Scott Horton Show - Just the Interviews - Provoked: How America Started the New Cold War - Scott's Speech from Porcfest 2023

Episode Date: February 7, 2024

Scott's speech from Porcfest 2023. Watch it on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9hRHP0zuo4 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All right, thanks you guys. Man, it's good to be here among so many friends, isn't it great? All right, very happy to be here. So if you saw the debate last year, I'm basically going to say the same thing again, only not in an argument with the lady. But I think as we all know from even if you only kind of keep up with the news on a cursory sort of basis. The war in Ukraine for the last year and more has just been an absolute catastrophe for the people that country, for the conscripts on both sides.

You know, and believe me, I know especially anybody here who is fought in Iraq and Afghanistan getting blown up by roadside bombs and all of that is no picnic either. But this is trench warfare, you know, artillery and tank rounds and hand grenades on both sides and young men just being blown to pieces by the tens of thousands. It's just horrible. And it's in Europe, and it's, obviously, as everyone understands, a proxy war between not just major powers, but the majorist of powers, especially in terms of what really matters, hydrogen bombs. And it's essentially America and the entire Western alliance against Russia in this case. And instead of what, I think, any person, like if you just had, you know, your auntie who maybe is not that political,

like wouldn't she think that as soon as the fighting broke out last year, that every diplomat in the world should be racing to try to get a ceasefire now and figure out the details later, that we can't have fighting 300 miles from Moscow right on Russia's western border, whatever the fire is, put it out. But they didn't do that. And they said from the beginning, well, yeah, that's because we want the war to continue. Because we think it's in our interest and it's against Russia's interests. It'll help bleed them dry.

It'll weaken Russia to the point where they'll never be able to try this again. That's what the Secretary of Defense said a year ago. So we want the war to continue on. We don't want to solve it. And when peace was on the table just over a year ago in March and in April of 22, the Americans and the British intervened to stop it. And it's the greatest sin. it's unbelievable. It's as bad as anything they've done since Truman, Newt, Japan. I mean, it's just, it's, it's, it's the most irresponsible, uh, leadership.

Seriously, Joe Biden and what his men have chosen to do here makes Iraq War II and the terror wars look like, you know, run-of-the-mill responsible state craft, which they certainly were not. But the level of danger here and for the level of justification is justification. just got to be the most skewed ratio in foreign policy history. It's just unbelievable. It's like, you know, using a full-scale invasion to regime change Granada, right? I was going to do that. So there's that. That's the baseline. This really does matter. And I know that there's so much hype a year ago, and then the hype has kind of died down a little bit. But the level of concern should not really have Wayne just because we're getting used to it, you know, that desensitization effect.

And so we should really be doing as much as we can as the libertarian movement and just as decent human beings in America who don't have anything directly to profit from this thing to rally all opinion that we can in all forces and groups and alliances that we can make with anyone we can to try to stop this thing. as fast as possible. And yes, this war was provoked. It's kind of a tell, isn't it? When they say, like, it's hypnosis, right?

It's this mantra. Unprovoked attack. Unprovoked attack. For some of you older people, you remember, you know, previous slogans like, white separatist, Randy Weaver. Right? You cannot just say, you know, widower,

Randy Weaver, right? You have to say what's so bad about this guy. And it's like, unprovoked attack, unprovoked attack. And it's such an obvious tell. They provoked it. They know that that's what's at issue. Now, everyone here understands that the Russians increased the war by, however you measure it, thousands of percent. But the war had been going on for years.

And it wasn't Vladimir Putin who started it. It was Barack Obama. And it was that war that ended up the failure of the West and Russia to be able to resolve that conflict is what led to the vast increase, you could say, in that same fighting that we saw at the beginning of last year. And so, and I do not argue, to be very clear, that the war was justified any more than I argue, I've been arguing for 20 years that al-Qaeda's war against the United States was provoked.

It's not a matter of justifying what they're doing. It's simply a matter of explaining to my fellow countrymen of what the true motive of the people who are fighting against us is so we can understand how better to fight it. In the case of the war on terrorism, for example, they said, well, they hate us because of how innocent we are. And since obviously we're not going to change that, the only thing we can do is just kill them all until they finally give up.

And that was the best anyone could come up with. We'll just have to invade country after country. But once you understand that, no, they just hate us for supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestine and Lebanon and for supporting all the kings and sultans and emirs of Saudi Arabia and the Emirates states in the Gulf and occupying Saudi bases the holy peninsula of Mecca and Medina in order to bomb Iraq every other day for 10 years straight. That it wasn't radical Islam at all, but radical politics that motivated the United States. attack against us well then now you're kind of open to oh there you go you know possibly a new argument that hey maybe if we stopped pissing these people off they'd be less motivated to come

and attack us since it really was Bush senior and Bill Clinton who started it not Osama bin Laden that kind of a thing context matters and think about honestly 10 years ago 20 years ago if you're good on Iraq War II. They said, you're pro-terrorist. And people actually believe that. Yeah, my neighbor, he's totally pro-terrorist. Does that make any sense? Especially in hindsight. It's completely ridiculous, right? It was just the people who knew that Saddam Hussein wasn't in bed with Osama bin Laden and the people who were dumb enough to believe it. That's all. So we face, of course, the same thing today. A lot of people get accused of somehow being partisans of the Russians, but, I mean, is that really true?

like some parts of 4chan or something that there's some movement dedicated to Russia's point of view and future in this country there really isn't so not even among Russian expats you know like in the Cold War the last Cold War you got to differentiate there really

were American communists and especially before the Second World War you know many more of them and who were very dedicated to the Soviet Union and some of whom even after the Second World War remain dedicated to the Soviet Union which is a severe idea ideological commitment to Marxism and the Kremlin and all this stuff.

We have nothing like that in America today. Putin has no cult of personality in America. The Kremlin has no cult of, you know, a superior form of government that Americans uphold in any way. There's just nothing like that. Not the leftists. I mean, Trump, I mean, pardon me, Putin, they try to do that too. Putin is essentially like a center-right conservative, orthodox Christian, right?

We already have center-right conservatives in America. There's no need for American characters to be replaced with him in our imagination as some kind of ideal. And if you look at leftists, progressives and liberals, obviously, definitely not liberals, but leftists and progressives. And if you look at conservatives and populists and libertarians, no one cares about Vladimir Putin. No one sitting here saying, you know, oh, the poor guy, or only if we could, you know, only prioritize the feelings of the rights. Russian people because we care more about them than ourselves or some kind of thing. You don't hear that argument anywhere. All it is is people trying to tell the truth and then people trying to lie to you and gaslight

the people who are telling the truth that this isn't the true history. But we know the history. And so, anyway, to wrap up just on that point, I mean, my metaphor, which it isn't perfect, but like if this is a bar fight, I believe that America really had Putin's back to the wall. I don't think they really had them in a corner where he had. had no choice. But then again, you put a guy like that's back to the wall. He might not wait till you got him all the way in a corner. And you got to know what kind of bully you're dealing with in a situation like that. The Americans clearly were the ones who picked this fight. It doesn't

mean if you shove a guy, he's got the right to stab you, you know, but probably shouldn't have shoved the guy with a knife then, maybe, you know. So, now here's the short version of how they provoked this thing if I can try to sum it up. You know, as many people know, and I'm glad this is becoming more and more popular history that people understand it. When the Soviet Union was breaking up, in Gorbachev, the last premiere of the USSR was pulling his troops out of Germany and out of Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe, he was doing so on the basis of this, you know, essentially, like genuine friendship that he had made with Ronald Reagan and then,

at least a real respectful relationship that he had continued with H.W. Bush, Reagan and Gorbachev really had ended, begun to end the Cold War in 1985, and really in 1986. Before anybody, you know, the unraveling of the USSR and the domination of the Warsaw Pact in Eastern Europe didn't really begin until 1988. And so it was in the atmosphere of trust and friendship that all this was happening. and the Americans had promised Gorbachev that if you will remove your troops from Germany, then we promise not to move our troops one inch to the east. Now, there's more quotes than just that one,

and the critics are right that it's a little bit nuanced, that that direct quote is actually in regards to whether we're going to move our forces if he allows the reunification of Germany from Western Germany into Eastern Germany. They weren't necessarily in that moment talking about all of Eastern Europe. However, in all of the conversations surrounding that, they did, and they made the point over and over again, we won't take advantage of your withdrawal at all. We won't move into your sphere of influence at all.

And this was the Americans, the British, the French, and the Germans, told them over and over again, and including at a couple of points the European diplomats had stated that, well, look, if we can't move into Eastern Europe. Germany then obviously we can't move into Poland or the Baltics and so that was the understanding even though that part wasn't written in a treaty or an agreement that was the understanding upon which the treaties were signed and which the withdrawal was based and for people who say oh oh well like Peter Baker in the New York Times well that doesn't count if

it's not a treaty well when Robert Kennedy Sr. made a secret deal with the Russians the Soviets, that we will pull our Jupiter missiles out of Turkey, and we will promise forever to never invade Cuba again if they will withdraw their nuclear missiles from Cuba. That wasn't a treaty. That wasn't writing. That was straight up nothing but RFK's handshake with, I forgot his name. And based on that, security guarantee,

we've never invaded Cuba again ever since then. And we never put mid-range missiles back in Turkey either. ironclad agreement and it had to be meant when they said it or it wouldn't have worked and it's not just that and there's a great scholar named Joshua Schiferson who goes through and he explains

how all through the history of the Cold War our entire relationship with the Soviets in Europe was based on informal agreements about how we operate checkpoint Charlie and Berlin and all of these different things and so the idea that somehow oh no but these don't count is just a damn lie by promise breakers is all it is.

And Schifrensen especially shows in the documentation that Bush Sr. and his men, they knew they were lying before Bill Clinton ever came to town. They were promising the Soviets. We're going to turn NATO into a political organization, sort of like a super EU that includes the US. And to replace it as a military structure, we're going to create the United States.

new partnership for peace and Russia Ukraine conjoined to all of you and the idea was even maybe we would bring Russia in before we brought in the Eastern European nations so that the Russians wouldn't be afraid that this thing was pointed at them in any way that was the anticipation was that they would be worried but the thing is they knew that that was just PR and that that was what they had to tell the Soviets at the time to get them to withdraw all the way and to allow the Soviet Union to unravel and And although I would note that even then in the Bush Senior Administration,

they said, well, look, we're only talking about taking Eastern Europe. It's not like we're going to go all the way to Ukraine or the Baltics or anything crazy like that. Eastern Europe ends in Slovakia at the worst, you know. But anyway, so Bill Clinton came in and he played the same game. And you guys can find so much documentation of this at the National Security Archive at George Washington University, where they declassified finally all the documents. They published them there, and they have great analysis and all the quotes there. And the first one is called what Gorbachev heard, and the second one is called what Yeltsin heard,

and meaning all of the bullshit that the Americans promised them, all the things that they said that they would later break in order to get them to acquiesce as America expanded their sphere of influence further and further. Now, let me make sure I don't forget any big deal under H.W. Bush here. So Clinton also famously sent the Harvard Boys, led by Larry Summers, to go and help restructure the Russian economy. They called it shock therapy. But all it was was just corruption. And they took what was literally a communist, Marxist economy, where the national central government owned and controlled all industry. And they just parsed it out to a few connected KGB types and mobsters.

It ended up with seven major, essentially just mafia guys, owned all the industry in the country. And through various scams aided and abetted by the government, first of all, through massive inflation and hyperinflation, which just wipes out the savings of anyone who has anything and means that essentially only the connected are going to be able to do anything now or have access to capital, do anything now.

And then they had loans for shares and these voucher schemes and all of these things to essentially just liquidate mostly. They handed over all of Soviet industry or former Soviet industry to these oligarchs, but a lot of times just liquidated it for the cash and moved to Tel Aviv or New York or London. And just, you know, it's unbelievable.

I have the research in the book that I'm working on now where they estimate, the real experts estimate that the excess death rate in the 1990s in Russia is in the millions. Some say more than six million excess deaths of Russians. I mean, just imagine a literal communist economy, a very industrialized one at that, but a communist government, and we change it to an America-style capitalist system, at least they sold it that way, and six million people die of, you know, essentially being deprived to death, dying at younger ages, drinking themselves to death,

suicide and illness and disease, and, you know, joblessness and homelessness. It's deindustrialized the entire country, just ground it into the dirt. And I know you guys are saying, come on, Bill Clinton was doing his best, but the thing is, the thing is about that is it's really not right. and Jeffrey Sacks, who was one of the guys and who's now really doing heroic work on this stuff. I give him credit for it. He was one of the guys involved in this,

and he finally quit in 1994, and he says, at least now, I don't know when he, I think maybe even then, he said, that he thought this was deliberate. And the Americans were kicking the Russians while they're down. And sorry, I am repeating myself from the debate last year, but I think this is important.

When I was a kid, you know, this is mythology. I'm not saying it's 100%, but it's the thing. When I was a kid, I was raised to believe that unlike the stupid and selfish and greedy and vindictive French and British after the First World War who ground Germany into the ground and lead, you know, planted the seeds and the fertile soil for the rise of the Nazi party, that we didn't do it that way. And after we beat Japan and Germany, we made friends with them and rebuilt them and now they're with us and we're all cool. And that's how we should do it to avoid Hitler's. right and then but so what do they do in Russia they go back to the Versailles model

we win you lose we get to strip you of all your outlying territories we got to inflict this hyperinflation on you we get to destroy all your economy let a bunch of foreigners and connected gangsters come and buy everything up and take everything you have from you and you can't do a goddamn thing about it and then they're surprised when Vladimir Putin comes to power and has the support of a strong Russian national right to put an end to that. And of course, what he did was he got rid of all oligarchs and replaced them with his own, but what'd you expect him to do? And by the way,

Hitler, he's not. He's a lot more like Hindenburg, and I think, you know, we might regret when he's gone, depending on who's standing to his flank and ready to replace him. Miedvedev, who stood in for him for a little while there is much worse than him now, for sure. But anyway, so Jeffrey Sacks says this was deliberate. This was America deliberately kicking the Russians while they're down, destroying, deliberately, absolutely destroying their economy and grinding them into the dirt. And then, of course, he helped rig the election of 1996. She can read a Time magazine article all about it, and they spent billions of dollars to influence that election there. And the mythology, it was the only way.

to stop the communists from coming back, but that's not true. And Ann Williamson, who used to write for the Wall Street Journal back then, talked about the more pro-market and less corrupt forces in Russia who were being ignored at that time when Clinton was supporting the absolutely corrupt Yeltsin instead. And why were they trying to throw them out already? I mean, he had to essentially put down, violently put down the election results in 1993, or at least the Parliament's will in 1993, because they already wanted rid of him after just a year and a half, two years in power. And here in the election 96, you know, Kathy Young was like, that's Bill Clinton being nice, helping Yeltsin be reelected. But I'm like, yeah, but that

wasn't what the Russians thought. They felt like America was inflicting this guy on them. Like, imagine if Russia had rigged an election here and installed some goon like Donald Trump as president, how people might freak out. You know, if something like that actually were to happen, you know, not just for pretend. and then also of course the Bosnia and Kosovo wars were both fought against the Serbs

who are the Russians' ethnic kin and close allies and over the Russian's dead body there was nothing to do about it and in both cases and the same in Chechnya you guys won't be surprised to know that Bill Clinton backed bin Ladens, Mujahideen terrorists and in fact

two of the hijackers from September 11th the guys who were probably the most the CIA is most implicated in trying to recruit and maybe recruiting, the guys from the San Diego cell who crashed the plane into the Pentagon, they had earned their stripes as bin Ladenite terrorists fighting for Bill Clinton in Bosnia in 1995. And the same for colleague Sheikh Mohammed, who's in Guantanamo Bay to this day, who's alleged, I think, credibly to be the primary organizer of that attack. That was how they were too young and too.

too late to have fought in Afghanistan for Ronald Reagan. They earned their stripes fighting for Bill Clinton. Now, al-Qaeda had already started attacking us, beginning in 1990. They killed a rabbi in New York, and then, of course, in 92, well, I don't know, of course. In 92, they tried to kill some Americans in Yemen, and in 93, they almost knocked one World Trade Center Tower into the other. Bill Clinton's still backing him the next year and the year after that anyway, as they're attacking targets all over the Middle East, et cetera.

He did the same thing with the Kosovo Liberation Army in 1999, who were. a bunch of terrorists and gangsters, and their speciality was knocking you out and stealing your organs to sell on the black market. And, you know, Hashim Thacey, their leader, Joe Biden, Senator Biden then called him the George Washington of Kosovo, which maybe is true because George Washington used to steal the teeth out of his slaves' mouth and stuff like that, so you never know. Well, according to Murray Rothbard. And then the same thing in Chechnya. And, you know, when Putin declared war, a year ago, he said, and I kind of like this, because it's like when you're talking about the Oklahoma

City bombing, like, hey, I know this sounds like a kooky topic, but trust me, there's like something really to this. He goes, look, let's be adults about this, okay? We know that you and the British backed Al-Qaeda in Chechnya in 1999 and 2000. Don't lie. He said that a couple of times, and it's true. And in the new book, I got more research than I thought I could find on it, and it keeps coming. And I get to figure out how to trim that section down. But there's quite a bit about, especially America, but also the British, helping to back the bin Ladenites in the war in Chechnya. And which, look, it's not to defend the Russians' behavior in that war. I mean, they leveled Grozny, committed mass war crimes in doing it.

But then what would America do if the Russians were supporting a bin Ladenite-led insurrection on our southern border? Something a lot like that is what they would do. Again, not to excuse it, but just to show that there's no unique evil there when it's America on the side of the bin Ladenites, who at that time had already bombed our embassy, our two embassies in Africa and the Kobar Towers, which they blamed on Iran. Anyway, and then NATO expansion. The first round of NATO expansion was Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.

And I didn't really realize this until recently, the last couple of years anyway, that when they launched the aggressive war against Serbia to break off Kosovo, that was literally three weeks after the final ceremony of bringing these three new countries into the NATO alliance. And the whole time they're saying to the Russians, don't worry about it, man, all it is Boris is a defensive alliance. and nothing for you to be worried about. As soon as they expand it, they launched an aggressive war. And they knew, of course, they couldn't get a UN resolution to so-called legalize it because the Russians would have vetoed it.

So they just went ahead anyway with their coalition of the willing, the NATO alliance, and launched the aggressive war. On behalf of, again, a bunch of gangsters and heroin dealers and Oregon smugglers is who they fought that war for in Kosovo. Which is just incredible,

but, you know, there's pipeline, politics and other very, very important things like that that make it worth that, I guess, we're supposed to understand. And by the way, you know, Ron Paul warned about this at the time. You can read it in a foreign policy of freedom and, you know, in the various articles, I'm sure if you go back and check his archive at Lou Rockwell, our anti-war.com archive for him only goes back to. Actually, you know what, it might go back that far too. where you can find Ron Paul, and I remember watching him on C-SPAN, giving speeches about this then, that we just should not be doing this.

And the thing is, it wasn't just Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. It was actually almost all of the older foreign policy establishment at the time. So it's true that Henry Kissinger and Zabigno Bresensky were for it, especially Brzezinski, was pushing it. However, George Kennan, who had coined the containment policy back in the 1940s, with his long telegram from as a State Department ambassador

to the Soviet Union he was against it as was Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense at the time William Perry and in fact Robert McNamara who had been the Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War and many of

some of you guys might remember Senator was it Ben Bradley that had run against Al Gore in 2000, Bill Bradley, thank you, who he was a bit of an expert on Russia and knew better than this. And in fact, Ike Eisenhower's granddaughter, Susan, organized an open letter that was signed by 75 leading ambassadors and older, but still ambassador, maybe more so. They understood much more than the young guys, I guess. Ambassadors, admirals, and CIA directors and cabinet officials saying we should not be doing this. In fact, you can find this in William Perry, again, the Secretary of Defense at the time.

It's in his memoirs, and it's in an interview that he did with the Guardian, where he officially blames himself personally, as he puts it, for the entire deterioration of American-Russian relations since that time. Me. My fault. And they go, how can you say that? Why do you say that? He says, well, I could have taken the National Security Advisor Tony Lake or the Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot, I could have taken them aside for one-on-one meetings

and given them the right act. And I could have written a really long paper for the president, and I could have demanded a one-on-one meeting with President Clinton, and I could have threatened to resign. And I could have resigned, and I didn't. So I thought that if I stayed, maybe I could help make it a little less worse. And people say, come on, it's not your fault, but I'm not willing to accept that.

It is to my fault, says the Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton, taking responsibility for failing to stop Bill Clinton from this madness when he knew good and damn well not to do it, when all he had to do was quit and stomp his foot while he did it and he could have probably stopped it and he didn't do it. And then he blames himself for the entire deterioration of American-Russian relations since then.

to him, this is the original sin of the post-Cold War world, and it's his and Clintons for doing it. Not the Russians for being upset at what they had done. Now, W. Bush comes in, and he was not a very good leader.

He... Well, I got a few. In the new book, 2,500 so far. And that's just the Bush chapter. No, so the worst thing he did was he brought nine new nations into NATO, with Putin just stomping his feet. You know, Putin had asked to join NATO in the summer of 2001,

before 9-11 had happened in July. He had asked Colin Powell, look, I mean, we're really upset about this and worried about this. You're bringing in all these countries that hate us into this alliance on our border, and they're like, no, no, no, it's just defensive. just defensive, just defensive, we're just keeping the peace, we're just spreading the umbrella of security. And he goes, well, can I join? And then that way we don't have to worry about it. And Colin Powell's like, oh, hang on, I'm getting a phone call. I refuse to even answer him and walked away and left and wouldn't even say a thing to him. The same thing had happened to him under Bill Clinton, too. They just blew

them off. We don't want to talk about that. Not that I'm saying that would have been the right thing to do, but it goes to show the concern that they had the time. On September 11, Putin's the first guy to call W. Bush, the first foreign leader. And he says, what can I do for you? You need my airspace, you got it. You need my former bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. You got them. And Bush says, okay? Because after all,

we were the ones switching sides in the Afghan war, not the Russians. So you want to come and fight the Pashtun Mujahideen for us? Good. And on behalf of the Tajik's fine. And then how to Bush thank him? He turned around two months later and he tore up the anti-ballistic missile treaty that limited us to just a couple

anti-ballistic missile bases. And the thing is you might think, well, that sounds just a And I guess I would say that, look, if that's all we had was a bunch of defensive anti-ballistic missile missiles, then that would be fine. But that's not all we have. Instead, that tilts the balance from mutually assured destruction toward the possibility of a first strike against their powers. And so this is a huge concern. That was the purpose of the tree. It's why Richard Nixon negotiated the treaty in the first place. If we just build more and more defensive missiles, they're just going to build more and more offensive missiles. And then they're going to build more and more. and more defensive missiles, then we're going to build more and more offensive missiles, and it doesn't stop. So that was the purpose of all the salt treaties and all of those treaties from that era was to try to just call a halt at a few tens of thousands of H-bombs each, ought to do you, you know?

And so Bush tore that up, and not only did he tear that up, but he put these anti-missile bases into Romania and Poland and the radar stations in the Czech Republic. And now, Bill Clinton had promised in 1997 that we won't do that. We're going to bring these countries into NATO as we expand, and they create the NATO-Russia Council where we'll consult with you about the decisions we've already made without you. But we promised not to move Western military equipment

into the new Eastern European member states. But then, and I have the quote from bad guys quoting him, his friends quoting him, saying, yeah, right until we wake up one morning and change our mind about that, which is exactly what happened when W. Bush woke up one morning and changed his mind about that and said, we're going to put these anti-missile missiles stations in Romania and Poland. Now, the thing of it is, Vladimir Putin said, listen, you're tilting mutually sure destruction toward the capability of a first strike. Meaning that our guys think that they could do such a good job on the first strike, that they could shoot down what's left of what the Russians have to retaliate with, that they could get away with winning a nuclear war somehow. Mutually assured destruction says we can never fight it because no side could ever win it and we know it, right? So he's saying if you change the balance from mutually assured destruction, you're putting me in a bad spot, I've got to change it back, right?

But W. Bush says, but that's bullshit, man. on look we're not we're only putting a few missiles in here there's not enough they're called sparrows the anti-missile missiles there's not enough defensive missiles here to shoot down a salvo from russia we're not stupid touche good point right well so what are they for then dubby bush is well there to shoot down an incoming missile attack from iran iran but iran doesn't have missiles that can reach Poland. And Iran doesn't have and is not making nuclear weapons. And Iran ain't got beef with Poland. And when he first said that, and I admit, I cannot find it anywhere on the way back machine, but I know it happened because it's in my brain that when Bush first said

this stuff at a meeting in Europe, I don't know if it was the G7 or what it was. But when he first said this, all the diplomats in the room broke out laughing. It's to protect from Iran. What hell's he talking about? And it's just like three, four years later, Barack Obama says the same thing, and they're like, yeah, no, that's a real concern, Iranian nuclear. But then, so, that doesn't make any sense either. And Vladimir

Putin agreed that, but that doesn't make any sense either. But here's what does make sense, is that those sparrow anti-missile missiles are launched from the Mark 41 missile launchers. And the Mark 41 missile launchers can

also hold Tomahawk cruise missiles, which can be tipped with hydrogen bombs. In other words, America was at least, you know, nibbling at the edges, messing and tinkering with the spirit of the intermediate nuclear forces treaty, Ronald Reagan's great achievement of 1987, which kept all medium-range nuclear missiles out of Europe since that time. And America was, okay, we're not putting the missiles in yet, but we're putting the launchers in. and there is no inspection regime for the Russians to come and check and reassure themselves

that, okay, those are all still sparrows, see you guys again in three weeks, and any of that. So this is a huge concern that the Americans are essentially putting, if you look at a map, where Poland is and where these stations are, that they're putting these missiles within, you know, a half hour, 20 minutes of Moscow in St. Petersburg, and severely increasing a potential at least a latent nuclear threat of a first strike against the Russians. And they knew that that was what they were doing with it at that time. And in fact, Colonel McGregor says that he told them in 2004, if you do this, you have to have an inspection regime from the very beginning.

You have to have an open-door policy for the Russians to come and check these missile tubes whenever they want. Because you can swap the missiles out in like an hour and a half or whatever. It's a little bit of an operation, but it can be done fairly easily. And he said, they are going to be terrified of this. Why would you terrify the Russians unnecessarily? Just let them look at the damn missile tubes.

No. What are they going to do about it? That was the argument. And I have that in the book. I have that quote after quote after quote, including from William Perry himself. The attitude was, fuck them. What are they going to do?

Nothing. That was the attitude. to the Americans. Not good sports at all. The worse of bullies. So the other thing that W. Bush does is he launches the color-coded revolutions. Now, these really started under Bill Clinton with a few failed attempts in Albanian, I forget what, in like 96, 98. The first real successful one, I believe, was in Serbia in the year 2000 when they overthrew Slobodan Milosevic. And what this is, is these color-coded revolutions, essentially their coup d'etatres dressed up as revolutions. The Americans come in

led by the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID in partnership with the major, they call them non-governmental organizations, the NGOs, and I'm sorry I forget who I'm plagiarizing with this, but I didn't make it up, but I like it. They call them next to government organizations, which is probably a little bit closer to the truth. And this is, you know, essentially deniable type operations. This is more or less clandestine ops in the open, right? And it's George Soros and Pierre Omidjar more and more nowadays, you know, sponsored these massive foundations that pour millions of dollars in a so-called independent media, but of course that just means the side that the Americans want to back and want to win. And it's, you know,

a massive, again, think of Russiagate, which wasn't even true. The freak out that the Russians have bought a few Facebook ads that might have added a hair to the scale in favor of Trump. Just said people absolutely ballistic. I mean, we're talking about we're the Americans and we're here with $600 million to make sure that democracy prevails. Meaning our favored

parties and not one person in the country is confused about whether we're here to selflessly promote self-government for you guys just because how much we love you or whether this is all in favor of American interests at the expense especially, of course, of the Russians.

and so Clinton did it first in Serbia but W. Bush pulled it off with the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003 and then they did the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004 where they prevented the guy from the Russia leaning although it's not like he's a slave of the Russians

Yanukovych, he's somewhat of an independent guy although obviously corrupt like they all are there like they all are everywhere but maybe especially there but they and And possibly he stuffed some ballots and stole the election. I don't know, but I sure don't believe the source, which is all the American back groups and their exit polls.

That's basically the scam. Oh, whatever the election results say, they must be a lie because our exit polls say different. And why are we supposed to trust the exit polls more than the ballot count? Because they say so. And so that's how they pull it off in Georgia, and then that's how they pulled it off in Ukraine. They prevented Yanukovych from taking power

rather than overthrowing him in that case. But then he got elected soon after, we'll be back to the coup that finally got rid of him again for the second time and finally in 2014. But after the Orange Revolution in 2004, they moved on in 2005 to Kyrgyzstan, where they succeeded, at least for a little while, in overthrowing the government there in what was called the Tulip Revolution or the Lemon Revolution. And then they tried and failed in Belarus with the Denham Revolution. and they tried and failed in Lebanon with the Cedar Revolution so these things don't always work out some Soros-backed guy on Twitter calling me a conspiracy cook

was saying oh you claim their magic and just do whatever they want and get what they want I just listed all the times that it didn't work out but that they tried it what can I say same thing happened in you guys probably remember this one best of all is the green revolution in Iran in 2009 the first year Barack Obama those groups and I've got great citations for this. Those groups were backed by the National Endowment for Democracy,

which as the former CIA officials themselves told the Washington Post, does the job of what the CIA used to do clandestinely. They do it openly, and as they put it, openness is its own deniability. Yeah, we're stealing your election, but we're doing it right under your nose, so it's not a CIA plot. It's just there's nothing you can do about it. And we say we're on the side of the youth and the angels, and so what can you do?

And they just pull it off many times, not always, but over and over again. And now, let me make sure I don't miss anything. So, yes, importantly, the last major point on W. Bush here is the Bucharest Summit in 2008. It says last year in office. Now, famously, you guys might have heard Robert Kennedy talking about this recently. it's a State Department memo by our current CIA director not really ours is he

Joe Biden's current CIA director William Burns who is at that time the ambassador to Russia and he writes this memo to Condoleezza Rice it's called Nietz means Nietz and he says I just sat down with Sergei Lavrov and man he just read me the Riot Act and he just said damn it

you guys have to stop with this I know that you guys think that it's fine and you just do what you want but I'm telling you I need you to take me seriously these are severe red lines for the people of Russia, for the government of Russia. You just can't bring Ukraine and NATO

I mean Ukraine and Georgia into the NATO military alliance. You just can't do it to us. He says if you do especially in Ukraine you could cause a civil war and then we might have to choose whether or not to intervene in that civil war which is a decision we do not want to

have to make. So please just don't push your luck this far, man. And the way that Burns writes it up and whatever, that's the job. But you can kind of tell that Burns, it was, you know, has made a choice to do a good job writing this memo, right? Instead of just like, well, they're grumbling again. It seems like he's going the extra mile to make sure that Rice understands just how dangerous this is. And then just, that's in February. And then in April, they go to Bucharest, and even though the French and the Germans absolutely put their foot down. And for one reason only, not because it's going to cost too much money or because Billy said something about Susie. No, it was one thing.

This is going to unnecessarily provoke the Russians. We should not be doing this. That was Angela Merkel and Sarkozy at the time. And so they absolutely refused. but Bush said, well, I'm still going to put out an announcement that we're going to bring him in someday. So we're not announcing a membership action plan, but we're announcing a half-assed one at least, and they couldn't stop him from that. It's the same difference, ultimately.

It meant they weren't backing down. The Americans were still determined to do it, and Americans, of course, the big dog in NATO. And so it's four months later, war broke out in Georgia. And this is, I know not in this crowd, but I'm not in this crowd, I don't know, this will be on YouTube later. People need to know. We're not talking about our Georgia. A lot of people never...

And look, like, I know that when this happened, and I heard an anecdote in the last year, that when this happened, and someone said, the Russians have invaded Georgia, that there are people who are running to the telephone terrified, calling their friends and family and making sure that everyone's okay. They don't know enough about what's going on in the world

to know why that's just totally impossible and it must be a mistake or must be something. But we're talking about tiny little former Soviet Georgia, we often call it, right? between the Black and Caspian Sea, which is, you know, I know Prince Caspian, but it's not just pure fantasy. There's really a thing called that far away from here, like 8,000 miles east of here. And so anyway, this is the guy, Shakashvili, who'd been installed in the coup of 2003. He knows he can't join NATO if he has unsettled borders, but he's got two breakaway provinces from the time of the fall of the Soviet Union.

Abkhazia and South Ossetia. And he decides he's going to settle those borders with an aggressive attack and to reabsorb South Ossetia. And he does that and loses because there are Russian peacekeepers there under a deal that had been brokered by the EU. And, you know, I don't know if I had a UN stamp of approval on it, but close enough, a Western one. And so they were there by all rights legally.

And Russian peacekeepers, I believe 10 of them were killed in the initial assault. and a bunch of civilians too they attacked apartment buildings and killed hundreds of civilians and so then the Russians came under the tunnels under the rokey mountains and beat the georgian forces back and we have it on pretty good authority ron suskind and i can't ever remember i know there's two or oh no i interviewed a guy i got a i'll have the footnotes in the book god damn it that dick cheney wanted to launch missile strikes on the Rokey tunnel to destroy the tunnel under the Caucasus Mountains and collapse the tunnel onto the Russian armored divisions that were coming through the tunnel. And W. Bush said, all right, who on the table here? At the table agrees with

Weiss that we need to attack the Russians today, and everybody went like this. I think Hadley had already gone around and made sure that nobody was going to raise their hand, and then they went on from there. But, you know, this is a guy who's one heartbeat away from the power to decide himself in the last year, in the last months of their power there, was willing to kill Russians in large numbers in a war that our sock puppet had started. And then if you guys remember 2008, they lied about it for the rest of the year until finally in November the New York Times admitted that, yeah, we were lying. It was Georgia that started the war, not Russia. But of course, if you're reading anti-war.com, you knew that.

So Obama comes in and Obama does a lot of things and I'm very short on time already so let me just say very briefly that the worst thing that he did in terms of relations with Russia expanded NATO, fought a war against

their interests in Syria, a very dirty war but he sponsored a coup d'etat in Ukraine in 2014 and it's complicated but it's in the book you'll have to buy it you'll like it it'll be out by Christmas maybe he used a bunch of Hitler love and Nazis to do it and Ukraine of course has a very ugly history from the Second World War they'd been of course conquered and ruled by the Soviet communists

starved to death by the millions in the whole of Demore there are many Ukrainians who greeted the Nazis as liberators when they came to force the communists out. And then, of course, those people really got their asses handed to them when the communists won the war, after all. And then the CIA backed the Nazi militias, hiding out in the woods and fighting rear-guard militia actions against Soviets through the 1950s.

And there's a long and ugly history here, and there are radical-right groups. You know, in America, people call each other commune and Nazi, but really they're just talking about Republicans and Democrats. I mean, over here, you've got some really bad blood over this stuff, very bad blood, and in the West, it's, I don't, you know what, you hear all the time the establishment side say, oh, come on, there are barely any Nazis at all. As though anyone said, there are millions and millions and millions of Nazis, but no one ever said that. That was never the argument. The argument was

Nazis did the coup. It was a bloody street push, and they were the ones who got it done, and at least 10 of them took major positions of power in the new government. And the first thing they did was start provocative actions against the Russians, including threatened to cancel the Harkiv Pact that allowed the lease of the Russian naval base at Sevastopol since the end of the Cold War. And so that was what caused, and was the primary provocation that caused Russia to seize the Crimean Peninsula and annex it in 2014, and then to make their move and support their friends in declaring autonomy and sort of my pseudo-secession. in the far east of the country a few weeks and a month later.

And then America, under Barack Obama, we know that he absolutely green lighted it, perhaps ordered it. John Brennan came to Kiev, was outed, I think, by USA today, for coming to Kiev and ordering America's new sock puppet regime to launch what they called a war on terrorism as they attacked the people in the east of their own country and started this bloody war. I went way over time on that H.W. Bush stuff, I guess, so I'm short on it. But I just, you know, try to add here, if you think about the analogy for a minute, I think

it's a fair one. If the Soviet Union had won the Cold War, Ronald Reagan had bankrupted us with his military spending more instead of the other way around. And the Soviets had expanded their military alliance into Western Europe. And then they had expanded their military alliance even into the Caribbean and into Latin America. And then they did a coup d'etat in Canada. And they used a bunch of Hitler-loving Nazis to overthrow the government in Ottawa. And then the new government in Ottawa declared a war on terrorism and started bombing Vancouver when the people of British Columbia refused to accept the rule of the new coup junta. They started threatening to kick us out of our

naval bases in Alaska. The United States would invade Canada, crush the new regime, in Ottawa and probably nuke Moscow. And that's the fact. We expect somehow our leaders expect that we can put the shoe on the other foot in that scenario with Vladimir Putin, who by the way

is the most vicious and dangerous psychopathic dictator on the planet since David Koresh. And he'll just have to sit there and take it because what's he going to do about it? He wouldn't possibly do what a psycho might do and thermo nuke our capital cities.

when that's what our guys would do and they're on the side of the angels, they're sure. So I'm sorry, you know, if you missed the speech yesterday, my guy Kyle, Anzalone from the Institute, gave an absolutely incredible speech about Russia Gate, what an absolute hoax it was, and how successful it was, at hamstringing Trump

and preventing him from making peace with Russia, which was the one of the few very positive, things on his agenda and which was one of the things that made the establishment panic about him the most and it was an incredible speech so if you missed it please go and check it out on the YouTube later is absolutely fantastic the way he covered that whole thing I couldn't add a word to it and I did steal a few footnotes and of course Biden is bad on all the above and all along too and he came into power and he spent his entire first year in power in 2021 provoked the Russians and making wild promises to the Ukrainians, again announcing and reaffirming we're going to bring them into NATO that we are going to normalize their military relationships with ours. I always forget the word for the normalization, the co-whatever the hell, integration of their military forces with ours.

And I have it on good authority, not my own, but like real smart. diplomat career negotiators and from this government like Choss Freeman for example who went with Nixon to China right this guy said to me when Putin introduced his

proposed treaty in December of 2021 that it was not perfect and no America should not have just rolled over and signed whatever their demands were on the bottom line or whatever it really wasn't that objectionable but it was absolutely a reasonable

basis for discussion and agreement and negotiation and compromise to prevent this war. And the Americans did not want that. They wanted war and they set it. We would rather try to replicate Afghanistan by bogging the Russians down in this thing. So we spent about double what they have so far. So who's bogged down who? It'd be a real good question.

And I'm sorry I'm all out of time for you guys with this, but I do go on. That's why the new book is already 753 pages. seriously but at least when it's done and nobody reads it it will have within it all that you need to know thank you guys

I don't know I don't know