Shaun Newman Podcast - #863 - Alex Krainer & Rebekah Koffler

Episode Date: June 4, 2025

We discuss all things Russia/Ukraine.Alex Krainer is a Croatian national, former hedge fund manager, author and contributing editor at Zero Hedge. Rebekah is a Russian-born U.S. intelligence expert who served as a Russian Doctrine & Strategy specialist in the Defense Intelligence Agency. Working with the DIA and the CIA's National Clandestine Service, she has led "red" teams during war games and advised senior Pentagon officials. She has delivered classified briefings to top U.S. military commanders, NATO ministers, the directors of the CIA and DIA, the White House National Security Council, and senior congressional staff. She also wrote Putin’s Playbook: Russia’s Secret Plan to Defeat America. To watch the Full Cornerstone Forum: https://open.substack.com/pub/shaunnewmanpodcastGet your voice heard: Text Shaun 587-217-8500Silver Gold Bull Links:Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/Email: [e-mail] Grahame: [phone]Bow Valley Credit UnionWebsite: www.BowValleycu.comEmail: [e-mail] Use the code “SNP” on all ordersProphet River Links:Website: store.prophetriver.com/Email: [e-mail]

This is Viva Fry. I'm Dr. Peter McCullough. This is Tom Lomago. This is Chuck Pradnik. This is Alex Krenner. Hey, this is Brad Wall. This is J.P. Sears. Hi, this is Frank Paredi.

This is Tammy Peterson. This is Danielle Smith. This is James Lindsay. Hey, this is Brett Kessel, and you're listening to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks. Happy Wednesday. How's everybody doing today? The number of ounces of silver needed to buy an ounce of gold.

Now at near 30-year high, silver is now a bargain price. When compared to gold, it is the perfect. time to protect a portion of your savings with silver. Silver Gold Bull has a wide variety of best value silver for every budget. Simply text or email Graham for details whether you are a seasoned investor or new or precious metals. Graham will work with you to answer all your questions and recommend the best products to meet your investing goals. All the details down the show notes. If you're on silvergoldbill.com, just let them know that you heard about it from Sean Newman, all right, from the Sean Newman podcast. Bull Valley Credit Union is your

Alberta regulated, fully service financial institution, is proud to present the first in can a gold collateral lending and all of you can lend against your physical gold and silver for favorable rates it's like a helock on your gold and silver and if you don't have any gold and silver they can also get you a loan to purchase golden silver just shoot an email at welcome at bow valley cu dot com and say hello to leanna she's going to get your bvc u membership started today all the details once again down in the show notes um we got the uh the new studio coming here in 2025 i just put out in the sub stack a little behind the scenes uh update on it. And so if you're wanting to be a part of the legacy wall going in there, shoot me a text,

and we'd love to have, you know, you'd be a part of that. There's multiple ways, skills, labor, materials, money, and lots of different ways to get up on that. If you're listening or watching on Spotify, Apple, YouTube Rumble, make sure to subscribe. Make sure to leave a review. If you're on X, make sure to hit that retweet button if you're enjoying it. Now, let's get on to that tale of the tape. The first is a Croatian National, former hedge fund manager, author, and contributing editor at Zero the second, a Russian-born U.S. intelligence expert who served as a Russian doctrine and strategy specialist in the Defense Intelligence Agency. I'm talking about Alex Kraner and Rebecca Koffler. So buckle up. Here we go. All right, welcome on the Sean Newman podcast. Today, I'm

joined by Rebecca Koffler, Alex Kramer. This is a new one. Alex, welcome back, A. Last time I saw you, you were in Canada. So thanks for hopping on again. Always a treat to have you. Thank you for having me, Sean. Nice to meet you, Rebecca. And good to be with you. And Rebecca, obviously, you were just on, and we were talking about Russia, Ukraine, and then between the time that release and now this one, a lot's happened yet again. So thanks for joining me again. Absolutely. Pleasure to be here with you, Alex, and your audience. I want to start with you, Rebecca, and then, Alex, you know the drill.

Just hop in whenever you, you know, it catches your attention. But, you know, like, Rebecca, we literally were just talking about the escalation of Russia, Ukraine. and I was kind of like, what? What? And then, you know, Ukraine attacks Russia. And you're like, what is going on? You know, I was, Rebecca won't get the reference, but Alex, I was sitting with Nick in Calgary. And he's like, well, we're here another day. What hasn't been nuclear war yet? And it's like, yeah, no kidding. Rebecca, your thoughts on what's played out over the past. Actually, just walk the audience through it if you don't mind. Sure. Well, the attack by Ukraine that took place just two days ago was not just an ordinary attack. It was a strategic level type of attack because

what Ukrainians did were they launched a drone warfare, covered operation targeting airfields that had 40 Russian nuclear bombers. They were visible. They're supposed to be. They're supposed to be. be visible based on certain requirements by the START treaty. And Ukrainians conducted that attack across five different regions going as deeply as 3,000 miles into Russia, which effectively in my intelligence analysis has officially dragged in the United States into a kinetic conflict with Russia. Why do I assess that? It's because Ukrainians don't have their own indigenous capability to plan and execute such an attack.

And from the tactical standpoint, it was a brilliant, brilliant attack. It was so brilliantly executed with zero casualties, especially civilian casualties. It was an attack on military targets. But at the strategic level, it was a major miscalculation that resulted in climbing what we call in the intelligence business escalation ladder. And the Ukrainians basically have climbed several steps at this point, And the consequences of this misguided attack from the strategic standpoint could be catastrophic. Neither Russian President Putin, nor U.S. President Trump, have reacted yet to this. But the media has basically praised profusely Ukrainians postulating that this type of attack would finally bring.

bring Putin to the negotiating table and compel him to sign peace, which can be nothing further can be from the truth. And so most of the people are absolutely unaware how close we are to a war that would go nuclear if indeed we stepped directly to continue to climb this ladder. And there we are. We're on the brink, but very few people know it. And thanks to your podcast, Sean, we're able to bring the truth to people about what's going on. Alex, your thoughts? Well, I largely agree with everything Rebecca said, except I don't think that on the part of, you know, on the part of you, I don't think it was a strategic mistake. I think that they desperately want to escalate the conflict because it's the only hope they have of surviving. Otherwise, they get defeated.

And then, you know, No, while this would be horrible for everybody involved, meaning the whole rest of the humanity, there are these very narrow vested interests clustered around the city of London and Wall Street and Paris, who do want a nuclear war or any kind of a war, whatever will do to change the regime. in Russia because they you know they they need their whole objective was to destroy Russia you can go and you know where is it coming from people think like oh the USA the USA the CIA blah blah the idea originates from London and London has been you know the British interests and when I say British interests we're

talking about probably this banking cabal and then a very narrow network of people who run the foreign policy. You know, they run things like the British cabinet, MI6 and special forces. And then there's a whole cluster of private contractors that they use for propaganda purposes, for electioneering, for organizing NGOs and so forth. And so already in 1945, they formulated something called Operation Unthinkable, in which they pretty much lay out what their intent is. And they say, our political objective is to impose,

to subjugate Russia, basically. This is what they're, explicitly say in that document. And then they say, okay, so we could go about this two ways. Either it's going to be a quick victory. And they said, so keep in mind, this is 1945. So the allies are full on at war against Nazi Germany at this time. But the British, you know, Cabal is studying how to attack Russia. And so they're saying, yeah, the exact wording of their political objective is to, we want to impose our will upon Russia. They're not saying Soviet Union. They're saying exactly Russia. And so they say that we can go about this two ways, basically,

maybe like a really quick surprise attack. But for that, we need the Americans on our side, and we didn't need to mobilize whatever is left of German manpower and their industrial capacity and the polls. So they want to put together a united front, Britain, Poland, Germany and the United States. This didn't happen, you know, FDR wasn't enthused. But then they say the other way we can do this is by forcing a total war on Russia and defra and defeating her. But they say this process is going to take a very long time. Several times in the documents they say it's going to take a very long time. And what's really, really essential for us is to make sure that the Americans are on our side

and that they are, you know, they buy into this project and that they move alongside with us. Well, this thinking, you know, replicates itself many, times through the decades through the British establishment. Some documents leaked out, some were declassified. And it's always the same, complete and total obsession with defeating Russia. Who's managing Vladimir Zelensky? Who is his security detail? Who is running the Ukrainian military? it's always the Brits. And, you know, if I, if it's, it's not spelled out anywhere. But if you look at the events as they play out, you see it unmistakably.

For example, the Ukrainians had a counteroffensive, quote, unquote, counteroffensive in August of 2022. So that was before the big, you know, spring offensive of 23. So this was the part when they, when the Russians. just withdrew from Zaporosia and Kharko because they thought it's going to be too difficult to hold this. Let's just pull back. And so the people managing the war in the West in Germany, they wanted the Ukrainians to push as far as they possibly could. It doesn't matter how many men you lose. Just keep going, keep going, keep going.

And so some of these Ukrainian commanders were saying, no, we have to stop. We have to consolidate our lines. We have to reinforce our defenses. Otherwise, we're just going to blow through. We're going to get all killed. And then the Russians are just going to flood back in. So they went with the military logic. The Western handlers went with the logic of like, okay, let's spend as many Ukrainian men as necessary.

and we just want to hurt the Russians as badly as possible. Okay, so what happens next is that one of these the Ukrainian top commanders who was resisting was really causing a lot of frustration on the other side. And so the American guy, forget his name now. Are you talking, Alex, are you talking about General Zalusine? No, no, no, no, no. I'm talking about it.

No, no, no. It wasn't Zaluzni. It was another Kovalchuk. Kovalchuk. So, Kovalchuk was resisting and then this American general who was nominally in charge of this counteroffensive was very frustrating. And then he was very frustrated. And so comes Ben Wallace, British British... Defense minister. Former defense minister. Yeah. And so Ben Wallace talks to this, how do you call it general? something with D, gosh, I forget. And he said, well, if this commander was your subordinate, what would you do? And the American guy said, oh, I'd attack him on the spot straight away.

And Ben Wallace says, I got this. And a few days later, that commander is sacked. He's gone, yes. Now, Alex, let me just jump. Go, go, go, go. Is that okay? So yeah, so this is very enlightening even for me and I pride myself on being this super duper Russian affairs specialist. But I was not aware of that operation then thinkable and the document that you're referring to.

But it now aligns what I'm about to say fits perfectly in the huge. historical expose that you just gave us. Yes, Americans are fully on board with the mission. I personally wouldn't go as far as saying that London and Washington want to defeat, to destroy Russia, right? Because that's like a minor disagreement, kind of like a nuanced disagreement maybe between your analysis than mine because I don't think they're suicidal. I mean, not only irrational people can think that because Russia is the world's top nuclear power that holds

advantage and if you disagree, just hold that that holds advantage over, even over the United States, not just numerically, but in qualitatively, doctrinally and culturally. So, but but, but What you said makes perfect sense to me because while I'm not quite in agreement with Alex on this minor nuance that the United States and the West wants to destroy completely Russia because I think it's virtually impossible and it would be pretty suicidal. I agree that the West, both the United States and Europe, want to want to want to want to. inflict a strategic defeat economically and militarily. And it's not just me saying it's former Obama, not Obama, Biden's Secretary of Defense admitted this. He said that openly, right? But what happens is they want to do it. They want to give them the strategic blow while enriching themselves. And here's what's happening because I,

recently have done a research search and I want to take this opportunity to expose these warmongers. The people like Alex correctly said, a lot of them, they come from MI6 and then they're in think tanks, they're in military industrial complex, and all of a sudden these people also have completely invaded Western information space. How do I know this? Because I frequently have appeared on networks like Fox News, like Newsmax and others. Those are corporate media, legacy media. And I was pretty much the only person who kept saying for three years, Ukraine's victory is mathematically impossible. And I explained why it was impossible. And I said basically NATO's encroachment on what Russia considers its strategic security perimeter, which is an equivalent to our Monroe doctrine, is going to lead us into war.

And so everything is unfolding right now, according to my predictions, which I made, by the way, if I could just take an opportunity to plug my book, Putin's playbook, I wrote that was published in 2021, I predicted Russia's invasion of Ukraine because I knew that we kept pushing and pushing and pushing Ukraine into NATO. Well, I was recently sacked as a contributor from Fox News. Why is that? Because I was basically upsetting the whole narrative that the Western media has created, which is very simplistic. And the narrative is Putin is bad. Zelensky is good. Russia is bad. Ukraine is good. Ukraine is going to win. Let's only give them more weaponry and more money. Well, the reality, what I was saying is they're both bad. Zelensky is miniature Putin. He also

authorized assassinations and things. We can pick up those points if you guys want to want to. Ukraine is, is the top corrupt country in Europe, just like Russia. They're both corrupt. And, oh, by the way, Ukraine cannot possibly win, no matter how much weaponry you give them. And by the way, we don't have enough weaponry right now. We have depleted both Europe and the United States, depleted our weapons arsenal to very dangerous levels.

And we spend $500 billion for what? To kill more Ukrainians. But if you look at the, so that's, and I basically told the people whom I was writing for and appearing on TV for that they were presenting, they were basically, and I said it politely, but my, my message was, you're lying to the American people. But those lies are very sophisticated. It's a more sophisticated propaganda than the Soviet propaganda than I grew up with. Because they have these generals, right? And these are four stars. And you guys know their names.

Anybody who watches this, you can look up who is the key, like Russia expert that speaks on folks news, right? There's a certain four-star general. Well, who is a four-star general? There's the same four-star general that was a, in charge, he was over at the Pentagon during U.S. operations in Iraq. We went into Iraq, even though Saddam did not have the nuclear weapons, right? It was on the faulty intelligence, national intelligence estimate, right?

That was the general. It's the same general who is on the boards of various military industrial companies, and now he's in charge of a think tank that is funded by the military industrial complex. The next person, and there's like a whole bunch of them. And if you, let me just finish the point real quick and then you jump in. And because I was astounding because these people are basically making money on dead Ukrainians. And there's another person who is on the board. And I sent to the editors actually a link with pictures.

of these people on the board of like there's a company called BGR and there's an article even by the Guardian which the British Guardian which is not a conservative newspaper saying that BGR is profiting from my army Ukraine which is effectively profiting from dead Ukrainians and they said your analysis is not unbiased these people are making money by telling to the American people you know open up your process, give Ukraine more money, let's give him more weapons, and let's continue this thing going. So now it makes total sense to me what Alex said, you know, in his, in the background that he just gave historically. Alex, you were going to try him in.

Well, I mean, you know, if what Rebecca was saying were true, that would constitute a very gross conflict of interests between those general. So I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that. It just cannot be. Oh, do you want me to send you? Do you want me to send you links so that we can... No, no, I know. You're talking about General Keene and Hodges, right?

I'm not going to, I'm not going to confirm or deny, but I'll send you pictures in the links. No, no, good. Here in Canada, here in Canada, like, Like we have ethics violations all the time. There are the criminal all the time. Like this doesn't shock. Does this shock anyone? This doesn't shock anyone.

No, it doesn't. But you know, the funny, the funny part is that they, they tried for the longest time to pretend that like, but dare you imply that I would, you know, profiteer from war. I'm just an impartial expert sharing my expertise with the, with the viewers just so that they are correctly informed about issues. Right. I mean, what a joke. Let me just nuance. I'm not suggesting here that they are getting specifically cash, you know, for saying what they are saying. But what I am saying is that they're indirectly profiting.

The person is man is in charge of the Institute for the Study of War. Just look at up who finances the Institute for the Study of War. Look up who the second person, which company. And I just said BGR, BGR group. Probably if I may, Rebecca, if I may, like to me and probably Alex, it doesn't shock us. What actually might be a bit more shocking to me is that Fox News having a voice on maybe giving the counter side of Russia, Ukraine, which would be you, would remove you from that for pointing out, hey, they got confidence of interest. Maybe that doesn't shock Alex at all. To me, I'm like, I thought Fox was supposed to be the, you know, was supposed to have a bit of that.

No. It shocks me, Sean, because I was born and raised in the Soviet Union. I was lied to my, you know, the early part of my life. And I was in my early 20s when I came to America. And my anti-communist parents raised me with the idea that America is the land of freedom and justice. shocked what happened to me in the US intelligence community, which is worse than the KGB, and I can explain why. That's why I am shocked because the very same people, they always lecture like these generals and the Lindsey Graham and all of the US and Biden, they always say, well, how dare Russian China oppress their people and we're going to bring democracy to Ukraine and we just had Lindsey Graham and literally Mike Pompeo, the Biden's CIA director, visit with Zelensky. And the day after they blew up the strategic nuclear bombers, okay? Like, I am shocked that these people then sit quietly, at least in Russia, we knew,

and they knew that we knew, and we knew that they knew that we knew that everything, how the system worked, right? We knew that the government is corrupt. We didn't have any illusions. We knew that the media is basically propaganda. There was no hypocrisy. Putin didn't let's lecture anybody

like saying he knows he authorized the assassination. Here in America, this is what drives me nuts. The first one I just discovered that oh, here the system is rigged also, but it's a much more sophisticated system.

And the American people are largely completely unaware that the U.S. government is lying to them. And there's so much hypocrisy. There's all this lecturing, you know, and they do the same thing. They're profiting. Look at the, there are several front companies that Pam Bondi, the Attorney General of the United States, just uncovered, that were funneling money to U.S. members of Congress from that whole Russia, Ukraine, from, you know, arming Ukraine. It's a, it's a gravy train. And that's why I am shocked because I'm not, I thought we are now clear. I'm now safe, like, you know, in terms of like I can, I can trust.

But boy, it's even worse than in the Soviet Union because people are unaware and they fight, like, tooth and nail. Like, I'm being attacked, like, from both sides. As like, one side calls me a Putin's puppet. The other side calls me Zelensky. popping depending on what my analysis is. And I'm just the same person and both like MAGA attacks me when I say something negative about Putin. The other side, you know, the liberals attacked me when I say negative about Zelensky. And like there's total confusion. People are completely in the dark. There's effectively an iron curtain that is around US and sounds like Canada, the same thing. And Western information space. I mean, our government funds our media here. Alex, I'm curious your

thoughts. Like Rebecca is shocked that there's an eye of media in the US and elsewhere. I seen you chuckle a couple of times. What's going through your head when you when you hear like I'm just you know Rebecca's in the middle of a shit sandwich part in the French. Well, you know, the part that made me chuckle is that you know, she thought that she was coming into the world where you know there was no corruption rule of law because that was the same that I went through. You know, I came to the United States when I was 17. I was, I also grew up in the communist world in former Yugoslavia. And same thing, you know, we had the one-party communist system. They were corrupt and we all knew that they were corrupt and they knew that we

knew that they were corrupt and, you know, all of that stuff. And then I thought I went west to the United States and to Switzerland. And, you know, it took me a while to realize that Everything is a lie in the West, much more so than it was ever in the East, because in the East, at least, I never had an impression that the government actually hated us, that the people in power hated us, that they wanted to kill us in large numbers, that human experiments were like, hey, you know, for fun and profit, let's do that. There was no suggestion that, you know, there was none of these LGBT stuff. There was no people smuggling. And then, you know, the system was what it was. It was not good one. But we had very low poverty rates and we had no homeless and we had full employment.

So actually, and we had low debt. So actually life was, I would say that for the average Yugoslavian, life was better than it is for the average American today. And then there was, you know, we were very, very safe, you know, that when, you know, already from the age of 14, even earlier, my parents pretty much never knew where I was. And there was no drinking age, no smoking age. You know, I could, at 12, I could walk into a shop by a pack of cigarettes and a bottle of whiskey and I could drink myself under the table if I wanted to. But you didn't, right? But you didn't. Not at 14, maybe 14 and a half.

That is the thing that like kills me if I could just jump in hold your next thought. That really puzzles me here. Like there's a 21 officially 21 years old drinking age. And yet you can like go to the military. You can get the driver's license at 16. You can sign up for the military, what, 18, I think. You can get parental exemptions. I don't know what they call it.

It's not parental exemption. This is where any Chuck. In Canada, you can go into the military at 17. I'm pretty sure. Right. So you can find your way in at a younger age even there. Right. You can have children get married, but you can't drink.

And yet everybody like, oh, the U.S. youth, and it's really a scary business, like they get themselves the minute that they're allowed to, even before, they get themselves drunk, you know, to death. They're literally death from alcohol. And it's very frightening. When I, and I have two kids that, that I was trying early on to kind of demystify the whole alcohol thing, because the reason I think why this nonsense is going on is because there's this aura of mystery around alcohol and I would like try to you know give them a little bit even when they were I don't remember like maybe 15 my son now is 22 my daughter is 19 she never had any interest in and drink she never even wanted to taste it my son was like tasting like wine but I would share it with my

women friends their mothers and they're like oh my god you'll be like arrested if you know if something like that happened with like their friends would come and they would have and like this is like hysteria they created this hysteria and i personally and then the same with like drugs here like everybody's drugged i never even had a a desire to do drugs growing up in in the so they weren't available nobody was like even only like it was only people who kind of like were you know like criminal types into that. So I don't know how that happened that here there's such a pandemic with the drug addiction and with the alcohol and all that stuff. And supposedly it's like the government is trying to protect you. Yeah, but you see, I observed the same thing, Rebecca. I was, you know, I grew up in

in Yugoslavia, in Croatia. By the way, by the way, Alex, that those generals that the certain general were talking about and the ones and his buddies actually destroyed, right? Yugoslavia no longer exist as a country.

Let us just be clear. Who did that? Yeah. So, you know, I have many friends there. I go there once every month, every two months. So I'm very close in touch with everybody there, right?

And nobody I'm sorry, Alex. Are we talking the states? Are we talking to? No, no, we're talking Croatia. Croatia. Sorry. Carry on. No, this is all the people I grew up with.

And I, when we were 14, 15, 16, 17, you know, like in our teenage years, going out, and getting drunk out of our heads was a thing. And we did it a lot. You know, we even knew like when we had no money, where we could get the cheapest booze so that we could get drunk for less, you know? Okay. And so what happens is that you grow out of it.

You know, you grow out of it. And nobody I know of people I was growing up with, nobody's an alcoholic. Not a single person that I know of. Well, you know, in my high school class in the United States, because I did the, you know, senior year in the United States, a whole bunch of those guys are alcoholics. Like I went to high school reunion, well, I was a few years ago. But like Rebecca said, everybody drinks and gets drunk and then they're sloppy and I genuinely, I don't understand it. but I think that maybe keeping alcohol forbidden until your 21 might have something to do with it

because then you think like, ah, me getting alcohol is like me being a real man finally. You know, like maybe, you know, because it's a forbidden thing, it's that much more interesting. For us, it wasn't forbidden. We just drank until we got tired of drinking. And now nobody, you know, I don't drink anything. at all period at like practically zero and most of my friends will you know drink maybe a glass of wine with dinner or something like that I don't anyway you know like we we kind of took a detour but no well in Canada the age the drinking age is 18 or 19 depending on the problem

it changes and and like it's part of like you've seen it Alex it's part of like the I don't know the culture you go play hockey as an older man you have beers after in the dressing room. You go to a, it's just, it's just everywhere. It's just part of, you, you stop by for a visit, you pull out a beer. And, you know, and I haven't, today marks a little over six months of not drinking. And I recognize it more and more, the more I don't drink. I'm just, it's kind of unique.

You're like, huh, I didn't realize how prevalent it is until, you know, you start talking about. But I didn't realize that, you know, that's an interesting, just, you know, you look at your, your friends from back in Croatia, nobody drinks. Then you come over to your high school reunion, everybody drinks. It's like, that's interesting. Why is that? Yeah, I don't know. I don't know, but it's a weird thing.

And, you know, yeah, as we import everything from the United States, you know, even including cultural artifacts. So I'm afraid that we're going to, well, yeah, already here in France, where I live, You know, my kid can't buy alcohol. He's 14. I mean, not that he necessarily wants to, but I've noticed that you have to be, I think, 16 or 18 to buy alcohol. May I ask why you move to France? Oh, I, you know, I lived in the United States for three years between 1980, 1997 and 1991.

And I lived in Los Angeles. and I decided I can't really live here. I can't spend, you know, four hours a day in my car. And, you know, if you don't have a car in Los Angeles, you may as well be dead. Because everything, you know, like when they tell you, oh, yeah, there's a great restaurant. It's just over there.

And, you know, to me, just over there means I crossed the road and maybe I walk half a block. No, for them just over there is like 45-minute drive. So I was there as a student. I was always broke. I couldn't afford a car. If you don't have a car, you can't ask a girl on date. So I need to move back to Europe.

And so I got a scholarship to a place in Switzerland, a university in Switzerland. So I went there. And in Switzerland, it's okay not to have a car because all the kids are used to going on a bus or on a train or stuff like that. If I may, if I go back to one of the things that Rebecca said right at the top of this, this chat, she said, the U.S. is at war with Russia. And that raised my eyebrow a little bit because, you know, like when Nord Stream happened, I thought, oh man, like I remember having Alex and Tom on and thinking, well, this is going to set off kinetic war between the big powers. And then, you know, you've said that basically you haven't heard much from Putin, Trump on this. And although it's strategic bombers, it's like it's a, it's a serious thing. Big deal.

I don't hear in any of the, and maybe I'm wrong on this, maybe you two can enlighten me. I don't see the U.S. is at war with Russia everywhere I look. I actually don't hear much of anything except for when I go looking for it. Am I wrong in that? Like to me, we've known that this is, you know, who's funding, who's giving intelligence to Ukraine? How are they pulling this off? Well, it isn't Ukraine. It's everybody backing Ukraine.

So nothing has really changed. Just what they attacked has certainly been eyebrow raising of like, holy crap. You know, the running joke, as I said, as I've sat in Calgary, it's like, well, it's another day and we haven't been hit or nobody's been, you know, like. So when you say U.S. is at war with Russia, I'm going to start with Alex. Alex, do you agree with that? No, not as such because I don't regard the United States as a monolith. but there are structures of powers within the United States who are dying for war with Russia. And this attack, you know, namely the CIA and the people who run the CIA for real,

you know, not the President of the United States. It's very interesting that the Ukrainians chose and went through a lot of trouble to bomb Russia's strategic bombers because that actually crosses the red line of their nuclear doctrine. And that was done on purpose, you know, because they could have, they could have blown up anything. They could have blown up a power station. They could have blown up a refinery. There are many, many things to do and you don't have to drive quite as far, you know, it's easier. So they went through a lot of trouble for a very good reason. And that is because they wanted to provoke Russia into giving them World War III.

And so, you know, if they triggered Russia's nuclear deterrence, then that would entitle Russia to launch a nuclear device on Ukraine and any other state that might have helped organizing and executing the attack. Exactly. So, you know, they were hoping that the Russians would respond in this way. Because then that would justify West going full hog to war against Russia. And the reason, you know, why I said that they want to destroy Russia is because they say themselves. Well, they don't say it that way. But they want to dismember Russia. They want the regime change it.

And there was this thing in the UK. that was organized as soon as the war in Ukraine started, called Project Alchemy. The Project Alchemy was convened under British Ministry of Defense. It was, we don't know all the people who participated, but it's a number of them. Led by Lieutenant General Stickland, like Stickland. And they put together a document in which they pretty much formulate their objective. And the objective, obviously, is to defeat Russia and to, they keep repeating, keep Ukraine fighting at all costs.

We have to figure out a way to keep Ukraine fighting at all costs. Right. So no peace, no peace. Just like whatever you do, don't. That's Britain. And then another priority is keeping the United States in the game because actually the deeper you dig, the more you realize that this whole project Ukraine is very incompatible with the American national priorities.

It just doesn't work. So there's there's weak opposition to it. but this opposition is starting to get real dimension. It's growing. So it's not just Trump, you know, who says like, hey, I don't want to do this anymore. There's actually the opposition is robust and growing. And so the Brits from the very get-go, they understand that keeping the United States in the game is going to be a challenge. So they say that.

But then they also say that they want to create a complete, a new international, order, absorb Russia into this order, and to do it through a sort of post-Putin Marshall Plan. Now, what does this tell you? This tells you that they intended to destroy Russia. Because remember, the Marshall Plan went ahead after they firebond all of the German cities. they you know when it was no longer necessary they basically destroyed Germany first and they also destroyed Japan two nuclear bombs and firebombing of

something like 80 cities complete devastation because then they say like oh you know you used to have such a nice country will fund your reconstruction and development but you'll be in debt to us forever which means that we will colonize you. American troops will be in your country.

We're going to have military bases in all the key strategic spots. Your intelligence services, well, they're going to be responding to us, to Langley and to MI6. All of your national silverware is ours now. That's your collateral. And we're going to control and own all the key industries and the infrastructure. structure and the electricity grid and telecoms grid and of course the media. And so the fact that they actually spelled out post-Putting Marshall Plan in this document tells me that, you know, they thought they were going to defeat Russia.

And I think that after defeating Russia, that they would launch these insane bombardments as they've done Germany, Japan, Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia. where they simply wipe out a whole percentage of the population, like 20%, 30%. They were not going to just let Russia, yeah, you know, like, let's have Navalny in Kremlin and we're going to call it quits. No, they were going to level the place. If I could jump in, although I respectfully disagree, again on, again on, in a. nuanced way with Alex that the West wants to wipe out Russia. But I agree that they want to have regime change. They don't want Putin and they mistakenly thinks that someone else, a nicer guy,

comes, which is a complete, you know, myth because the Russians love their Putin. And Putin is just a very typical Russian leader, with the exception of like Yeltsin and possibly Gorbachev, whom the Russians hated, by the way. But it would make sense what Alex is saying. So if you factor in, the fact that the Russians love Putin and his approval rating is now 85%. So if the West wants to conduct regime change in Russia, but the Russians are still not going to be subservient because, like you said earlier, they don't like Russians are just like other, you know, Eastern Europeans. They don't like that whole LGBT thing and transgender, Dishman's gender, all the lunacy that the West is obsessed about right now with the,

that's supposed to be democracy, right? Well, they don't want that kind of democracy. So they would not be on board with that. And at that point, perhaps the only way to subjugate Russia would be to an island to drop, you know, some fat man and little boy, which were the warhead. heads that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that by the way, did not, I mean, it destroyed those cities, but within two years, and again, that is going to support Alex's point, with which I, like I said, I disagree, but if I were to agree with it, what I'm about to

say supports your point. Within two years, those cities came back to life. So that speaks for the the value, the battlefield value of tactical nuclear weapons, which the only country in the world in the history of the world has used, is the United States. It's not Russia. It's not anyone else. The United States has proven, you know, and that is why Putin believes that he's justified to do that,

to use tactical nukes to end this conflict if Russia is under exist. potential threat. What I 100% agree with Alex is what he said in the beginning, the Ukrainians did chose those targets on purpose because they wanted, and I forgot how you Alex said it, but the meaning is, I'm going to say it in my words, they wanted to trigger what is called the joint defense clause in the Russian nuclear doctrine, which Putin, by the way, amended in December 2024, because he knew where this is going, that we are firmly on the escalatory path,

and the Hail Mary approach for him to defend Russia if the US were to deploy forces into the theater, and we're getting very close to it already. I mean, you see where this is going. that's when he would pop a nuke. And so just so your listeners knows what the Joint Defense Class says, I'm just going to quote you directly from the Russian nuclear doctrine, is that aggression against Russia or its allies, for example, Belarus,

by a non-nuclear state, meaning such as Ukraine, but with the participation or support of a nuclear state, which is U.S., German, Britain, France, all the, will be considered as a joint attack, and that justifies the employment of nuclear weapons. So if I read it- If I read it clearly, like if I'm sitting in Putin's shoes right, right now, he has the justification to do whatever he wants, but he hasn't yet.

I'm not saying he won't, but he hasn't yet. And if you go back to them wanting to destroy Russia, like, I mean, if they didn't want that, if they didn't want to influence it, then they would have let him into NATO a long time ago. But they basically said no. Alex or Rebecca both probably give me the years of it, but Putin at one point wanted to be part of NATO, correct? Yeah. Well, whether he wanted to or not, he did make the offering. He did offer and ask, why don't you just let us become a NATO member?

Right. And so they didn't. And then they just keep going closer and closer and closer, putting them into a pigeonhole where, like, literally on the chessboard, I was saying this to Tom yesterday. The only place that they can attack right now, roughly, is Ukraine because they're not a part of NATO. because if they attack, attack other places, that could invoke Article 5. And so he keeps looking at Ukraine, I assume, going, well, that's the one place that I can hit, because if I hit anywhere else, we're into World War III. That's exactly how the West is going to position it. Yet they just attacked all of his nuclear cave, not all of them, because I know there's more than that.

But the low-hanging fruit, I don't know if that's the right way to put it. And so he has all the justification in the world, and yet he hasn't. And I look at it and I go, like, if they don't want to destroy Russia, then what are they doing, Rebecca? Because at the end of the day, they're literally, like, I mean, we should already, there's been so many different ways we should already be at war, like full out war. And the only thing that makes any sense at this point is you can either say Russia doesn't have the capabilities, but I don't think that's what you two are going to say. It does. Or it's Putin sitting there going, if I pull this trigger, there's no coming back. Right. Putin is actually very measured in how he has been conducting this war. And it's an

excellent point that you're raising here because when I speak with my, you know, friends who actually know the Russia know the Russian military capabilities, we talk about, like, recently one guy asked, Mareka, you're not. I both know that Putin can obliterate Ukraine today if he wanted to. Why do you think he's not doing it? And my answer is very simple because again, I know the doctrine. Putin is calibrating his strategy. He's doing it very gradual, the war of attrition. We call it in the intelligence business just below the threshold of a kinetic response by the way. Because imagine if he just dropped a couple of hot ones on Kiev, on Zelensky residents,

you know, somehow we would find the justification, right, to go in. But he's not doing that. And he's holding himself back even from using nukes, although he has 100% justification, just like you shown said. And because he understands somebody is trying to walk up. into this nuclear war. I mean, I, again, like, for me, it's unthinkable that somebody deliberately would be like, what there's a Russian saying that I'm just going to go ahead and use it here since we are

alternative. The new media, right? This is saying only for so long you can pull the bear by the dick. Sorry to be crass here. But Putin is realizing that's what they're. doing they're trying to pull him by the dick and there's only for so long that he can you know be patient with that and i think is it like stupidity and incompetence i kind of like think that perhaps it is that i just can't conceive that somebody would knowingly want to walk us into a nuclear war

because there's going to be no winners and no losers and like it's not just me saying i mean we the U.S. intelligence community conducted like dozens of war games and every single war game. I may have mentioned it on one of your other podcasts, episodes, is that it ends up in a nuclear war. And red wins and blue loses, right? Because again, Russia holds advantage both numerical and qualitatively. So I can't conceive like, like, why do you guys, I'm going to turn it around and ask you guys, since you seem to believe that somebody is deliberately trying to get us into nuclear war. Why do you think this irrational type of thinking? I personally attributed to stupidity, incompetence, and like mirror imaging,

thinking that would just like compel put in to back out, which is completely irrational to me. But you guys seem to believe somebody is knowing it doing it. Why do you guys believe that? Because Western mindset has always been, be logical. How is that even logical? Well, it's not logical. But, you know, and, you know, if you, if you call it rational, it is, it is perhaps for some people. I think that, you know, there are there are these thing tanks like Brookings Institution and Atlantic Council who, you know, have published. By the way, financed, sorry to jump in. Financed by, yeah, you know, you

European governments and military industrial conflicts. Those specific two that you just mentioned, but all of them, the heritage, all of them. That's why I don't belong to any think tank. I'm independent is because the minute you join them, you are no longer an independent analyst. You sing in unison, the analytic line that they want you to sing, which is Russia, Bad, Ukraine, Good, give them more weapons. So go ahead, continue. Brookings, you said, and Atlanta.

Yeah, so they've published papers in the past saying that, you know, the West can win a nuclear war if it strikes first. And I know about some of these strategies where they think that if they launch a surprise nuclear attack from close up, which is why they built a launch site in Poland, launch site in Romania, and why they wanted. to build one in Ukraine. Under the guises of ballistic missile defense, right? And the Russians, because that's what the Russians is like, oh, it's to protect, you know, from Iranian strikes. And the Russians are like, no, no, no, you think we're fools? You know, there's no such thing as defensive capability.

Every defensive capability has an offensive component to it. But, yeah, continue. They placed all of those fighting capabilities, yeah. And wait. You said basically your train of thought was that they, you think that these think tanks made an assessment that if they were first as a surprised attack from the proximity. Yeah, so that they would be able to decapitate Russian leadership and make it very difficult or impossible for Russia to mount a counterattack. and then that they would proceed with an invasion through the Baltic states and Ukraine and destroy Russia.

So they studied this. And a few years ago, Tucker Carlson had an interview with a guy named Harry Kazanis. And Harry Kazianis has participated in some of these war games. and they came to the conclusion that in this nuclear exchange that there would be a billion casualties in a very short time. One billion with a B? Yeah, a billion. And so, you know, if you saw that these people were rational and logically,

you would think that after such a simulation that they would walk away and say, like, well, that's actually a bad idea. No, they think that's a good idea because they think that they can win. Then I don't give a shit about a billion of us. You know, they've taken care of themselves. Then I also have the impression that a lot of this jingoism, this egging on the war is coming actually from London. But they're doing it in a very under the table way.

You know, they're being very careful not to expose themselves. You know, they always pretend that they are just a loyal ally to the United States and following along. But, you know, nothing to do with them. I think that their idea is that if there's a nuclear exchange, it's mostly going to be between Russia and the United States. And that Britain would, yeah, I know they're wrong, but, you know, I didn't say that they were smart. They are stupid. Well, there is an else. Yeah.

Sorry, carry on. No, no, but they really are. You know, like when you study their stuff, you realize that these people are, you know, idiots. But anyway, I think that there's, there's thinking that they might be able to skate through the process, pretend to be neutral or non-involved or just a follower or whatever. And then, you know, emerge, because this is what they often do. they get two sides into a war and then they emerge as like the reasonable one who is going to help negotiate peace

and then they're going to also say like well you know we can also help you reconstitute your society and will give you credit for reconstruction and then they're going to capture you that's that's how they do shit and this is why you know in Syria

today, the Brits are the main players. In Ukraine today, the Brits are the main players. In Bosnia today, you know, Bosnia was one of the former republics of Yugoslavia, and now it's partitioned between, you know, the Muslims, the Serbs and the Croats. Well, guess who is the dominant player there? It's the British. And they keep signing these, you know, these military cooperation agreements with Lebanon, with Sweden, France, Poland, Ukraine, Qatar. It's just like a country after country. And whenever they turn up, you know, with their

trainers, with their start selling weapons, next thing, there's blood up to the knees. flowing through the streets of those places. And I think that they're thinking like, oh, we're so clever, because that is their thinking, you know, that really is their thinking that they're so incredibly intelligent and that they can run circles around everybody else. I think that they don't question it even when it comes to the next level where it's like war between two nuclear powers. They still think that they can do the same shit, you know, wash, rinse, repeat, as they've done everywhere else for the last 200 years. And, you know, by the way, you know, who brought Vladimir Putin to power?

Yeltsin. MI6 did. So that tells you how smart they are. MI6 you can look up Sir Richard Dearloff, who was head of the MI6 at the time, and who said, yes, we had a hand in it and we deeply regret it. Okay, hold that thought. If I could just jump in on what you said, that they have conducted war games, and they concluded that they meaning the West. I guess you're postulating it or you know for a fact that the Brits did that and the Atlantic Council. Sorry, the Brits did what exactly? So you said basically they've done analysis in wargaming. Oh, no, no, no. That was at the Pentagon.

Those war games were held at the Pentagon, not the Brits. I would have known, depending on when I would have known about those. But the deeply flawed aspect of that conclusion that you can do a surprise nuclear attack on Russia, you know, first to first strike and decapitate Russia, and that will bring your victory. It's completely wrong. Guess why? because Russia has a capability known, has a nickname the dead hand. What is the dead hand? It's a nuclear commanding control system called perimeter, which is programmed for a retaliatory strike,

which is an independent, autonomous capability in the event that Russian, uh, The regime gets decapitated and all the three commanders, three people who have what we call the National Command Authority, the nuclear authority to push that nuclear button through the standard process. If they are dead, that system automatically launches all remaining nuclear arsenal directly at the United States. and at Europe, okay? So that is a major flaw. And you can look it up and actually I'll, we'll post a link. But if I may, Rebecca, you know,

like the reason why I can't subscribe to just stupidity on the part of Western powers is I've interviewed people like yourself and others who are in the intelligence agency or on media or wherever you want, who would talk some common sense. And you go, well, the logical thing would be to not, escalate it to that point because

you know what comes out of that is something like that and when you position arguments like that what happens they remove you they don't go oh you need to talk to trump or you need to get no they remove those people over and over again they remove them

they remove any common sense from the argument so that that does leave stupidity but it pulls out of the argument anything that balances it yeah that's an interesting Exactly right, because, you know, I'm aware of the dead hand mechanism and how it works. But as Sean said, you know, if anybody talks sense, they are taken out of the loop.

And you had a perfect example. You know, they held in 2021, they held these military games in India, you know, the number of NATO countries. So there was this German admiral. I forget his name, Kai Arnault something. So he was saying, well, you know, because the war in Ukraine was imminent. And so he was saying that, you know, the low-cost solution to this is to simply treat Russia with respect to acknowledge their security concerns and to accommodate them. That would be rational. Simple, rational. Well, guess what? He was fired the next day.

Right. Wow. Really? Fire the next day. An admiral of the German army, maybe whatever, who had a lifetime's career in German military forces sacked like this because he said something reasonable that the warmongers don't want spoken in public. And so it doesn't mean there isn't stupidity in there, but stupidity is pushed up the ladder. And anyone who comes in to balance it and be like, whoa, whoa, let's not do this is all sent removed. And not even what would shock me about your story, Rebecca, is, you know, like you don't have to agree with everything. Alex is saying that Alex doesn't have to agree with everything you're saying.

But you're bringing a balanced approach to like, holy crap, let's not push this up the ladder. And what does Fox News do? They remove you for it for pointing out like these. people have invested interest. Everybody gets on this side. They're not getting a stack of cash on the table, but everybody can see how it comes back to them. And that's probably not a good thing. And what do they do? They remove you from it. So now on media, Rebecca Coughler, who would be a balance, it doesn't mean that you're 100% right on everything, but who is? It just means that you add in something different to the conversation, to the American people. It's removed. So where do you have to go?

You've got to come to this side. You've got to come to where all the alternative media is sitting, going, why do we keep pushing on this? Everyone can see more and more that why don't we just back off a Russia for a second and have a common sense, just like rational conversation, because if you position it where if you put a nuke in Canada or in Mexico that was pointing at the U.S., the U.S. would obliterate them, would absolutely go scorched earth. And nobody for one second would go, oh, U.S. shouldn't do that. They would go, no, that makes sense.

Well, why is it so different on the other side of the planet? And then you add in all the things Russia has, and anyone who points to that is like ostracized from society. Well, I mean, it's pretty clear to me there's an agenda there. It doesn't mean that there isn't stupidity in there. Absolutely, it's awarded. Just keep moving up the ladder. Anyone in the positions of power that doesn't talk that language is removed. It just keeps happening over and over and over and over again.

You know, that's such an amazing point that I've never even considered. And I don't know why I didn't consider it because it's not just Fox News, right? I was removed from the DIA for exactly the same reason, even though I was like a rising star. I briefed, you know, NATO in 2013, just like months before Putin's invasion. I briefed like scores and scores of committed like four-star generals, Strategic Command, Northern Command. You need like Obama's National Security Council, the White House at the very, very highly classified level.

I was like a rising star. People were requesting me by name to give them because I actually know what I'm talking about. But I guess that at one point they staged this operation that I described in. my book and and and and and and and I was done then but I never thought for the life of me I thought it's just a small like group of people you know the deep state um but you are now pointing out Sean that it's not just happening to me it happens to well it happens like it happened to general Flynn because

Alex Alex has literally written a book that got removed completely from Amazon I didn't know Ted, talk to me about that. Talk to us about that. Well, I published a book in 2017 called Grand Deception, because I don't know if you're aware of a man named Bill Browder. Of course, I'm aware. Yeah, yeah, so it was about that. So I, you know, because I met Bill Browder on two occasions, and so I knew his story a little bit,

and then when he published his book, I realized. The red notice. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. The whole thing was a fraud, that it was a lie. And I, yeah, yeah, yeah, the whole thing is a lie from start to finish. You know, nicely packaged, nicely articulated by Lee Child as a ghostwriter, almost certainly. But, you know, they used that, they use that narrative what he packaged in red notes. to push through U.S. Congress the Magnitsky Act, which kicked off the Cold War 2.0.

And well, you know, after I read his book, I realized that this is a lie, A. B, he's not just a hedge fund manager, as I thought, you know, who just happens to be investing in Russia, that he was part of a very, very powerful network. that was he was merely the frontman and it was quite clear that they are pushing us in the direction of World War III against Russia. So I thought, holy shit, somebody needs to unmask this cabal. And so I decided, okay, maybe, you know, maybe I can try to do that. So I wrote my book and I published it on Amazon, self-published. And I thought, okay, I've done my bit. That's that. And then five weeks, six weeks later, it was the Amazon got a letter from Jonathan Weiner, who is, you know, part of the deep state swamp in Washington, D.C., saying to remove the book,

and they removed the book straight away. No questions asked. I had no idea. What's the name of the book again? It's called Grand Deception. Grand Deception by Alex. Where can people find it, Alex? Because it's not like, well, you're not going to Amazon to find it. No, it's on the, it's on, you have to go directly to the publisher, Red Bill Press. Red Bill Press. Okay. Okay.

There was something else that, oh, I wanted to pick up so about the nuclear war, like, and again, the conclusion that somehow they can decapitate Russia and win that war. And another point, besides the red, I'm sorry, besides the dead hand that's going to intervene, it's not going to result in the West victory, just going to end. result in the annihilation of the world. The next point I wanted to brought up and it's to bring up and it seems like Alex was nodding his head is it's going to be World War III because China, Iran, North Korea, they're going to be on Russia's side. It's not just going to be the war between the nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia. It'll be total war. It'll be total war because The Biden administration and the deep state have completely driven Russia into the hands of China and basically created their reaction to Ukraine war, just basically created this anti-U.S. anti-Western

coalition. And all of a sudden, we're not just talking about Russian nuclear arsenals, 6,000 warheads. add on China's there, which right now is at 600, but they're tripling it by 2035. And you add, you know, North Korean, we don't know where Pakistan would go. We don't know. But that's, you know, all of a sudden, we're in a completely different world. And there's definitely no survive. Well, and where I sit in media, I just, you know, interviewing people all the time.

like in history would show, you know, they need the population to want it, right? Like, you know, if you go back through the U.S. presidents entering any war, they needed something to pull everybody in. And so by silencing your voice, Rebecca, or Alex's or any others out there, they start to create a narrative. And once they have it, then they just need the, that one moment where it galvanizes the population to then be like, we want to go to war with Russia. and off we go. And one of the things alternative media has been doing is allowing your voices to be heard so that people can understand like that,

well, that dead hand certainly sounds like a terrible idea. They must know about that. Why wouldn't they do? And I'm sure lots of them do. But I'm sure others don't care. Yeah, they just don't care. When you said the catalyzing event, you know, they take care of that.

They don't, you know, they don't wait for that to happen. Correct. Sorry, yes. Well, I mean, they planned this attack on Russia, Alex, I would assume under the guy or under the thought process, that Putin will retaliate. He's not going to allow. How deep did you say one of the attacks went, Rebecca?

Was it 3,000 miles? 3,000 miles. That isn't a border skirmish anymore. That's penetrating deep into Russia. Is it not? Yes, that's the heartland of Russia. That's the heartland of Russia. It's, yeah, this is, you know, scary, scary business, but you guys are opening my eyes.

By the time of the podcast, you guys are going to convert me totally on your side. And I thought I was like a very, I don't even know how to characterize. But the thing is, the thing is to bring different voices together and like bridge some gaps because you have. have a ton of knowledge from inside the US intelligence agencies that few have. And you're speaking openly about it. And I think that's very wise. I do. And Alex has a whole different background.

And I just sit here as the guy who gets to connect everybody. I'm like this is, you know, and I just see the same story playing out over and over and over again, not just in Canada, not just in the US. But as Alex has pointed out with different countries, it seems to be happening globally, which would align with some of the people coming out of, I don't know, say Davos and, you know, like other places. And you start to understand, holy crap, this is interconnected. This is a big web. And it's all pulling towards a confrontation with Russia.

Like, I mean, that is the front line right now. And heck, they just went striking deep into Russia. And before it was, you know, I was thinking, Alex was like, you know, they could have hit a power station. You pulled the word right on my head. I was like, oh, power station. everybody goes oh power station it doesn't mean that it isn't big it is big but instead they went for the nuclear capabilities like i'm like that is that is that is that is past a different line now this is an escalation again back to the days when we were talking about Nord Stream we're like man

that's that is that like this has got to move forward except these voices keep talking and as the voices keep talking if i'm sitting in canada the united states anywhere you're listening us I hear the retaliatory of what Russia is capable of, and I go, I want no part of this. I want no part of this. But there's no way to go. Where do we go? Because we're now like definitely on the target list. All of us, U.S. Canada, because with the same NORAD protects both U.S. and Canada.

And you are in France, and it literally for Ayrgyznik, it takes about. you know five eight minutes to reach Europe or if it's Poland it's really like about three minutes it actually being the hypersonic missile which is dual dual capable you can have a nuclear warhead air conventional warhead and we have no there's no ballistic missile defense against that you can't even recognize you can't detected you can't characterize it whether it carries a nuke or it carries it's or it carries conventional payload and it is merged multiple reentry vehicles that can automatically target the Paris and Berlin for example and and and and

Warsaw it's that's what we and that's where we and that's where these people are leading Like, I'm got, my hair is going to be on fire, guys. And now you, you guys are, like, making me very suspicious because Sean just brought up a very interesting point. Like, why are they removing alternative voices? And because this is a great. And you know how they always, like, beat themselves in the chest of weird, democracy. And I'm like, thinking, shut up already. Like, look at what democracy are you talking about?

You're not allowing plurality of opinion, which is the best. of democracy. They love the word diversity, except for diversity of opinion. They want the same opinion on everything. They want diversity. They want to, they want to have a woman. They want to have somebody who's black and they want to have somebody who's LGBTQ, but they want them all to march in the same tune. Yeah. Yeah. And diversity everywhere, but in opinion. Yeah. And I'm just sitting here after what you said, I'm scratching my head. Like, hmm. Alex, before I, before I, before, I let you guys out, Alex, any final thoughts? And then I'll let you guys get on with your respective days.

Well, I think that we are fortunate that, you know, we have somebody like Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin today because he has shown restraint. And he has not fallen for a whole series of provocations where he could have triggered World War III if it was somebody else, you know. And I think that we're also fortunate that the Russians have advanced this new hypersonic technology because it actually replaces nuclear weapons as an equally powerful but much less destructive weapons. So the Russians can now, not only from Russia proper, but from their ships and submarines, they can launch hypersonic missiles that can pinpoint, you know, like you don't need to level Paris or London. You could level the Ministry of Defense or MI6 or individual military bases where you know that they have these control systems.

So there's no, you know, there's no need to use nuclear weapons. And so the Russians are obviously in great hurry to produce a lot of these. Zircons and avant-gardes and Oreshniks and all of these things, because if it comes to them launching missiles at targets in the West, it probably won't be nuclear ones. At least not right off the bat. At least, yeah, unless the West responds with nuclear, then, you know, maybe they will launch a nuclear one against us. But I think that if I were sitting in Moscow, my first target would be the building of MI6, then Langley, Virginia, then, you know, all of these British and U.S. bases in Germany, Romania, Poland. And I think that anyway, you know, I'm cautiously optimistic that it won't come to the worst. I am trying to be optimistic, but I got a dose of very sobering insights from you guys today.

I think we are still lucky because there's still alternative media like Sean's podcast that is giving the voice so we can try to get the truth out. and we'll just keep at it. And if I could just encourage people to visit my page on X at Rebecca 0132 because I put regular updates on what's going on. I will continue to be a guest on your podcast, Sean, if you invite me. So we can continue spreading the truth and trying to keep us all safe. Appreciate you both hopping on today. Free, free, not safe, free.

Free. Well, both. Free of danger and free of influence, free of lies, free of lies. Thanks both for being here this morning and doing this. Thank you, Sean. Thank you, Rebecca. Good to be with you all today. Until the next time.