorporation

of all Russian-speaking peoples in the world under Putin's Tsarist dream and all that. Well, he could have just incorporated the Dombas. He could have just incorporated all of Eastern Ukraine into the Russian Federation back in 2014. I mean, hell, the Dombas with a magic marker to take the rest of the country, he would have had to send forces. But at that time, he could have just said

the Dombas is part of Russia, and it would have simply been true, the same as he actually did in the first stage of this war, where then he said, well, I'm sending in peacekeepers to guarantee that, but he was sending in peacekeepers to an area that already had been independent for years that had their own, with his help, but their own independence that they had protected with violence.

And so that was that horrible war. So then Trump comes in, and of course, Trump is accused of being a Russian spy and a traitor. So he has, and by the way, I do not have time to do the litany, and I'll spare you. but every single one of those claims was a lie, all of it. And if you think that there was a little something to it and where there's smoke, there's fire,

that's not smoke, that's steam, hot air, lies. The Democrats, the FBI, and the CIA framed, first, the major party candidate for the Republican Party, the United States of America for treason, and then when he won anyway, they kept it up. And they pretended to investigate it for two more years as the FBI put it to CNN, to rein him in, to prevent Donald Trump

from adopting a pro-Russian policy. Now, why do you want anything like a pro-Russian policy? Because he loved Putin so much? No, it was because he agreed with Henry Kissinger, Mr. Great Power Politics, real politic, that we wanna balance toward Russia against China. They're the enemy, China, China, China, right? So he's getting the answer half right for the wrong reason.

We ought to be friends with Russia, but for him it's only so we have a new partner to gang up on the Chinese and the Far East. was his interest there. Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry. And then, I'm trying to hurry. And then to prove what a Russian spy he wasn't, he massively increased arms to Ukraine

and training for the Ukrainian armed forces. You might remember he ludicrously was impeached by the House of Representatives of the United States of America for temporarily holding up an arms deal to Ukraine. Now, Barack Obama, who'd supported the Nazi coup, he was afraid to arm the Ukrainian armed forces forces after he'd put them in power.

Donald Trump saw no such compunction, and was perfectly happy to send all those weapons in. And he also massively, he brought in Montenegro and Macedonia to NATO, and he massively increased bomber flights right up to Russia's borders, and the presence of our fleets in the Baltic and the Black seas, and these massive provocations against Russia that whole time.

Now, either Donald Trump was the absolute Russia Hawk, or he had no control over his Pentagon whatsoever. I'll let you guys decide that. I think it's probably a bit of both. Now, Biden came in, he did one good thing. He saved the new START treaty. That's the last treaty limiting overall stockpiles of thermonuclear weapons on both sides.

The rest of them are all dead and gone. So that was absolutely heroic that he did that. But, oh, I forgot to say, Trump tore up the INF Treaty that kept medium-range missiles out of Europe since 1987. And Putin said, hey, Biden, you want to get back in the INF Treaty? And he said, no. So, he gets half credit for saving start, but he didn't save the INF Treaty.

And then this became a major one of the excuses or reasons cited by Vladimir Putin for launching the war, is that look, you have these dual-use missile launchers that can fire Tomahawk cruise missiles, and now you've tore up the treaty that keeps you from tipping your cruise missiles with hydrogen bombs. And so now you're escalating the threat to Russia. And these guys keep saying, this has nothing to do with Russia. This has nothing to do with Russia. But we overthrow any government that's friendly to Russia anywhere in the world, and including

tried again to overthrow the government of Belarus just last year. And I talked to a real expert on this stuff from the Naval War College, a guy named Lyle Goldstein. And I said, Lyle, Putin could have taken the Dombas in 2015. Why did he wait till now? What changed? And Lyle said to me, he said, when Biden's government tried to overthrow the government Belarus last year, that that completely changed the dynamic, not just to Putin, but to the

entire national security state in Moscow, that the Americans are just relentless. They'll stop at nothing. We have to draw the line somewhere. We've got to draw the line in Ukraine. And they did save their friend, Lushenko, Lukashenko in Belarus, so the coup failed, but that really helped to escalate the tensions. And then last fall, the new president of Ukraine Zelenskyy, came to the United States and said, hey, what's up on that NATO membership? Are we doing this or what?

And it was in response to that was when the real buildup began. I'm sorry, guys. Can I have five more minutes? All right. I'm sorry, it's a lot of stuff. So, ha ha, now where was I? So Zelensky. So Zelensky. So Zelensky comes in. Now here's the thing. Me and Zalinski. some of my friends have taken some heat because I had told you, I'll take responsibility for myself. I had told you guys I didn't think there was going to be a war. And the main reason I didn't think there was going to be a war was because Biden's director of the Central Intelligence Agency is a guy named William Burns. And Burns is not a lifelong throat

slit and spy. He's a diplomat. And he had been the ambassador to Russia. He speaks Russian. He has a long-term relationship with Sergei Lavrov, the foreign minister over there, and Burns is the guy that wrote the memo. Again, thank you to Julian Assange. We know this. It's called, Niet means Niet. It's a memo that Burns wrote to Connoisseurice in 2008,

saying, I met with Sergei Lavrov today, and he said under absolutely no circumstances, can Russia allow you to bring Ukraine into NATO? This is months before the Bucharest declaration. Burns is telling Connolyza Rice, Sergey Lavrov, he's very polite, but he made it very clear in no uncertain terms. Russia will invade and conquer Ukraine

before we let you guys bring it into your military alliance. Do you read me loud and clear? So I thought kind of stupidly that Burns would help guide Biden through this crisis, would figure out a way that we could come to an eye to eye, you know, agreement with the Russians about how we're gonna handle this thing. Their demands were extremely reasonable.

They said, we want the government in Kiev to respect the Minsk to agreement that they signed with the EU, with the French and the Germans, that said that they would respect independence for the Dombas. There's been low-level fighting going on the whole time, as they call it low-level, still thousands killed over the last eight years or seven years

since the first major part of the war ended. Or six years since then. and thousands still killed, they said they want a declaration by NATO that they'll no longer seek to bring Ukraine into NATO. Well, Biden had said a million times, we don't wanna bring Ukraine into NATO. Hell, the Germans won't let us anyway.

Everybody knows that, so it's not really an issue. But we refuse to put it in writing because then that would be letting you close the open door, and we have a sacred principle, that we have an open door, and no one can close it. Now we just made that up, and we could clearly close it ourselves, but if we put it in writing that we won't bring Ukraine

into NATO, while that would be just bending over for Hitler at Munich again, and we just can't do that. So we refuse to put it in writing. But one of the things that they did do, oh, and he also again mentioned his concerns about the tearing up of the INF Treaty and the threat of one, those dual-use missile launchers in Romania and Poland, that could fire hydrogen bomb,

tipped Tomok cruise missiles, but also the threat that if America were to further integrate Ukraine as a de facto member of NATO, which even John Mearsheimer at the University of Chicago says they were essentially doing, bringing them into NATO without exactly calling it that by the way that they were arming them up and integrating their military. And Putin said in his speech, and you guys should read it, you know, on TV, it's just like old speeches of Hitler. You just see him ranting and raving, but you don't know what the hell he's talking about. It's the same thing with Putin.

and they show him he's clearly upset, he's sitting at his desk and he's, you know, ranting. But there's no closed caption. He's just on mute, and there's some CNN lady talking over him. And you don't even get, it's just B-roll footage playing. But you don't ever get to hear what the man said. Remember after September 11th, they said, we can't give you Bin Laden's letter to America

because that's how he gives secret code words to his sleeper cells, and they'll kill you and your mama. So we can't let you and your dad. read the real reasons for the attack on our country. Right? Well, that's what they're doing now. We can't let you know what Putin has to say. It would be misinformation and very bad for you, trust us.

But just read what he says. You've got to go probably, there's not too many places you can find it. You might have to go to the Russian president's website and read his statements of February 21st and 24th. Now, I'm not justifying what he did, and I'm not saying what he did was reasonable. I'm not say what he did was right. I am saying that what he did was rational.

It was a reaction to the position the Americans put him in. Now, he had plenty of other options that he could have gone with, and I have only begun to think of them. But he could have, I saw someone on Twitter the other day just off the cuff, say, well, he could have turned off all natural gas to Europe and said, now I want a UN Security Council resolution putting Indian peacekeepers in the Donbass. Right? Something, anything.

Do something other than invade the country, okay? I'm not saying it's okay that he invaded the country. I'm not saying that. I am saying you should read what he said about why he did it. And it's nothing but security concerns on top of security concerns, on top of security concerns, on top of security concerns. And he says, you know what? Remember how I told you in 2004, and in 2007,

and in 2000 everything, that I've got these security concerns? Well, I got security concerns. That's all it is. And he says in there, we made a mistake by letting Ukraine go independent. Because it turns out there's no such thing as independence for Ukraine. They're either, evidently, will be controlled by Russia

or they'll be controlled by the United States of America. And right now, he said, Kiev is a colony of America with a puppet government. That's true. And he said, that is intolerable. And then he said, listen, if they install their what's call it missiles in Harkiv, their flight time to Moscow would be 20 minutes.

And if they put their Tomahawk cruise missiles there, their flight time would be 15 minutes. And if they put their new hypersonic gliders in Harkiv, their flight time to Moscow would be less than five minutes. It's a knife to the throat. So, we're taking over Ukraine. Now, I'm not saying that that's fair or right, innocent people have been exploded to death

into tiny little shreds of pieces. Okay? There's nothing okay about that. But you have to recognize. You have to admit, just because you're from here doesn't make it not true that this is the U.S. government's fault.

It's Bill Clinton and W. Bush and Barack Obama and Donald Trump and Joe Biden, and when I say Joe Biden, I don't mean President Joe Biden, I mean Senator Joe Biden under Bill Clinton, Senator Joe Biden under W. Bush, Vice President Biden riding shotgun under Barack Obama. The only time he wasn't involved in this mess was during Donald Trump.

But as we all know, Trump was impeached for temporarily holding up an arms deal, pushing for the reopening of an investigation into the corruption of Joe Biden's son, who was being paid a million dollars a year by a gas company that had been friends with the government Biden had overthrown. So they hired his son to try to protect themselves. Did they hire Arsony Yatsyni Yitz is the guy? Did they hire his brother? No.

They hired the Vice President of the United States' son to be their insurance policy. So he's been involved in this every single step of the way, Joe Biden, and it's his fault. And I'm from here, too. I'm a Texan and I'm an American. I care about my country. I care about the good of humanity overall, and I care about the truth. And the thing is, unless there's some kind of consensus in this country that, like, hey, this is a little bit our fault, guys. And maybe there's a way that we can negotiate.

Maybe we can climb down a little bit. Maybe we can let the Russians save a little bit of face. Says, ha, ha, ha, this is a little bit Bill Clinton and George Bush and Barack Obama and Joe Biden and Donald Trump and everybody's fault here. Maybe, huh? If we can't do that, if the story here remains that what's happened here is that Vladimir Putin turned from someone somewhat reasonable into a raving madman, that's what Connoisseurice said. I think he has a mental illness now. Well, Connoisseurice is the one who put the dual-use missile launchers in public. Poland.

Maybe that's what caused his mental illness. But they just won't accept responsibility. They cannot accept responsibility. So we have to make them. We have to change the narrative in this country that, listen, America not Russia's the world empire. We won the Cold War. They lost their empire 30 years ago. We have a border dispute with Russia 6,000 miles east of New Jersey.

Not here, there. America's an empire and America's not supposed to be. The Soviet Union and communism is dead and gone from this planet. Even in China, it's the right wing of the Communist Party at charge over there. It's a dictatorship, but it's not Marxism. There is no Marxism on the planet. That game is over. We want it.

There's no reason the world we should be taking this provocative stance against the Russians who to this day maintain a stockpile of 6,000 hydrogen bombs. And this, even the current crisis as we're in right now, could escalate into general nuclear war, which would mean the death of essentially the entire north of the planet Earth in the violence. And it would mean the rest of mankind mostly would starve to death in the nuclear winter,

because all that soot goes up above the clouds where the rain can't rain it out and where it would stay and block the sun and lower global temperatures on Earth by even tens of degrees. And so humanity would lay down and die of starvation in the event of a general war with Russia. There's nothing more important in the world than our relationship with this nation state. And our government treats this so cavalierly with such arrogance. You know, like they're all just a bunch of CNN ladies who are learning all of this for the very first time.

And all they know is the bad guy is bad and evil, and that's why he does the bad thing. And that's why America is Christopher Reeve as Superman, the Boy Scout, here only, you know, the sleeping giant who occasionally wakes up when trouble pops up. And it's just not true. And as long as we're married to that narrative, we're dead men. So thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that was amazing.

Thank you so much. The Scott Horton Show, Anti-War Radio, can be heard on KPFK 90.7 FM in L.A. APSRadio.com, anti-war.com, scothorton.org, and libertarian institute.org.