➡The text discusses various political issues, including allegations against Trump and his administration, the role of the Defense Secretary, and the potential for conflict between Israel and Iran. It suggests that while some actions may be questionable, they may not warrant impeachment or removal from office. The text also touches on the military’s role and its image, suggesting that effectiveness should be prioritized over being ‘woke’. Lastly, it discusses Israel’s potential threat to Iran, suggesting that Israel would need U.S. support for any major action.

➡ The text discusses a potential conflict involving the U.S., Israel, and Iran. It suggests that Israel’s plans for dealing with Iran are unrealistic and could drag the U.S. into a war. The text also questions the effectiveness of U.S. military power and suggests that Iran could potentially defend itself effectively. It concludes by expressing uncertainty about the outcome of such a conflict.

➡ The article discusses the changing dynamics of warfare and global power, highlighting the potential threat of hypersonic missiles and the increasing technological capabilities of countries like Iran and China. It also explores the economic implications of the U.S.’s current trade war with China, suggesting that it could lead to a recession in the U.S. and a shift in global power. The article suggests that the U.S.’s status as a global military and economic leader could be challenged due to these developments.

➡ The text discusses the shifting global dynamics, particularly focusing on the US, China, and Russia. It highlights how jobs are being outsourced to China for cheaper labor, increasing China’s industrial power. The text also discusses the US’s attempts to pivot its focus towards the Pacific, but struggles due to its involvement in Ukraine. Lastly, it touches on the geopolitical tensions involving Iran, Israel, and the potential for conflict, with the US’s role being questioned.

➡ The text discusses political tensions involving Israel, Turkey, and Iran, focusing on controversial figures like Erdogan and Netanyahu. It highlights allegations of corruption, potential civil unrest, and the struggle for power in these regions. The text also criticizes the U.S.’s role in these conflicts, questioning its right to dictate other countries’ actions. Lastly, it discusses the controversial issue of nuclear power, particularly in Iran, and the perceived threat it poses to other nations.

➡ Iran has enriched uranium to 60% as a response to the US pulling out of the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), a nuclear deal. This move is seen as provocative, but Iran argues that it’s a negotiation tactic and they’re open to returning to the JCPOA. They insist they’re not seeking nuclear weapons, but want nuclear power and medicine. The discussion also covers the US’s history of intervention in other countries and the potential power vacuum if the US withdraws from global conflicts.

➡ The article discusses the political and military tensions in Europe, particularly focusing on the situation in Ukraine. It highlights the potential consequences of Europe’s plans to build a military force, the rise of certain political parties in Germany and France, and the potential repercussions of these actions. The article also discusses the possibility of a military collapse in Ukraine and the role of the U.S. and Russia in these events. It ends by questioning Europe’s distrust of Russia, despite the potential benefits of a partnership.

There are canaries in the coal mine. One of them is losing that war in Russia. If you are winning a war, none of those propaganda nonsense of, oh, it’s a stalemate, it’s a stalemate. This is not a stalemate. Europe wouldn’t be freaking out like this if it was. The difficulty that they’re having is Trump cannot give them what they want. And from their point of view, we won the war. Losers don’t get to dictate terms the winners. This is not the same Iran that Donald Trump went against the first time he was in office. Their capability of destroying the world economy is their nuclear bomb.

That is an unpredictable factor, and those are known, as will be clarified. Netanyahu’s itching for that war, and Trump tells him, we’re going to do negotiations. I’m not going to back you in some kind of strike. Israel doesn’t believe in those negotiations. What they want is the US to fight a war for it. And so these guys are effectively negotiating where no trust exists. How are we telling a sovereign country that they don’t have the ability to have nuclear power? It’s a position based on power, not on ethics, morality, fairness. We get to dictate because we can destroy you.

I don’t want to see anything, any of this. This is chaos. Like, this is unnecessary chaos. World War three is already happening. This is a house of cards, and it is in the process of collapsing right now. You’re going to see an economic crash the likes of which we’ve never seen. Hi, folks. Canadian prepper. Today, it’s an honor to have on Jamar Thomas, who’s a political analyst, commentator, media host, known for his incisive critiques of U.S. foreign policy. And in mainstream media narratives, he’s recognized for his unfiltered approach, topics such as US Military interventions, media bias, and geopolitical conflicts, particularly in the regions of Ukraine, the Middle east, and the Indo Pacific.

Now, the reason why I wanted to have you on is because you’re a curator of this wealth of information, of the guests that you interview. And like I said, you’re one of my quickly becoming one of my favorite podcasts because of the eclecticism of, you know, the. The people that you’re bringing on. And I think it will be interesting to see, you know, in light of all the developments as of late. And there’s so much that’s kind of in limbo in all the various theaters of conflict. So maybe let’s start off with the Middle east, because I know you just interviewed Professor Morandi.

Who’s a great guest as well, provides a much needed insight into the Iranian point of view. What is your assessment of these negotiations? Are you optimistic or are you pessimistic, or are you realistic? Let me start at a certain point first to give you my frame of reference in thinking about events in the Middle east and thinking about Iran. There’s a Wesley Clark video that took place like 20 years ago. And Wesley Clark in that video points out that they showed him information that they weren’t supposed to show him, that they were going to take down seven countries in the Middle east over the course of, I think like 10 years or something.

I forget the number of years. And, you know, either we have to accept that Wesley Clark is psychic, that he has been doing remote viewing or something, or that what they showed him was a plan of action. And that plan of action has taken place over the course of multiple presidencies. Regardless, Democrat, Republican, there’s been a through line all the way through those presidencies. And if you think about it, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, after Obama spends billions of dollars year after year, don’t take my word for it. New York Times even came out with a story themselves.

They always delay the dollar short with those stories. By the way, it’s like 10 years later, oh, by the way, this person did this. Billions of dollars to take down the government. And finally it almost like out of the blue, it unraveled right after all of the work and everything that went into it. Turkey had a large part of it, US Had a part of it. Israel has. Turkey doesn’t like to admit that. Whatever. Fair enough. So when I look at the Iran thing, Iran is the last man standing. Sudan is in just turmoil right now.

Iran is the last man standing. And Clark put it out, Iran was the last card in that deck. Now, this is not the same Iran that Donald Trump went against the first time he was in office. This Iran has made relationships with Russia and China. I mean, for God’s sake, Putin just signed a security that today. Or it’s more. It’s like economic partnership, security partnership. You also have China with a close relationship with Iran. You also even have the situation where the Saudis have had a rapprochement with Iran in this case. And so this is not this entirely vulnerable figure that it was several years ago when it was completely under sanctions.

The Ukraine war has been a lightning ride in regards to that politics and geopolitics because the country that was isolated, that Iran was back then, is no longer isolated. It has allies and it’s powerful allies in those regions. Everywhere. Donald Trump looks around. He’s hitting Iran, China, Russia, every direction. If he turns the Pacific, he’s hitting China right now. He’s dealing with Russia. He’s literally in a trade war with China. And so, but let’s be very clear. We don’t know what Russia or China would do militarily in that sense. And, you know, someone, I guess, like China is not going to get involved in war.

They may help in regards to resources, but they’re not going to fight. And so when I look at the negotiations, I look at it through that lens. What is in Trump’s mind now? I would say that he has sidelined the State Department, which is fascinating. If you’ve noticed, Wyckoff has gone to all of these negotiations. He went to the first negotiation, the fake negotiation, and got Gaza. He went to negotiation with Russia. I think he’s spoken to Putin four, three times. He’s going to go back, speak with him again. He went to Oman to have those negotiations.

He went to Rome to have those negotiations. And so in all of these negotiations, he is sent a realist, not an ideologue. Okay. Does that mean that Donald Trump has an instinct of, I don’t want to get us from Berwald until a larger war? Yes. I would hit strikes on Yemen because Yemen can’t really do anything to us. Iran, that is an unpredictable factor. And not just unpredictable, could screw up the world’s oil markets, could screw up the world economy, can kill, like, 50,000American troops that are nearby. We should not undercount their capabilities. When they shot the drone out of the sky, that was supposed to be, you know, above the skyline, and it was like, oh, my God, how did they do that? Okay, well, maybe they’re more technically proficient than you’re giving them credit for.

Same thing with Russia. Right. Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country. It’s Nigeria with snow. Not so much. Not so much. Right. So if you look at Iran in that way, you know, it was told that at the very least with the New York Times, there was an assessment that DNA Tulsa Gabbard made that they saw and they said, maybe we should negotiate, negotiate maybe a better path as opposed to the results of what we think may happen if indeed we do a strike on that country. Now, the problem is that Trump is surrounded by Zionists and people who are itching for that war.

Netanyahu’s itching for that war, and even went, like, lobbying and say, hey, let’s do the strike. But he’s been lobbying for the last 20 something years. And so that’s the context that Donald Trump is effectively in. And he’s boxed himself with his own rhetoric. I may have to do a strike. I may have to do a strike. This may be something I need to do. I don’t want to do it. Iranian people are really nice and we could have a good deal. But let’s be clear, Trump is the one that tore up the jcpoa. Iran followed that deal for another year.

Trump got rid of it. Trump, you know, and it’s not just Trump. It’s a habit of the US Getting rid of the mints. Agreements one and two, getting rid of. Hell, even nafta, for God’s sake. Like even the allowing Israel to completely blow off the agreement that Wyckoff apparently negotiated. So there’s that trust in this relationship. And so these guys are effectively negotiating where no trust exists in the relationship. Now, the catch becomes, is Witkoff actually trying to get a deal? Now, if you remember on Sean Hannity when Wyckoff came back, Wyckoff says something to the effect of, well, we want to get it down to like 3% enrichment, something to that effect.

Yeah. And the foreign minister, I always mispronounce his name. So I’m just going to say, Ron’s foreign minister even pointed out this is purely about nuclear energy. Like the amount, the enrichment amount that we’re effectively going with. Okay, so these people sound like they’re saying something very similar. Are there things in the negotiation where there’s disagreements? Well, obviously, yeah, of course. And the catch becomes, are they going to be able to mail those? Iran is saying, we want more than the jcpoa. You pulled out. We kept the deal. You pulled out. And not just pull out.

You murdered Soleimani on top of pulling out. And so we want something more than the jcpo or if indeed we’re going to come to an agreement and we’re not going to negotiate under threat, meaning your threats are not going to influence our behavior in that with Donald Trump still in the background, we will attack if we don’t get a deal. So it’s hard to entirely tell. It’s really hard to tell, like, what is it exactly they want if they’re just trying to get back to the original JCPOA that Trump backed out of. Exactly. And that’s the thing, like, if you remember, Witkoff came back in a tweet after getting pushed back because they have been attacking him relentlessly across the board on Russia stuff and on this and he says, this is going to be a Trump deal.

We’re going to get the deal that Donald Trump wants. Okay, so what does that mean? If the negotiating position from Trump is we want all of the nuclear, meaning we want the Libyan option. We want you to blow up the reactors. We want that. Okay, then no deal. You’re going to have to attack Iran. If Trump allows flexibility in the negotiation, where Wyckoff is like, we’re focusing on nuclear power, okay, then you’re making a deal. But that’s just JCPOA 2.0, which is, as you point out, then what was the point of getting rid of the first deal? So Netanyahu is pushing for a Libyan option.

Iran is also saying, look, we want the money that is frozen. We want. There are other things that they want. Countries tend to take a maximalist position to kind of whittle their way. I am deeply hoping they get to do. I do not want us to unilaterally attack a country that did nothing to us and is no threat to us. That is outrageous. And can I say one last thing before. And I’ll shut up. No, keep talking. Sometimes when we’re talking about stuff like this, we are talking about it from the perspective of Iran. Iran hasn’t invaded anybody.

Iran hasn’t attacked anybody. Like, this idea that they’re a threat to us is nonsense. George Bush one time when he was giving a speech, he said something like, yeah, the issue with Iran is Israel. And then all of them shut up from saying that. Again, it’s like, hey, shh, don’t say that. Don’t. Don’t say that we have an issue with them. We got to say that we have an issue with them, because otherwise it makes it very hard to justify everything and all the actions that we are effectively taken. So, look, I am hoping they have another meeting, a third one that’s supposed to deal with the technical options.

The fact that they were able to even get to the technical options after this meeting was supposed to be about red lines. I suspect it’s positive, but the foreign minister said, look, it’s not positive or negative. We’re seeing where we are. It’s hard to tell. And the reason why I gave the context first is because if that through line is to get rid of or an attack Iran, then what is Trump doing in this administration? What are his objectives? So I don’t know. I’m slightly optimistic because at the very least, they made it to the third.

Nobody threw over a table. The hour of the meeting was like four hours they did talk on the sideline directly as opposed to indirect negotiations. So I am hoping. Yeah, that seems like it would be more than a superficial conversation if it went on that long. Exactly. Mind you, we see what’s happening with Witkoff in Russia and it just appears to be stalling or hitting a wall or just temporizing the situation and not really achieving any substantial results above and beyond keeping them on the line. But it’s complicated negotiation if you think about it. The Biden administration had went with this jingoism, nonsense narrative and so did Europe for three years, not to mention the prior years where they were gearing up for this, going back to 2008 with the Bucharest summit where they’re offering NATO membership and Trump comes in is like, I’m going to solve it in 24 hours.

No, you’re not. No, you’re not. And then to take this kind of comical thing of, all right, if we can’t figure it out, I’m just going to walk, dude. Like, your guy has just started negotiating. And if you listen to Wyckoff, he is. The optimism that is coming out of Wyckoff is astonishing. Because what Wyckoff, Russia played this, right? And some people can say Russia played Trump slightly because if you notice, they sent business people to talk to Trump. Like, like they said Krylov here and he’s talking business. He’s like, hey, this is all the business that we can do.

Your, your companies can come back. We can do this, we can do that. We can. And Wyckoff is like, we’re going to have redefined the relationship between the United States and Russia going forward for the foreseeable future through financial entanglements that brings peace to Europe. Now, this is fascinating because it doesn’t include Europe. Like, Europe is not in this conversation. But the reality of it is if you are winning a war and you are clearly winning, none of this propaganda nonsense of, oh, it’s a stalemate, it’s a stalemate. It’s not a stalemate. It has been a stalemate for God knows how long.

Ukraine is running it out of men. They’re getting point of dragging 18 year olds into the war, potentially. They’re bringing in women into the war. They can’t replace their ranks. This is not a stalemate. Europe wouldn’t be freaking out like this if it was. And so Russia, from their point of view, we can do this all like Captain America. We can do this all year. Help. We can do this two years. We organize our economy. Our economy is at 4%. Europe’s economy is collapsing. You will collapse before we do. That’s their point of view. And so why do we need a ceasefire in this case? Would they want one under their terms? Yes, because like the entire point of this conflict, it’s not Russia with 150,000 men trying to take over all of Europe.

That wasn’t even enough to take over all of Ukraine. It doesn’t even make sense. It had more to do with this notion of NATO expanding to their border. Something that we wouldn’t tolerate. The notion that if, let’s say, the Warsaw Pact states knocked over Mexico, put in people who hated the United States. Just anger about the United States, like, we’re going to take New Mexico back and putting in intelligence officials. These guys are agitated. Then they built up a huge military. The US Will not stand by and be like, mexico is an independent country, can do whatever it wants.

Nobody believes that. Cuban missile crisis, another good example. They put missiles in Cuba. Khrushchev and those missiles were ready to launch if Cuba was attacked. And the U.S. thank God John F. Kennedy was not listening to the military people who wanted to have a strike like a nuclear exchange, believing, well, we could take over all of the Soviet Union. They’ll just kill our East Coast. Okay, dude, that’s millions of people that you guys were willing to sacrifice. JFK said, well, we’ll have locket. The letters that were exchanged were deemed to be panicky because the people in the U.S.

even in the U.S. believe the world is about to end. Meaning we were willing to end the world in order to secure our border. In regards to not having those missiles in Cuba, this is taking place on the Russian border. And you can go back to William Burns memo in 2008. Net means net. Once again, either he’s a psychic or this is just political analysis where he’s like, look, you are going to provoke a war in Ukraine that Russia is going to have to get involved in by offering NATO membership, a war they do not want to get involved in.

Fast forward to Joe Biden, William Burns CIA Director and of course, he would never own up to the fact that he sent that memo detailing all of this. And so it is all the difficulty that they’re having is Trump cannot give them what they want. It’s that meaning what Trump wants or what they want is security. We want security for the region. We want security for ourselves. You guys are expanding our border. NATO is not this love and light organization. We don’t want Ukraine and NATO full stop. Now Trump will give them that. They would Acknowledge five regions because, as they say, facts on the ground have effectively changed.

These are Russian regions. They voted to leave, so they’re part of the Russian Federation. This is a non negotiable. But the sticking point is going to be this notion of freezing the conflict. They’re not going to accept it. From their point of view, we won the war. Losers don’t get to dictate terms to the winners. If we need to continue, we’re going to Continue. You’ve passed 25,000 sanctions, whatever that number is. You’ve dropped every weapon system into this country. The New York Times even points out that you were on the ground dictating what targets are going to be hit, even in Russia, meaning this war was between.

Started off as a civil war, ended up ultimately being between NATO countries and Russia, and Russia won. So from their point of view, if we keep going, they’re going to collapse. Which I suspect is part of the reason why Trump is so heavy on we need to get this done. We need to get this done. We need to get this done. Because he wants a military standing to have some level of chips on the table, as he said. So that’s the sticking point. It’s the notion that they know that if they keep going, Ukraine is going to collapse.

And from their point of view, Europe will never allow any of what Trump is trying to do. They are on a parallel. I think Mark will call it a perpendicular track. But everything that Europe is doing is effectively telling Russia, you will never get a deal. They’re not going to agree to the regions, they’re not going to agree to no data. You got Mark out there effectively saying, yeah, once peace is achieved, we’ll revisit the NATO thing, dude. No, he knows that him saying that as the NATO director kills any ability to get a deal. Europe is doing everything in the property.

All right, guys. So as some of you know, Canadian Prepper is a fully independent channel. We don’t have sponsors, and we’re beholden to nobody. You can help support us by supporting yourself by gearing up@canadianpreparedness.com I know that in an emergency, having the right gear can make all the difference. This is why I’ve tested and curated the best preparedness products on the market, so that you can be confident and ready for whatever comes your way. Now, back to the video. I’d like to come back to the Middle east at some point, but, you know, to say, speak to what you’re saying with respect to the.

The ruthless objectivism of Trump’s Art of the deal. It seems as though, how can you trust that if you know that there’s just not going to be like, never mind the fact that there could be another administration in four years that could overturn everything. But if you’re dealing with somebody simply on those terms, then what’s to stop them from jumping ship when a better deal presents itself? So there’s no honor, there’s no commitment to that business like perspective. I personally think it’s, it’s a bit of a stalling tactic because maybe they don’t know what to do.

And so Witkoff is somebody who they’re willing to let into their country, or at least in, in the Middle east in terms of Oman, who knows, maybe he’ll make a trip to Beijing soon also. But, yeah, it seems like to me more of a good cop, bad cop kind of set up, but I’m more of a, I don’t want to say a pessimist, but I’m a lot more cynical with respect to the intentions of the Trump administration. And even if, like you’re saying, even if they genuinely wanted to make a deal and it was about developing the Arctic together, which is just ludicrous considering the US Entire nuclear strategy is built around, you know, defense against Russia from Greenland and their space base and their Golden Dome missile defense system and all this stuff, you know, what’s to stop them if a better deal doesn’t present itself at some point? But I am just very reluctant to.

I think it’s good that, you know, you are, you’re keeping holding on to that hope that something is going to arise from this. I’m just, just to be clear, the Russians don’t trust anything coming out of Trump, even though they would say, I guess my take is Trump spent the entire time saying he wants to deal, he wants to do, he wants to do, he wants to end the war. It’s better than doing deep strikes on Moscow with Horus missiles. Yeah, exactly. Well, right, with the Germany. Yeah, with Germany, with F16s or F35s or whatever. Yeah, I think I get your point.

He has, look, I would tell you he has come further than any U.S. president. And this has been a topsy turvy thing, like big time. For example, I don’t think Europe would be acting this way if they didn’t think Trump was serious. They’re freaking out, they’re losing their minds. And they have, I mean, they’ve gotten to the point, hey, we need to take our own cell phones when we go to the US because we don’t trust Trump. Like, the transatlantic relationship. I mean, Vance going over there and basically reading them the riot act. It’s. They are literally.

Rubio and Witkoff went to Paris recently and they told them what they wanted. Hey, we want to do the five regions. We want to know, NATO, etc. Europe was like, we’re not doing that. We’re not doing that. It’s not that I believe Trump’s intentions, and I would say I agree with you, the speed at which Trump has effectively flipped US Policy on this very specific issue. To whatever degree you could trust him in this, another president can do the same. So if you’re a Russian, you’re looking at this. How do you trust that? How do you trust anything coming out of a system like this, where Trump is gone in four years? Who knows who wins the next election, especially if the economy falls apart because of the trade wars and everything else.

What do you make of the story coming out today that the US Is proposing putting troops at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant? I mean, to me, this is being circulated as a serious proposition, but by, like, real accounts that are, you know, verified accounts are. Are promoting this as a viable solution, which just seems insane that the Russians who hold the nuclear power plant would ever give it over to the United States, knowing full well that in three years it could change hands or Trump won’t be there, and it could be Biden 2.0 or whatever. I mean, it just.

I mean, is that where we’re at? Like, we’re still at that point of these absurd proposals? I don’t know what those accounts are talking about. Like, some of the subject is outrageous, right? Yeah, but it’s a real. I’m not sure if you’re. It’s kind of a newer story, so I’m sure you’re familiar with it because you’re used to. No, I hadn’t seen this one. What I. What I saw was making it neutral. Yeah, they were. They proposed making Zaporozha nuclear power plant neutral. And the only reason it would be because Trump wants to have some kind of deal or something like that.

Look, I will tell you, that is part of Russia, based on the Russian constitution. They’re not giving that up. It’s a red line. I don’t know. See, that’s the other thing, right? Like, sometimes stuff comes out in media, not because it’s true, but because it’s pushing an angle. And sometimes the angle is like, for example, when you see something like reports Russia is running out of Missiles. Okay. But then you get real reporting whether we like the missile production in Russia, whether Europe would even admit it’s like three to four times all of Europe in the US it’s like just ungodly amounts just based on, you know, Soviet era legacy where they can just ramp up those factories.

I’ve become very skeptical of some of the stuff that comes out of media just in general because of the reality of events versus the way they slant they put on it. I don’t know if Trump put that story out. I haven’t necessarily heard Trump say that if that is indeed a proposal, it is whack out. It is. They’re out of the months. Yeah, that’s nuclear war. Going back to. There’s some other scuttlebutts circulating about going back to the Middle east that potentially Pete Hegseth is slated for replacement and that Stephen Feinberg, who I guess is a very.

Who’s even a harder hardline Zionist, although doesn’t fit the GI Joe profile that they’re looking for to try to revitalize the US Military that he could be next in line as the Deputy Secretary of Defense. What is your take on that, that fresh story? Do you think there’s some substance to it? Do you think these leaks are going to be enough to. And do you think that what he’s done has been so egregious that they, the deep state would be willing to part ways? The leaks are interesting it in. Again, let me give, let me shift context slightly.

When Donald Trump was in office the first year and they came up with Trump is working with the Russians. Trump is talking, making these inappropriate phone calls with Zelensky or Ukraine and it’s like we got to impeach him. And it’s like, okay, for one, he’s not working with the Russians. He won that election fair and square. Two, the conversation with Ukraine is not insane. It certainly doesn’t rise to the level of impeachment. The cases that they were bringing against them, this notion of. And frankly, I love this one, the porn star, right? He paid off a porn star.

Not the blab about the fact that he was hooking up with a porn star. And then you point out, you’re like, okay, but Hillary Clinton did the same thing. She effectively got a file from a British spy that was made up, purely just made up and used that and called it lawyer’s fees and stove pipe that into the FBI where they started to leak it and to make it into a story, eventually ending up in an investigation. All of it came from. And yet they were going after him with impeachment. Like anything, they would have found out that they would have tried to take out of office the second impeachment.

Fair game. Fair game. If you lose, you leave first. Impeachment. Nonsense. That case was nonsense. They hit Hillary Clinton with a fine for that case. That’s it. Ftc. The FTC wouldn’t even charge Trump for that. And the judge wouldn’t even allow the fact that the FTC did charge him for it. Judge was like, I’m the one that makes that choice. Okay, it’s a nonsense case. The Hegicef thing, it’s egregious. But is it that egregious? If that makes sense. Like, no, obviously the defense secretary should be using signal to give plans about an attack on Yemen. It is a fascinating read on some of the stuff that they were allowing and talking about.

And even some of the players in that administration who was less warlike, like Vance, seems to have more restraint in this stuff, like over and over again in these talks. So is there a political element to them trying to get rid of Higseth? Of course. Of course there is. Right. Like if it was the Biden administration, would the Republicans have gone after Joe Biden for something? Yes, of course. Does it rise to the level of taking out the Defense Secretary? Oh, that’s a hard one to answer. Like, because, look, I find it to be egregious. He should know better.

But to remove you from your position is pretty heavy. Now, whether Trump would do it or not, that’s the other question. It is a deep embarrassment for Trump to get rid of Hegasif, which is the reason why they want to get rid of Hegseth. So I don’t know if Trump is going to do it. And it’s a hard question to answer. It’s so subjective to say, does this rise to the level where Defense secretary needs to be removed? And by the way, I have no love for any of these people. I think these people are lunatics.

Just to give you my, you know, my, my bias in this, but I don’t know. That’s a hard question to answer. Yeah, I mean, that’s a very hard question. Like you say, Trump does not want to capitulate to the media and political pressure, obviously, because it’s, it would be a big concession on his part, especially as it seems as though this guy was pretty well groomed. I mean, he, he came in without the typical credentials of a person who would enter into that position, I think largely because of his Age. And I think a lot of it was to do with, you know, just his Persona in trying to revitalize the US Military as being, you know, not a blue haired unicorn, whatever.

Right. So which, you know, he strived to do that with a lot of his appearances, you know, alongside the military, doing push ups and all this. And I actually predicted that like the first time I seen him, I’m like, okay, here’s what, here’s what they want this guy, they want him running around, running drills, making the military cool again because they got to get their recruitment numbers up. And I don’t think they’ve been able to fulfill that mandate just yet. So he’s got more work to do. It’s hard. Like, yeah, if you are have family that’s in the military, if there are enemies at your gates, fair enough.

You will get people joining your military. If you believe that you are involving yourself in potential wars that don’t need to be fought. Okay, that’s harder. Yeah, no, at least that’s my take on it. And again, the woke stuff doesn’t help. You know, like you look at some militaries around the world and see these like stern men that look like they can eat a bear. And you look at our military like, yeah, we get this particular. It’s like, hey, we were able to get this number of women into the military. It’s not. And again, it is.

I’m not being sexist here. I’m perfectly fine with women in the military. No issue. I’m just saying the military is not about being woke, it’s about being the job done. Yeah, yeah, those are very different things. It’s not like, well, we want a woke military. While also you missed the book. That is not saying when the, when the barbarians are at the gates, you know, all of that stuff kind of goes out the window and you want the person who’s best suited to the job, basically, whoever that might be. Yeah, I want a guy that can eat a bear.

I want that guy. Exactly. I mean, the news coming out today with respect to Israel and Iran, apparently Chief KA is going to Israel in the coming days and the Israeli Air Force, they keep posturing like they’re getting ready to do a strike. Like now they’re saying they’re prepping for a strike against Tehran according to ynet, and they’re running all these drills and even the Iranian security officials are saying that they have intelligence that Israel is planning a major attack. I guess, you know, I know you’re not like a military expert, even though you’ve you know, you have a lot of experience in talking about these kind of things, but what could they possibly, you know, mean? Here they are fighting the Houthis for months with, like, the best equipment in the world, Stealth bombers, and, and they can’t defeat the Houthis.

What could Israel with its little old F35s. And I mean, sure, it could, could nuke them with Jericho missiles and yeah, the submarine launch ballistic missiles, but I mean, above and beyond that, like, what can they actually do? And do you think these are credible threats? So Iran doesn’t entirely. Obviously they take a threat from Israel seriously. I mean, it was Iran that even pointed out, yeah, we have intelligence that they may do this. I get the sense, though, that they believe singularly a country of 8 million people is not going to beat a country of 80 million people.

That’s what they believe, singularly. By the same token, though, they also believe that the US Will help them on any attack that they do that they wouldn’t dare do an attack like this without US Backing and US Support. What’s wild about the story, and when I covered the story doesn’t entirely make sense. Donald Trump is having negotiations. NETanyahu comes to D.C. and Trump tells him, I’m not going to do a strike. Basically, we’re not doing this. We’re going to do negotiations. I’m not going to back you in some kind of strike. That same article that you’re reporting on, they point out it would only need limited US Support.

So how does that work? The US Is telling them, we’re not getting involved in this, we’re doing negotiations. We may do a strike after the fact if the negotiations fail, but right now we’re doing negotiations. So we’re on this track. And they’re like, yeah, but we might do a limited strike that needs a little bit of US Help. Okay, well, the US Just told you that they’re helping you. Like, it’s a weird story. It’s a very weird story. Now, truth be told, could Israel drag the US Into a conflict? Meaning if they do a strike, would the US Back them in that strike? That’s interesting.

I mean, if they do, when they do it alone, they’re going to alienate the U.S. now, they alienated Joe Biden all the way through. He still backed them to the Hill regardless of what they did, including giving UN support, given 70, 80% of the money, weapons, etcetera, that they effectively use. Trump has been just as obsequious. So. And he’s still like, sending, I mean, planeload after plane load of weapons throughout all of this. So these two things don’t really add up. Yeah, it’s very weird. It’s very strange. That is a very strange story. Two things could be going on.

One, it could be chumming the water in order to put pressure on the negotiations. But Israel doesn’t believe in those negotiations, even in that. So they point out Israel doesn’t believe in the negotiations. They don’t want it going to a bargaining phase. What they want is the US to fight a war for it. That’s what it’s wanted for the last 20, 30 years. We want the US to go after Iran. That’s what we want. All of these other governments have collapsed. We have one more. We want you to go and take them on for us. We’ll help.

A little bit in the background, like for example in the New York Times article, the stuff that Israel was saying was so ludicrous that even hegseth, Suzy Wiles, Kellogg, hardcore neocons, like, this is not going to work in the way that you’re playing. I mean, this was movie stuff. We’re gonna have commandos to go in and there’s going to be ships in the sky dropping down fire and they’re going to run in and they’re going to take down the bombs. It is a country three times the size of Iraq and you’re telling me you’re going to hit all of these? Yeah, they’re out of their mind.

And so the US Was like, this is going to require far more US support than what these reports are saying with the effect of you’re dragging the US into a war full stop. That’s what you’re doing. Meaning you’re coming up with a ludicrous plan with the idea that the US is going to save you in the end and carry the main load of the work where we are going to get embroiled into a war with unpredictable consequences. So either this is chumming the water with the thought of we’re going to put more pressure on Iran to come up with a deal.

More pressure. More pressure where they’re going to move on some of their red lines in order to come to a deal, but that doesn’t make sense because Israel doesn’t want to deal. Is it possible that they would do a strike in order to pull the US into a conflict? Meaning right countries exchange fire. The US needs to get involved in order to protect Israel in that sense, maybe. Which they probably would. I mean, I can’t imagine a world where Iran retaliates with the vaunted true promise. 3. And the US does nothing, despite exactly being. Exactly. Even during negotiations, by the way.

Even during negotiations. If you remember when Trump pulled out of the jcpoa, what did Europe say? Europe was like, don’t you dare pull out of the jcpoa. Meaning Trump pulled out, Europe couldn’t carry the burden economically in the way that they were supposed to, and turned to Iran as if they were the issue, saying, don’t you dare pull out, despite the fact that the US has effectively shot it in the face. So, yeah, Trump is obviously going to take the Israeli perspective on this even during negotiation. Meaning even if Trump is alienated, he very may well still protect Israel in this case, in which case Israel knows.

So I don’t know. I mean, Iran, if they wanted to, I mean, they could possibly have created a nuclear weapon already. And they must know that these, this belligerent rhetoric is just that and that it’s empty threats. I mean, they’ve seen what happened with the last attempt by the Israelis to target their early warning systems in the radars. And for what we can see, anyways, it appears as though that that has failed, that it was not the death blow that a lot of Israeli military officials claim it was. Absolutely. So Iran has the capability of hitting Israel.

They’ve shown it. Yeah. And maybe Iran has more leverage than we think in the sense that, you know, they are more confident in their abilities. I know, like Professor Morandi, your previous guest, who’s a great guest, by the way. Great to have that point of view, because it’s, it’s a very rare point of view, somebody who can articulate it to a Western audience. Yeah. You know, his claim seems to be very bold statements about Iran’s ability to defend itself at all costs and that they’re not at all really concerned. Not, not at all concerned, but they are not viewing this as an existential threat in the way that the Zionist warhawks are making out.

He is. I will tell you, any person talking about stuff like this is going to be proud and strong because you have to be right, like, regardless of what’s true, like, nobody’s going to come out and say, yeah, we’re terrified. Right. It’s usually, oh, we’re good, we can take this. This is, you know, we’re strong and everything else. And look, to some degree, he may be right against Israel by itself. I mean, keep in mind, we gave Israel 80, 70 to 80% of what they use for the wars in Gaza, West Bank, Syria, Lebanon, et cetera.

If it wasn’t for us funding them, giving them money, keep the government running, giving them money for the weapons, giving them the political support in the un Giving them political support in UN Security Council, they wouldn’t be able to do any of this. So by itself, I would imagine Iran is pretty confident. Yes, we’ve shown the capability of hitting them and we’ve shown the capability of air defense. So in both these counts, we believe that in any kind of exchange of war, we will be okay with Israel by itself. But they’re not by themselves, which is the issue.

Like intelligence, military support, air support, all of these things are going to come from the United States in any kind of exchange, which changes the context on some level. Like I don’t believe for a moment that the US can do a decapitation strike on Iran. It is too big of a country without their capability of returning in a response. And the issue is the response, meaning Iran’s deterrent is not a nuclear bomb. It’s that they can shut the Strait of Hormuz, that they can hit all of these military bases, that military bases around the world, so insane a number.

They can hit those bases like 50,000 troops. They can destroy the oil fields and some of these quizzling governments, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, uae, et cetera. It’s their capability of destroying the world economy is their nuclear bomb. Yeah, they’ve enriched, but they’ve enriched only after they pull out of the jcpoa. Only after Trump pulled out of the jcpoa. And it’s almost like the enrichment was done not to make a bomb, because there’s a fatwa against the bomb. They have the technical know how to make it. They just never made it. Look, I will tell you, this stuff about the bomb comes across like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to me.

If you remember, the Bush administration kept saying weapons of mass destruction. Weapons of mass destruction. We got to go in Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction. There were no weapons of mass destruction. And the same rhetoric is being used here by a country, no less, with nukes that are undeclared and that we know, like the secret. Everybody knows that nobody says. And so it’s a similar rhetoric. I don’t think they worry too much about Israel by itself. I mean, obviously you don’t want to have an exchange with anybody. I think their issue is there won’t be a loan.

They will be with US backing and support and that ground troops, air power, basically dropping bombs. You made the point about Yemen. Iran is a massive country. It is a massive country. And the notion that you’re going to hit all of these underground bases you’re going to hit to stop all of the response is nonsense. They. They will respond. That’s their. That’s their deterrent, and the US Knows it. You know, there also is the risk of the US who’s never really went up against a peer adversary, when we really think about they fought proxy wars and maybe There was an F16 that had a skirmish with, you know, what we’re seeing in Russia and Ukraine just to kind of test the waters.

But I think they’re very reluctant to put their best stuff up against a near peer adversary and then risk being exposed as a paper tiger. I don’t want to say a paper tiger, but the ineptitude of their ability to actually project power in a way which potentially is going to alter the global chessboard. See, that’s right there. That’s the issue. Right. It’s like we don’t know. Like, these are unknowns. Like, we know that we spend a trillion dollars a year on the military, give or take. Trump has taken it up the tree. We know that there’s a lot of grift in that because of.

It’s a leaky bucket just because of the amount of money that you’re putting into something. The companies are overcharging for various things. So we don’t know the return on investment in regards to those products and those weapons system systems. We know some of this stuff is complicated and don’t necessarily work well depending on the environment that they’re in. Air power seems to be the thing that we are the best at and great at. This ability to just devastate from the sky. Powers of Shadow on the Wall, Game of Thrones, they’re right about that. Like, that stuff doesn’t really.

It’s an unknown until it’s tested in real terms. We can blow stuff up. Like, we can look at Iraq and see what happened in regards to Iraq. But the catch is that has been 20 something years ago. And the ability of warfare changes. That was before quantitative easing. Right, right. Like, if you’re talking about like an aircraft carrier, for example, Hegseth himself in an interview was like, China would knock that thing out of the water in 20 minutes. Okay. That’s a massive thing that we built that is huge with all of these airplanes and everything else.

And you’re talking about hypersonic missiles can hit that thing at a distance of like 1000 or more kilometers and take it out of the water and sink it. Okay, That’s A big deal. In fact, even with the Houthis, if you notice, they move their ships out of the way because they’re scared that one of those ships is going to get hit by a missile. So drones, missiles, our warfare has fundamentally changed. What does it look like in a new environment? That is an interesting question. And that will get tested big time, like in something like this.

Now, maybe Trump’s instincts are. I don’t want to test that. I don’t want to take that chance. Look, I will tell you, I don’t know Iran’s entire capability. He’s making a case. But in the same way that Trump has been provocative and Obama, Obama, Obama, that is for negotiating purposes. That is in order to try to get more out of a deal than you might have gotten if you just sat at the table and dealt with the person on an even hand. Ukraine, I mean, I’m sorry, Iran has to do the same thing. We’re strong, we can take this.

This is, you know, we’re not worried. We can, we can push back, we can attack back and everything else. Okay, what’s true, I would wager to you that the US doesn’t even entirely know what’s true because they didn’t even know that they get that drone at the ceiling height that it was, was that. These are unknowns. And the fact is that those unknowns will be clarified in any kind of conflict. If you get planes shot out the sky, B2 bombers shot out the sky, okay, that’s a big deal. That’s, you know, that’s, that’s a mind blowing picture to see on social media.

A US Bomber tumbling out of the sky because it got hit by, you know, some S300s, 400 missile defense system. If you see Iran devastated, okay, again, that’s a big deal. That shows that their capability wasn’t entirely there in order to stop that onslaught. But you also may see, despite the onslaught, their response, which may be more astonishing than any of us have thought. All of these things are potentials. And I guess my thing is I don’t want to see any of this. This is chaos that has the potential to completely upend people’s perceptions of the U.

S as the preeminent global military power. If they were to have a plane shot down, like an F35 got shot down, I mean, that’s, that’s very significant, you know, because especially when it’s Iran and not China or exactly Russia, I mean, forget about it, right? You’re talking about something that’s not supposed to be up here. That’s supposed to be different. Like Yemen shut down, what, 26 drones? Yeah, these Raptor drones or whatever these things are. And these are, you know, guys in sandals as they’re, you know, sandals running around as a band of rebels. Okay. They’re shooting down your, you know, high tech military equipment.

What the hell? No, these countries have moved on technologically, and, you know, there’s a question mark on what that means in a technological sense. What do you say? Mike Tyson, everybody’s great to the first punch in the face. Then it’s like, okay, we have a new plan of action because we have to accommodate the fact that we just got hit. No, that will get tested. That military equipment getting tested in Ukraine. But that stuff is being blown up. And you’re like, okay, this looks bad. This is like a graveyard. If Iran does that. Oh, man, that would be.

Look, I would tell you from my point of view, the global order. There are canaries in a coal mine about what I consider to be a decaying empire. One of them is losing that war in Russia. The notion that NATO has been around for, like, 50 years with the sole purpose of taking down the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union collapses. Russia is an ember of it. Right? Maybe the beating heart of it, but it’s not the entirety of the Soviet Union. And they win a war against all of it. And then you get Trump coming in with this in the economic sense, meaning, let’s take that military sense.

In the economic sense, you get Trump coming in and Trump is like, we’re going to have an economic war against the world. It’s like, okay, okay, fair enough, fair enough. You can do that. And in doing that, of course, he’s trying to flex economic might of the US that maybe in the 1980s you might have been able to pull off. Right. This is not the 1980s. We’re in 2025. And in doing that, many countries said, okay. China was like, screw that. F you on that. We’re not doing that. We’re not. You’re not the boss of me.

We’re not taking this. And China has escalated day after day. We’re not taking your. Your aircraft from Boeing. We’re not buying your lng. We’re not accepting your movies and plays and stuff like that. We’re. We’re taking tariffs up to 125% on US products and products getting priced out of the market. When we’re not going to take care of your cattle, you’re not going to take your grain. And when you think about that stuff, that Stuff is extraordinary consequence. China is one point like 3 billion people. Who is the US going to sell to when you lose a market like that? Whether it’s beef, whether it’s grain, whether it’s all of those Boeing planes, those are jobs, those are people who got to lose their jobs.

And then you add to that this notion that this is going to cause a recession in the U.S. the Chinese stock market is only fine. Our market is collapsing. Even the projections on a market, I think they’re under planet. I think you’re going to get higher costs and you’re going to get a recession. You’re going to get both simultaneously. I could tell you, like the dollar what has depreciated like 8 point something percent in value within the short time frame of the tariff war. So everything is now more expensive if you’re buying any product abroad. All this stuff is happening simultaneously.

And Trump, who has stumbled into a trade war that he can’t extricate himself from, that is waiting for a phone call that is never going to come, is now trying to get allies that he has been browbeating for the last three months to help him to gang up on China. China’s like, we will retaliate. And they have been making their own allies and even going to Europe, trying to get Europe on board on this notion of we should all work together in this, we should not bow down. That is a big deal. Like these things are canaries in a coal mine that 20 years ago just be unheard of.

And as a consequence of that, you have the consolidation of Russia, China, Iran and that whole trifecta becoming stronger and stronger. And so once we, you initially were talking about how Iran was isolated. Well, Trump picked a very bad time, it seems, to enter into a trade war with China, who is one of the primary purchasers of Iranian oil. What do you think the connection is there? Because I floated this speculation that perhaps what’s happening with Iran is more ado with China as a consequence of China being, I’m reluctant to say dependent because I’m thinking of the Chinese official who the other day said, you know, China’s been around for 5,000 years and we’re not going to, you know, you’re not going to capitulate just because, you know, grain prices go up.

Maybe the same could be said for oil, especially seeing as they’re churning out solar panel production at a breakneck speed. But do you think that there’s a connection between those two things? Does the US know that it’s futile to confront China directly So they’re trying to go down the supply chain and perhaps interdict their, create an embargo on oil for China. So that’s, I don’t, I don’t think that’s necessarily far off. I mean, it’s weird, right? Because even going back to Obama, they wanted to go after China. They consider China to be a threat far larger than Russia.

And from their point of view, China is an economic powerhouse that has the potential to be an industrial powerhouse. And it is. They have the factory. We even look the US in the Second World War, we were able to effectively put militaries on two sides of the globe, including supplying our allies, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, et cetera, through just industrial might, just sheer industrial might. That is an ungodly amount of industrial power. That is not the way we function today. We are a service based economy. Like we de. Industrialized ourselves into these other countries because it was cheaper to do so people could make massive amounts of profit.

We could ship a job over to China. Let’s say we’re playing bob, Tom, Tyrone, 20 bucks an hour at a factory. Okay, well, we could ship that job to China now pay that guy three bucks, the guy’s going to be happy as a lark. And Bob, Taub and Tyrone are. The job sucks for them. But the person at the top, the oligarch, makes ungodly sums of money. Ship that product back into the US and we deal with the services angle. This was kind of the speech that J.D. vance gave when he was talking about it. Okay, that sounds nice if your main objective is profit.

But if you need industrial might, okay, that wins wars. Like the fact that the US Was able to do that helps win a war. I mean, yeah, most of the Germans who died died on the Eastern front, but that doesn’t really matter. The US Helps supply the Jeeps, Spam, everything else. Could we do that today? No. Could China do it? They got 1.3 billion people. They have factories where they can effectively pick all the goods for the world if necessary. That is an opponent that has astonishing potential. And so they seem to have continuously wanted to pivot to say we need to stop that.

That horse can’t get out the barn. Our primacy is at stake if that horse gets out the barn. Obama was trying to do it with the tpp. Trump comes in, puts a bullet in tpp. Thank God he did. We should not be under this legal edifice that we don’t control ourselves. We are a sovereign nation. We need to remain so by the same token, Trump still wants to Pivot to the Pacific. He just wants to do it in a different way, but he can’t extricate himself from Ukraine. And one of the things that they wanted to do is, well, let’s make friends with Russia and then focus on China.

As if Russia was going to somehow forge a relationship with the US and abandon China. Good luck with that. That’s not going to happen. You’ve burned that bridge. You, the Western paper, New York Times has effectively pointed out that you have been killing Russians. Russia cannot acknowledge that because they’re stuck with the fact if they acknowledge that, that they are going to want to do something about it. So they know it in their mind whether they say it or not and regardless of what they say in these negotiations. So Trump wants to pivot. He the US Believes China is going to be an issue.

China would say we won’t win win relationships. This is where Mearsheimer comes in, where Mearsheim makes this argument that whatever China says, they’re just like every other country. And if they get primacy, they’re going to want the primacy. China said that is not the way we function. That is we do not function in that way. And to be fair to them, they do seem to see win win relationships, which is why many other countries, like in Africa, Global south, wants to work with them. Because when the US Or Europe comes in, there’s a list of stuff that comes along with it beyond a trade deal.

And a lot of times it’s extractive without necessarily giving anything on the other side of it. And so, yeah, they want to pivot to China. Now the catch becomes they do get oil from Iran, but they get oil from Russia, too. They get Buku’s oil from Russia, especially when they’re stopping LNG from the US they’re going to get it from Russia. They’re going to put in pipelines, they’re going to have all of this stuff. So if it was purely about the oil, it wouldn’t just be Iran, it would also be Russia in that case, if that makes sense.

I don’t doubt what you’re saying, by the way. I, I, they do want to break those linkages with the which is the reason they want to make the deal with Russia and they want to be friends, I think. Just ludicrous. Yeah, they’re definitely more resilient than being wholly dependent on Iran. And I think, you know, their lack of presence in the region, I think they got like four warships there or something that are kind of loitering in the I can’t remember what that ocean is called, but somewhere in the Indo Pacific anyways, you know, it doesn’t seem like they’re overly explicit in their asserting themselves in that region.

They do seem to be providing some military support in the sense of providing, perhaps even just providing, you know, the actual equipment itself. White label type stuff. I’ve seen a lot of videos that, that seem to have a lot of Chinese tech, like weapons tech in them in Iran. So it, you know, not explicitly Chinese, but you kind of have to look at the image a couple ways and you start to see, oh yeah, that, that’s definitely manufactured in China. China is a massive producer of stuff like. Right. I would be shocked if you buy products and they put them together as a weapon.

I wouldn’t be shocked by that at all. Like, the amount of stuff that they put out and sell to the world is just astonishing. Like it’s, it’s almost like a world supplier in that sense. And if you have something that you need to buy, you typically can get it from China at some point. So I would, that wouldn’t shock me at all. And by the way, if there was an attack on Iran and there was an actual war, I strongly suspect that even if China doesn’t get in militarily, they will be providing support, just like I suspect Russia will be providing support.

Yeah, in some way, shape or form. I think they, they deal. They still do have some interests at play there that they have to maintain and they, they don’t stand to benefit from regime change at all, which appears to be inevitable. Like when you, when you think of the, the economic dire straits that Iran is in and now historically, sanctions haven’t worked in and of themselves. Right. These regimes have always been able to maintain social order just enough to stay in power, while with the exception of Syria most recently, I suppose. But do you think that knowing that the Israelis can’t, I mean, maybe it’s just waiting till the Ayatollah dies or something, maybe that’s the long game.

Maybe that’s their real plan and hoping that, you know, the political class there overcomes the theocracy in some respect, which seems, you know, if they could maybe get into the right positions, that’s a possibility. But because it seems like that’s the only possibility for usurping Iran is to do a decapitation strike in the purest sense of the word, just like they did with Nasrallah, which did effectively, at least for the time being, pacify Hezbollah. Oh, he decapitated Hezbollah. Let’s not, you know, let’s not. Yeah, look, I know Rondi will go with this notion that Hezbollah is still there.

Strong nonsense. Yes, they are there. They’re presence, they’re, you know, part of the political system. But damaged. Yes. I mean, yes, I, my point of view is they damage Hezbollah severely. And I suppose my cynicism arises with all of these negotiations that Israel has never had the stars aligned in such a way that they have right now. I mean, let’s think about the situation for a second. You have the US with stealth bombers, Diego Garcia, you have one of the most hardline Zionist presidents, who I think it was, I can’t remember. I seen a clip yesterday, somebody joking about how he was the first Jewish president or something like that.

I think it was actually a clip from like five years ago, but people are circulating it again and you know, just everything about the administration and the timing and the decapitation of all the proxies and the relative strength and the inevitable, like, escape velocity of Iran and their military power and their consolidation with Russia and China, like, if there’s a time to do it. And I believe the Israelis when they say they have a few months window, they do. And above and beyond that, it’s like, it’s just, you know, it’s going to be impossible. We were talking about this in a radio station at one point and my boss was like, they have no Fs to give.

They’ve decided that they’re going to kill whoever. And you have a president under Joe Biden that wasn’t going to stop him. And you have a president under Trump that is not going to stop. So it’s like you have running room. Go, we got to do this now. It seems like that is the mindset. We got to do this now. We got to get rid of the Palestinians now. We got to get rid of the West Bank. We have to take it now. We have to take parts of Syria now. We have to take parts of Lebanon and pacify that group.

Now we have to do it now. We have to do it now. We have to do it now. We have space from the US we have money from the US we have all the weapons that they would give us from the US we have everything that we want in this situation and the president will back us. Like, meaning, if you notice, many governments complain. They don’t do anything, nobody gets involved. Turkey, you know, Erdogan would. Oh, he’s Hitler. Okay. Yeah, but you help that Hitler in Syria to take parts of Syria, right? Yeah. Erdogan is just, I don’t even listen to that guy anymore.

He is so full of like in those gangster movies. He is. He is a slippery eel, man. He is a slippery eel. I swear to God, he is. He’s a political figure. He honestly, he puts me around Netanyahu a bit in the sense that Netanyahu has had the ability to remain in political life for so long, regardless of the investigations, regardless of the corruption trials. I mean, what’s taking place in Israel right now? You know, they’re yelling that this may be a civil war, Jews may be killing Jews. And what they’re talking about is, you know, the guitar files where Netanyahu fires the head of Shin Bet, who is investigating and potentially might investigate Netanyahu.

That would be like if Trump fired the guy who’s doing an investigation. Trump. That looks horrible. The opposition is screaming their head up. Yair Lapida is like, this is outrageous. You know, your Jews are going to be killing Jews. And is that situation been calmed or is it still festering? This was yesterday, if I’m not mistaken, where Yara Lapid is effectively saying, you’re going to get people assassinated. Because I know he’s. He’s built some clout, you know, as a result of defeating Syria or defeating Syria and Lebanon. Well, let’s. Let’s be honest. The mass slaughter of Palestinian population, from their point of view, they agree.

Like, the overwhelming majority of public agrees. And so their take is this is fine. No issue. Like, they’re not taking issue with that. They’re taking issue with the fact that he’s trying to get rid of the courts or trying to pacify the courts. Like, you know what it’s like a million Jews or something came out in Israel protesting Netanyahu trying to make the court subordinate to the executive branch and doing so purely because he has a case that if he gets out of office, he may go to jail, but while he’s in office, he stays in power.

They would protest that. They would be very angry about that. They may even protest the hostages per se, but not the war. I’m sure Trump will pardon them. The first jurist president, right? He’s going to pardon him. It’s wild. Like, it’s. It’s just a wild thing. It seems like they have fully accepted this is our moment. We’re going to create Greater Israel, or at the very least, we’re going to lay the seeds for it by taking parts of Syria, Lebanon, the West bank and Gaza. We’re going to bring it all into consolidation. Yes, there will be more Muslims or Arabs than Us, we may need to have an apartheid state in order to ensure we have Jewish.

I had in an interview with Netanyahu, I think it was press secretary, I can’t think of his name. And I remember him telling me, well, we can’t have a one state solution because, you know, that wouldn’t be Israel, like, if we had one man, one vote. That’s not Israel. That’s not a Jewish state. We can’t do that. What about two state? Yeah, we’re not really for that either. It’s like, okay, dude, okay, what, what is it that you want? And you know, the reality of it is Joe Biden and Donald Trump were trying to expel the Palestinian population.

They went to Egypt and they went to what to George saying, hey, would you take these populations? Both said no. Now, they said no under Biden, they said no under Trump because Egypt just got rid of the Muslim Brotherhood and they’re trying to invite him back. And Jordan already has what, like 80, 60, 70%? I forget the exact number, but a massive amount of Palestinians there. So neither government wants to accept it. So it becomes, okay, well, what is your solution to this? It seems intractable. Anyway you look at it. And Trump’s thing is less a victim.

Israel’s solution is we do some killing and maybe we can get them to voluntarily leave. It’s a mess. But Israel seems to have taken the perspective the President is with us. We’re going to go hog. Wow. No other country is going to stop us. They’re going to complain, but they’re never going to stop us. Yeah, they’re in an interesting position where they’re. It almost seems like they’re just waiting for one wrong move to justify some sort of intervention because they, they have a very intransigent position with respect to Iranian nuclear power. It seems that they don’t want them to have any nuclear fissile material at all, regardless of how high it’s enriched.

Although, is that just. That’s an excuse. Saddam Hussein is weapons of mass destruction. Right. And this is, I think, structure. This is where we’ve disagreed with some people in the community that there’s something that transcends this talk about nuclear whatever. Like, you know, it appears as though the goal is regime change by hook or by crook. Yes. And some people, as you know, in the community have made the argument of, well, if Iran just complies this time, why do they need to comply? Right. Why do they need to comply? Like, look, you have a genocidal state.

Don’t take my word for it the ICJ is having a criminal case about genocide right now. Human Rights Watch. Genocide. You have all of these organizations that point out this is a genocide that has taken place. Okay, if the members of the community don’t believe that, fair enough. 50,000 people killed, two thirds of which are women and children. Israel has nukes. They have nukes. Iran hasn’t invaded anybody. Israel has invaded all of their neighbors. How are we telling a sovereign country that they don’t have the ability to have nuclear power and to develop that nuclear power? How are we doing that? And in the same way that we invaded Iraq, are we really saying that we are okay with unilaterally attacking another country that has not attacked us and is no threat to us? That is outrageous position to be like even this, like I even find the conversation wild.

It’s like oftentimes it centers on or wrong should just comply. Why, why, why, why, why? A sovereign country, they can do whatever they want. Why, why do we get the right? Like this is something that the IEA or what is about the iaea, the Atomic Energy Agency, okay, they’re making a complaint about. Fair enough, fair enough. They are a proponent of the non Proliferation Treaty. They haven’t crossed the boundaries of that treaty. And so this idea that we should prevent them from having nuclear medicine, building nuclear power stations, doing things that regular countries do, seems to be outrageous to me.

Like I don’t get this notion where America gets to make the decision where when we get to be the decider in who can decide who does what what. We wouldn’t accept that premise, by the way. Now you can make an argument that we’re somehow better. Well, we’re, you know, the exceptional state. I think that’s outrageous. That’s outrageous. I. It’s a position based on power, not on ethics, morality, fairness, anything else. It is a position based purely on power. We get to dictate because we can destroy you just like we destroyed Iraq, just like we destroyed Syria, just like we’re destroying Lebanon’s basket case.

And it appears like they’re, they’re approaching that mask off moment where it’s not about the iniquity of it. It’s not about being sanctimonious. It’s just about we make the rules. And even Trump just said yesterday, he who has the gold makes the rules. So he’s strictly coming at this from an Ayn Rand objectivist point of view where, you know, the winners make the rules. And so based on that, there is no moral license or, you know, that card has Been expired, I think, at least in the better part of the world. From the world’s perspective, watching what’s happening in the Gaza Strip and saying we’re going to turn it into a resort and all of these, you know, colonialist, you know, ideals.

Yeah, it’s a mask off situation. So, you know, it does appear as though we’re reaching that point where there’s just going to be an admittance that it’s not about nuclear weapons. It’s just that we want to be the preeminent power within the region. And you existing is a potential threat to us. And by the way, Tulsi Gabbard has pointed out they weren’t trying to get nukes. Like, meaning our own assessments here, they weren’t trying to get nukes. So, like, yeah, there’s differences. There’s different perspectives on that. I mean, you know, on the one hand, you know, a point that Ritter makes that I agree with and, and I don’t agree with the idea that they shouldn’t have nukes, or if they do have them, they’re immediately going to start firing them in all directions like some crazy person, which is stupid.

You know, they create this civilization that takes millennia to build up and they’re just going to, you know, throw it all out the window in one day. Yeah, but there is a point to be made, and perhaps you have a thought on this about the 60% enrichment, because I was talking to some nuclear physicists the other day and they said that for nuclear, even for like nuclear medicinal purposes, they’re making the claim that only 20% is required maximum, and that for, you know, the purpose of nuclear power even less so, like 3.7% or something. So why do you think Iran has enriched uranium to 60%? Because the US pulled out of JCPOA.

And they’re making a point, okay, they want, like from their point of view, you pulled out. All bets are off. We can do whatever we want. We made a deal. You broke the deal. This is what we’re doing. But don’t you think it would be like, unnecessarily provocative? Like. It is. It is provocative. But pulling out the JCPO is also provocative. There was a signatory deal by multiple countries and if I’m not mistaken, even signed within the context of the UN Security Council. And they just blew it off just yet. We’re done and we’re going to put a pressure campaign and we’re going to murder Soleimani and we’re putting back sanctions on your country to destroy your country.

So, okay, Fair enough. If you’re going to do that, this is what we’re going to do. And on some level, you know the argument. Daniel’s made this argument that they’re trying to get nukes for 30 years. I remember him being in Congress with this cartoon bomb saying, this is going to happen within five minutes. I remember that. Yeah, they are like, they have the technical proficiency to do it. If they wanted to do it, they would have done it. They haven’t done it. So, yes, it is provocative. It’s provocative for, I would argue on some level, this very reason to have this negotiation.

This is the thing we’re willing to give up because this is the thing we’re not trying to get. Anyway, they are very open to. Yeah, okay, we’ll give up this. We’re not giving up all of it, but we can talk about it. We can go back to what the JCPOA was, because we’re not trying to get nukes in the first place. But yes, we do want nuclear medicine, we do want nuclear power, et cetera. And within the context of a deal to be made, this is the thing to which we’re willing to get rid of. Like, it is provocative.

I agree with you. I don’t disagree with you. I’m just saying murdering Soleimani is also provocative. Like flying drones over the territory is also provocative. Israel continuously saying, we’re going to bomb you. It’s like all of these things are provocative. This is not, you know, this is not child’s play. The. This is existential in many respects, in a way that they’re engaging this stuff because it is, on some level, existential. They’ve seen all these other governments collapse. And if you remember, the thing that assures North Korean security is the nuclear weapons. It’s that you can’t attack North Korea.

There is no military solution in North Korea unless you want Japan, South Korea to go belly overnight. So it is, and by the way, on some level, the guarantee of Israel’s sovereignty from their point of view, they can have the Sampson option, pull everything down, if indeed the integrity of the state has been threatened. So we look at it as a protector. Most of these countries look at it as a protector. Why not them having it? They’re a sovereign country. I don’t think Russia or China wants them to have a nuke, by the way. Just. It’s like gun control.

It’s like the government saying, you don’t need guns, but we do. Yeah, is that. But there’s no Leviathan in this. Like, the US Is not the boss of Iran. Israel is not the boss of Iran. And the idea that there should be is outrageous. It is a bizarre argument. By the way, this is US policy and has been for God knows how long. I mean, the kill squads in South America, for example, where Reagan was going with Iran Contra affair in order to sell weapons to Iran for all places. Right. You’ve overthrown the country, they’ve re overthrown the country, put in a religious dictator, but you’re willing to essentially sell weapons and use it to go after the Sandinistian government.

Okay, that was U.S. policy. We had kill squads in those in South America. Knock it over Iran, knock it over Honduras, knock it over. Like you can go down the list of countries that we’ve knocked over, knocking over Ukraine, for God’s sake. We have no issue doing this. We have no issue in using proxies. It’s just, it is hard to hide it now, as opposed to when the Gipper was in office and everybody was like blown away that the Gipper was involved in knocking over governments. It was like, oh my God, I can’t believe the Gipper did that.

That’s not, that’s not. I can’t believe the US would. We’re loving light. We don’t do stuff like that. We believe in freedom, justice, equality, et cetera, et cetera. And you know, you rip the mask off, it’s like, oh my God, this is what we’ve been doing around the world, but God knows how long. Yeah. I mean, could you imagine how history would be written if we lose? Could you imagine how if, if the east wins, how they’re going to write about Gaza, Ukraine, you know, whatever is about to happen and you know, with the nuclear weapons and I mean, I could imagine in 100 years this time will be viewed much differently than the way we perceive it.

Agree. The west agreed. We, we have, if we don’t prevail, we have a weird skew that I’ve like noticed doing this job. Like if, like, for example, if you’re talking to Europeans, they, they see the world through a particular lens where they themselves are virtuous, moral, ethical. And we do the same thing in the us we’re the ones who are virtuous, we’re the ones who are right. We have a right to tell Iran they should be able to do that. We have a right to allow Israel to do this. We have a right to knock over governments.

That’s bizarre. Nobody says China has right to do any of those things. Russia’s right to defend their Borders. Oh, I can’t believe Russia is defending the borders. We have a weird. We’re the Karens of the planet, let’s just admit it. What’s in the current. It’s just strange, that’s all. This is very strange. We see ourselves in this very moral, ethical, virtuous light, and yet our government does things that are nowhere near any of those things. It’s purely about power. Human beings don’t matter in geopolitical coverage. Like, if you’re looking at accusations are certainly admissions, it would appear on every possible front.

What do you think? Just quickly, because I, I know you got a lot of other things to do, but, you know, we didn’t get the chance to talk too much about Ukraine and Russia. Now, if the US Pulls out somehow, what’s going to happen? Who’s going to fill that power vacuum? Do you think that Europe has enough to get right up there and play that role? Do you really think they’re going to put troops on the ground? How is this going to end? Because it seems. It seems like they’re really. And even Trump is reluctant. Like, my thinking is if he could walk, he would have.

There’s got to be something in there that’s holding him on that front that is not being disclosed. Or perhaps he knows that it’s integral to the global power structure economically with US Hegemony, you know, perhaps there’s something to do with the euro and the USD and, you know, there’s something keeping him there. Otherwise, you know, especially after that display in the White House, I mean, that was the ticket, you know, that was the ticket to get out of Dodge. But I think Trump wants a deal. I really do think it was down. He wants a deal.

I think, like, I think he ran the campaign saying, I’m going to get a deal, I’m going to get a deal, I’m going to get a deal. I think he wants a deal. And I think the level of criticism that would happen if he just walks, like, it’s one thing. If he walked on day one. Right. We are like 100 days in the criticism that will be leveled at Trump if he just calls it quits, I think would just be astonishing. He should have done it in the beginning as opposed to this, whatever he’s doing. I mean, he.

Either he doesn’t fundamentally understand the Russian position, because if so, I don’t know if it’s possible for US President to give Russia what they want, because from their point of view, they’ve won. Like, we are winning this. You’ve Thrown everything at us and we kept going and we powered through it. You’ve. We stated openly that our objective was to destroy the Russian economy and inflict a strategic defeat militarily. Okay, you didn’t do any of those things. Europe is being de industrialized and on top of that, the Russian economy is more like 4%. That’s astonishing. They moved into like the fourth or fifth spot for the GDP thing.

We weren’t able to accomplish objectives. And not just not able to accomplish objectives. One of our allies was damaged in the process. Even though they still keep plugging along. I have great reservations about whether Europe is going to put like a trillion dollars together to make a European military in the way that they’re talking about doing it on the fly, purely through debt. If you look at governments like Germany and France, the AfD in Germany has moved into like the number two space. That is astonishing. Ten years ago that would have been unheard of. And even Marie Le Pen’s party, where they have to do all of these gimmicks in order to keep Le Pen out, including getting rid of her, effectively saying, hey, you can no longer run because you’ve gotten a conviction.

Okay, that’s astonishing. Like, this is all over Europe, Romania, Carl and Gogetzuku, where they literally shut down the election as he’s about to win it, because he is effectively saying, I don’t want a US military base in Romania. We do not want to be a platform to attack Russia. And just. Sorry to interrupt you, but just to say they must know that there’s going to be a reprisal for that, because it doesn’t take a Nostradamus to know that if you engage in that form of lawfare, not only against Le Pen, but in Romania, that there’s going to be a resurgence that’s not going to make people, you know, just go down without a fight.

I mean, people are going to. Those movements are going to get more popular. So it almost makes me think that there’s a certain window of time that they have to operate, whether it’s in the next four years or whatever to do whatever it is they want to do. But. Sorry to interrupt you. I just wanted to. No, you’re perfect. Because they must be aware of delusional. I think they are in full blown delusion. I think they are shocked that the US who said, we’re with you for as long as it takes, almost overnight, it’s like, yeah, we’re getting out and browbeat Zelensky, like in the White House, like, effectively you have no cards.

You have no cards. We’re trying to help you. You don’t have any cards. And then makes those mineral deal where he’s effectively colonizing Ukraine. Like it? I would imagine their head is spinning. And I’ll tell you, my head was stuck on even the people who I was bringing on. No, please, no. It’s. It’s Stockholm syndrome with Europe. I mean, what other choice do they have? I used to think that they want Papa America to help, which is why Macron and Starmer kept coming to the US Saying, hey, Trump, would you give us security guarantees? Trump’s like, nope.

If you want to go fight the Russians, God bless. We’re not getting involved in your third world war. We’re not doing it. Have fun dying. In which case that means they know. They fully know they will die. They will lose. You would have original missiles hitting European capitals. They will die. And so this notion of putting the troops in, if they’re stupid enough to do that, God bless. In fact, Russia keeps sending a message to that, by the way, like the restaurant that they hit, there were NATO troops, or at the very least, NATO people associated with the NATO in that restaurant.

With Ukrainians using human shields of the restaurant and the people in that restaurant. Russia hit it and then apparently hit the hospital that they were taking them to. Okay, anywhere you are, we will find you and you will die. That seems to be the message that’s happening. When Mark Root was in Odessa, they hit that after he left. Okay, again, here’s a point. The Sumi strike again. Anywhere you go, you would die. That seems to be the message that they are trying to send. They will be insane to put European troops in Ukraine. It could be a bluff in order to keep negotiations from going.

And what this means, though, is that Russia keeps going to the border of Poland, where they take all of Ukraine, which Europe is going to have a collective S fit at that point. No. If Trump leaves Ukraine, military will collapse, full stop. Whether it takes a year, whether it takes a year and a half, it may not even take that long. They will collapse. And at that point, they get the what they want, kind of. Do you think? I think what they wanted was a negotiated settlement where there is not this hostility on their border. Whereas now Europe is in full, just historic.

And they’re like, we’re going to bury the military. We can’t depend on the United States. We can’t trust the U.S. we got to work with Zelensky. We’ve got to fight to the last dead Ukrainian. And it’s like, dude, you’re losing Ukraine. They cannot support this war effort without the U.S. well, the crazy thing is, is that they really do seem to, at least the powers that be there seem to view Russia as a legitimate threat. And I, I know, you know, you’ve had a lot of guests on who really try to present the Russian narrative in a, in a fair light.

And, but what do you make of the, the red lines that Russia has permitted the west to overstep? They appear to be demonstrating a, you know, profound forbearance in terms of their strategy. Like they seem to be absorbing blow after blowing ones that we long since would have likely pushed a red button. You know, I mean, if, if anybody was launching cruise missiles into the United States from Mexico, I mean, that nuclear button would have been pushed a long time ago. So I guess my question is like, I can see a world in which they permit troops maybe being in some part of like the western Ukraine, like maybe in Lviv, Lvov, whatever, and in some capacity.

But I guess there’s two questions here. I just wanted to express that point, but also, you know, why is Europe so distrusting of the Russians? Because, like, I mean, the Russia could provide them cheap gas, they could provide them cheap energy, they could fuel like a re industrialization of Europe. Without Russia, that doesn’t happen. So for the first one, because Putin is far more pragmatic than they give him credit for. And what I mean by that is if you, under the Western narrative, Putin invaded Ukraine with 150,000 troops with the objective of taking over all of Europe with 150.

It’s just outrageous. It’s nonsense. He does not want to start a war with NATO. And there are concerns that if he. Well, there are two things. A, they consider Ukraine brothers does that, especially East Ukraine. And so this idea of the goal was not to kill Ukrainians Banderites. Yes, they need to die. That’s their point of view. We’re going to shoot each one in the face. But from the standpoint of destroying Ukraine, no. I mean, they were even in Western reporting, honest Western reporting, they could have flattened Ukraine. Like Kiev could be a dumpster fire, meaning they could have done to Ukraine what Israel did to Gaza.

I mean, if they wanted to, they didn’t do it. That wasn’t their objective, the special military operation. And I know people, it’s invasion, it is an invasion. And I know they say it’s a war, it’s a war now. But in the beginning it was supposed to be a finite operation. And if you Remember, in the beginning, they had the Istanbul memorandums, basically, hey, we’re coming to a deal and we’re going to end this. And you get Boris Johnson jumping in saying, no, you’re not. You’re going to keep fighting. You’re going to keep fighting. We’re going to get our weapons, we’re going to give air intelligence, we’re going to give you all the money, we’re going to give you all that stuff.

We’re going to beat them economically while you beat them militarily. And Zelensky pulled out. Okay, fair enough. Three. Three years later, Right. They are not trying to start a war. And I think there’s a concern in Moscow that if they get too hard, NATO actually may get involved, in which case you get this kind of odd escalation of sorts between the Biden administration and Russia. Biden puts something in Russia counters. Biden puts something in, Russia counters. But never going full tail in the way that you would expect a military to do. So it’s almost like they kept a limited point of view in this, but the aperture is opening.

Like their willingness for casualties is expanding as the war expands. I mean, for God’s sake, they had a hospital. Like, that is outrageous. Now, Ukraine has been bombing civilians, even from the Donets thing, like from the Donbass. But that’s part of the reason why this war started in the first place. The west doesn’t necessarily report it, but Ukraine had killed, like 14,000 ethnic Russian Ukrainians. The world, for the most part, paid no attention. The British, I think the UK covered it slightly. The US Even covered it slightly, but nobody actually cared. So it never really came up because, after all, they’re Russians.

Like, it’s. It’s a weird lens. But the second question that one is harder to answer because I think some people would say this has been going on before Napoleon, like these wars, and you’re where Russia fights on the side of the uk Then they’re fighting against Russia, and then back and forth. And you get these Napoleonic wars where they go back and forth, where this seems to be just seeded in the European consciousness in the way that they engage. And they have internalized the nonsense stab in the back myth, to use a turn of a phrase, that Russia is purely the aggressor.

The Putin is cartoonish as a villain. Ukraine did nothing wrong. They were just standing there holding a dandelion line, and they are moral, ethical, and made of light. Okay, this is nonsense. This is nonsense. Like you had. Putin was standing out there like a preacher begging for Security guarantees. And it was like, you don’t get security guarantees. You’re. You know, the Soviet Union fell apart. When they fell apart, they were basking cases. You don’t. You don’t get the respect in this way. The mixed agreements, the agreements that were supposed to end the war end up being where Hollande and Merkel comes out.

We never believed in those agreements. We lied. We tricked Putin in these. And the agreements that were supposed to end or stop a war were used to build up the largest military in Europe that just so happens to be on the Russian border. And then they would say, well, the Russian troops are at the border. They were at the border because the Ukrainian troops were on the border about to invade the Donbass region and go on a killing spree. The way they talked about this is nonsense. They banned opposition parties, ban opposition media. They’re like, oh, no, it’s a free, democratic country.

How you’re going after the Russian language, the Russian church, like you’re taking all of these provocative actions. There was a color revolution with Yushenko in 2008. Okay, fair enough. They overthrew the government. The first person they put in was Stefan Bandera as hero of Ukraine, a rabid Nazi. Fast forward to Yanukovych. Yanukovych eventually wins. They eventually take him out in a coup. They called it a revolution of dignity, but it was a coup. You literally took the guy out. The reason it took him out is because there was a deal on the table for the EU that was in no way in Ukraine’s interest.

Yanukovych was like, I want to pause on that. And at the point the match was lit, you had European American leaders, John McCain standing arm and arm with the Nazis, saying, hey, this is great. We should overthrow this government. You had the CIA all throughout Ukraine, even admitted by the New York Times, meaning there was an expressed campaign. Hell, you can listen to Vitorin Nuland’s phone call, the FDEU conversation, where they were effectively talking about overthrowing the government of Ukraine and who they were going to put in that government. This cartoonish version that Putin just did it because he wants to take over all of Europe, and he’s going to be rummaging through the UK And France and all this is nonsense.

It’s nonsense. It’s. It almost seems like rejection. They’ve internalized that thought. I mean, that’s the thing that they’ve seeded into their population. Joe Biden seeded it here in the United States over and over again. And it’s like when you said, this stuff like that, gears, years, you pass all these sanctions, you do all this stuff. It’s frustrating to me because the only way it could be explained, in my opinion, is, is it is projection. They in fact want to see Russia destroyed and balkanized. I mean. Oh, and they want access to the resources. They don’t want to pipeline.

They want to own the, you know, the input of the pipeline itself. Yeah, it appears, because Europe needs that in order to survive the next century. I mean, they need Russian energy. They can’t survive on lng. They can’t survive even on, you know, oil shipments from the Middle east that are like flipping a coin. You know, this is their one opportunity. And I, I mean, I’m of the persuasion that they must want the existential defeat of Russia to impose, you know, their own puppet dictator into that government and leverage that and exploit the resources. I mean, you are making a fantastic point.

Like if you remember when Yeltsin was in power and they effectively just raped the country, you know, at the point, you know, where you had this kind of collapse of the Soviet Union and you know, there was this thing of this communique that was going through the thing. If we fall apart, we won’t move an inch to the east, they move to the border. Like they are literally trying to militarily surround the country to get this kind of theta complete in case something pops off. And so if you’re a Russian leader and you’re looking at this and you’re like, all right, so you’re expanding to the point where you’re like literally getting to the point where you’re on my border and you’re trying to put Ukraine on my border with this NATO stuff, this military organization.

How am I supposed to regard this? How am I supposed to regard this? Right. You destroy it. Yugoslavia in this bombing thing. You went into Iraq. We couldn’t stand against you because at the time we were somewhat of a basket case. How are we to regard this? Then you have the shock capitalism thing where these oligarchs come into play. Like there’s a history, there’s a context that this fits in. You’re absolutely right, by the way, because I kept like, it’s clear that they are destroying themselves and doing this. You can see their economies taking a hit.

You can see paying 5 times more for LNG from the US is not sustainable. And yet they were doing it because Joe Biden got to push them into doing it. If they won though, well, that’s different. If you have a long term strategy of trying to Balkanize Russia to make it smaller components. Okay, well, now this is no longer an issue. You can get your hand on those resources. You can get it where. Meaning it’s very possible that they’re willing to do this because ultimately you’re right that the end goal is Balkan as the country. What is her name? Kayla’s.

That nutcase from Estonia. Yeah. She said the same thing. Like, it’s too big. It’s too big. It’s a threat. It’s too big. We got to break it up. Good luck with that. Good luck with that. There’s never a dull moment in 2025, and I would strongly encourage people to go and check out your channel and subscribe because you got excellent guests and very prolific. I mean, how many people do you interview every day? It seems like you got two or three videos cranking out a day. It’s crazy. At least. So at least three that I try.

Unless something goes awry and trying to get a guess, it could be as much as five. Where it’s what, like 30 minute interviews in the morning? Back to back? Yeah, it’s. It’s amazing because, like, there are larger shows and my show is growing. I had stopped doing the Internet for a while. I, like, literally went into radio for like, five years and stopped. And I came back and the audience came back like they didn’t entirely leave. And that just didn’t leave. It just started to explode. And what’s wild about it is, like, there’s some guests who are just fantastic.

Mark Zabota is one of the best analysts, analysts on the subject of Russia and Ukraine. It’s fantastic. He, like, he knows his stuff like nobody’s business. And you have many guests who are like that, who are not necessarily mainstream, who may not be on Napolitano and some of these other shows, but are better than anybody you’re going to get on Napolitano. Yeah. And I guess Larry Johnson’s fantastic. Many of these people that they interview, so I’m not throwing shade on him, but it’s like it’s the similar thought over and over and over again on the shows.

And I tried to look. We have conflicting opinions on the show. On the show, like, you may have somebody like a libertarian, socialist, capitalist, like communists, like all of these people in between, you have people who are. Have a darker view of the political space. Like Leif, I think, has a more darker. Leif Maruth. Yeah. Some other people who are more hopeful. So, like, Michael Bullock is more hopeful. He’s been in Secretary of Defense in that position. Or in that area, like as a policy expert for like 30 years. So you get a mix of views.

I think for me, my, my point of view develops along with the guests. Like there are some I just completely disagree with. Right. Like, I remember getting to back and forth with Mark’s little book with Mark Frost. He’s a friend of the show. He’s a libertarian. I think he’s called himself a reform libertarian. He’s like. But a capitalist through and through. Like in his bones, he’s a capitalist. Where him and I were going back and forth over the issue of the terrafor. Like, it’s not an echo chamber. They’re going to be people who I may disagree with.

I let them make their points, I may push back on their points. I’m not going to be overly aggressive on. Unless it’s just something outlandish where I’m like, dude, are you out of your mind? But it’s an interesting show. It’s developed into a very interesting thing and it is growing so. Well, people want, if people want truth, I mean, you have to be willing to listen to a plethora of different opinions. I mean, yeah, I, you know, to my own dismay, I listened to Times Radio periodically just to get the other perspective. Right. It’s its own form of sadism in a lot of ways.

But you know, you have to be willing to hear the other side to get a well rounded perspective. Even if you’re just thinking strategically, you might not even ever care to agree with the other side or even sympathize with the other side. But even strategically, you should know what their points are, you know, like you should be able to. And this is why I’ll always steel man my own arguments and I’ll listen to people I just don’t agree with. And it’s almost, you know, as an intellectual game of sorts, you know, challenge myself to expose myself to those viewpoints that, that is a form of masochism in itself.

I must say. We could be wrong, right? Like we could be wrong. It’s. I think I even said it like I could be wrong. I don’t. Like, I, this is my take, but it’s just a take. It’s the narrative that I’ve constructed in my mind based on the way I see the events. At some point, like somebody can pick out, say, wait a minute, wait a minute, that’s not quite right. Like you’re getting that point kind of wrong. We could be wrong. We’re just people and things are moving so fast. And I think your, your proliferation of content is essential and it’s inspiring me to kind of do a bit more because things are changing from, you know, hour to hour.

And really the only way you can keep it relevant and keep it, keep your finger on the pulse of it is if you are creating, you know, the content that you’re doing, like live streamed stuff. And so, yeah, I encourage people to check it out because it just keeps getting better. So I do appreciate that. All right. I really do. Well, thanks for coming out and I look forward to doing this again anytime you want me. All right. You have a goal and be safe. You too. Appreciate this. Get some rest. I know, right? Actually, I gotta cut videos, so.

All right. There you go. That’s what it is. That’s fine. No sleep? No, thank you. The best way to support this channel is to support yourself by gearing up@canadianpreparedness.com where you’ll find high quality survival gear at the best prices. No junk and no gimmicks. Use discount code prepping gear for 10 off. Don’t forget the strong survive but the prepared thrive. Stay safe.
[tr:tra].

See more of Canadian Prepper on their Public Channel and the MPN Canadian Prepper channel.