➡ Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, a renowned economist and geopolitical expert, discusses the current peace negotiations involving the U.S., Ukraine, Iran, and China. He compares the current situation to the Cold War era, highlighting the shift in American foreign policy after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Roberts criticizes the U.S.’s approach of issuing threats and sanctions, which he believes is unrealistic and risky. He also expresses skepticism about the legitimacy of the peace negotiations, suggesting they may increase the likelihood of war.
➡ The text discusses the potential shift in American foreign policy, particularly regarding its global dominance. It suggests that President Trump may be moving away from this approach, as indicated by a speech he gave in Saudi Arabia. However, the text also questions whether this is a genuine shift or a strategic move to confuse or unbalance other nations. The discussion also touches on the complex relationships between the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and the potential implications of these dynamics.
➡ The text discusses the geopolitical complexities involving Russia, China, Iran, and the United States. It suggests that Russia and China would not allow attacks on Iran due to their strategic interests. The text also discusses the potential consequences of a war with Iran, suggesting it could lead to a major defeat for the U.S. The author believes that a joint mutual defense agreement between Russia, China, and Iran could prevent wars, but questions why such an agreement hasn’t been made yet.
➡ The article discusses the idea that the U.S. is trying to withdraw from conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East to focus on China, which is seen as a stronger opponent. This strategy, suggested by Wes Mitchell, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense, involves using peace negotiations as a way to exit these conflicts. However, the article also questions the feasibility of a direct military conflict with China, suggesting that the U.S. might instead try to undermine China’s alliances and economic interests. The article ends by questioning how the U.S. plans to manage this shift in focus.
➡ The text discusses potential military conflicts involving the U.S., Iran, China, and Russia. It suggests that the U.S. may be planning to engage in smaller regional wars to boost military recruitment and prepare for larger conflicts. The text also mentions the possibility of the U.S. trying to buy off Asian countries to contain China. It further discusses the idea of Russia seeking a grand settlement with the West, and the potential consequences of the U.S. pulling out of conflicts in the Middle East.
➡ The article discusses Israel’s concerns about the potential nuclear agreement between Iran and the U.S., with Israel firmly believing Iran should not have any enrichment capabilities. The author suggests that official narratives are often misleading and encourages readers to think critically and prepare for unexpected outcomes. The author also emphasizes the importance of seeking alternative sources of information and not relying solely on mainstream media.

The negotiations make no sense. You don’t conduct serious negotiations in the media. They are intended to fail. And Trump then can walk away from Ukraine. We started this war. We are the ones who overthrew the Ukrainian government, built up a Ukrainian army, forced Russian intervention. Washington wants out of the conflict so it can focus on China. China is viewed to be the strongest opponent. If people don’t do what we want, we, we either bomb them or we plot to overthrow them, start proxy wars with them. They’re trying to control the way people think so they can control agendas.

It’s a charade, it’s an act, it’s a stage managed show. People should be prepared for things to come unglued. 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. Foreign folks, Canadian prepper Here today we’re joined by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts. He’s a distinguished economist and geopolitical expert. You can learn more about him at paulcraigroberts.org he was the United States Assistant Secretary of the treasury for Economic policy under President Ronald Reagan.

Today I hope to discuss the legitimacy of the current peace negotiations involving the U.S. administration, Ukraine, Iran and China. And what is the prospect for peace and how might it all go badly? Now, before we got talking here, I floated a question to you about how this time might differ from when you were assisting President Reagan in office because many people in this generation are far removed from the Cold War. Do you think that this time is there similarities? Are we in a, a more tumultuous time than we were then? I mean, Reagan had Star Wars, Trump has the golden dome.

It appears as though there’s a lot of similarities, only this time it looks like Russia’s on the come up as opposed to the Soviet Union being on the down side. Do you ever think about, you know, similarities, is history repeating here or what’s going on? Okay, you ask a very perceptive question and I welcome it. The huge difference, and is a huge one between Reagan’s time and our confrontation with the Soviet Union then and the one today is that in the Reagan years, this was prior to the neoconservative doctrine of American hegemony. Washington knew full well that they did not have any hegemony, that the Soviet Union was there militarily as powerful as we were, and there was no bossing them around, no bullying.

And so this had been actually the situation for a long Time and prior administrations. And so the focus of American governments, all of them, Kennedy, Nixon, all of them, was to lessen the tensions between the two nuclear powers, to find ways to build trust, to find ways to make it less likely that something would go amidst and these nuclear weapons would be used. Now this was the lesson of the Cuban Missile crisis. Everyone realized that if it hadn’t been for John Kennedy, withstanding the pressures of the American military and CIA, it could have been the end of the world.

So there were big efforts. Nixon, for example, often regarded as a warmonger, was a great peacemaker. He achieved numerous agreements with the Soviets, the salt, you know, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, the SALT Treaty, the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, he opened to China, he stopped the conflict that we had with the Chinese. We removed Taiwan from the Security Council and put China on. So things were developing in a very favorable way. By the time of Reagan, it was. And Gorbachev, who was a big departure from the old line Soviet leaders, there was a chance for mutual understanding and laying down the arms and peace.

And this was Reagan’s goal. Well, what happened? Why did it work out bad? It worked out bad because the Soviet Union collapsed. And a lot of people think that Reagan collapsed it, which is a lie. It happened three years after Reagan left office. And it happened because the hardline members in the Politburo in the Soviet Union decided that Gorbachev was opening up to the west too rapidly without precautions, he was giving up too much. And that this was a mistake to trust the west when you don’t have all kinds of solid Britain agreements and treaties. And so they placed him under house arrest.

So the President of the Soviet Union was arrested by his own government. Well, that caused mayhem to break out. And it led to yelp to the rise of Yeltsin, who drank a lot and essentially became an American puppet. And so the collapse of the Soviet Union gave rise to the American neoconservatives doctrine of hegemony. They said, look, the only country able to restrain us is gone. We now have hegemony over the world. Well, that view was foreign to America because obviously we didn’t have hegemony when the Soviet Union was there. And so this has resulted in a complete change in approach.

We now still regard ourselves as the rightful rulers of the world. And if people don’t do what we want, we either bomb them or we plot to overthrow them, or we put sanctions on them like Russia. We start proxy wars with them, as we did in Ukraine. We’re now trying to plan another proxy war against Russians in Georgia, a former Soviet republic. And we’re putting all kinds of threats and pressures on Iran and China. Well, this is the new element in American foreign policy. It originated in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed. Paul Wolfowitz, the undersecretary of defense, wrote the Wolfowicz Doctrine, which says the principal goal of American foreign policy is to prevent the rise of any country that could serve as a constraint on American unilateralism.

Well, as you can see, this type of mindset that we have the right to dictate to other countries how they’re supposed to behave is full of risk of wars and it’s highly unrealistic. There’s no possible way the United States can dictate to Russia or China or even Iran. And yet this is the approach. If you look at Trump, he says, I’m making peace. But what he’s doing is issuing threats. He continues to issue threats to Russia, to China, to Iran. It’s either he’s going to attack Iran or prevent them from selling oil. He’s put more sanctions on Russia, he’s going to sanction China.

I mean, it’s sort of mindless and it’s very, very dangerous. And so all of the trust that a series of American presidents built up over the decades has been flushed down the toilet. Wow. I don’t think Putin has any trust for anything Trump says or Washington says. The Chinese, I think, just ignore us. They just assume they’re going to outlast us. It doesn’t matter what we say and do. We are expiring and they are rising. And that’s their attitude. You know, why get in a confrontation with them? It’s not worth it. They’re disappearing anyhow and we are rising.

The Iranians, they seem to be saying, well, you know, we’re sovereign. We don’t follow orders. We can make agreements, but only on a mutual basis. We don’t get agreements imposed on us. None of that is going to happen. So I think that these so called peace negotiations are, are pointless. They’re just more likely to make war possible. And certainly you can’t have a peace negotiation about Ukraine if Putin and Trump aren’t there. You see, this is our war. It’s blamed on Russia, but it’s America’s war. We started this war. We are the ones who overthrew the Ukrainian government, built up a Ukrainian army, sicced it on Donbas, forced Russian intervention.

There was that article in New York Times about a month ago. I believe it was planted on them by the CIA and It said, it admitted that from the very start, Ukrainian war was an American operation. We organized it. We planned every battlefield decision, every missile launch, every zone launch. In fact, we launched them because only we know how to use the equipment and have the GPS system. So it’s been our war. So how do you end it? By giving threats to Putin when he’s prevailing on the battlefield. So it’s. It’s a form of absurdity. It really doesn’t make any sense.

And what really strikes me about it is that the whole world acts like they don’t see it, that, oh, it’s all Putin’s fault, or Putin will be blamed for a lack of an agreement. So that, I think, is in a capsule, a summary of the difference between the 1980s and today. 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. So you think that the arrogance exhibited by not just Trump. I mean, perhaps Trump is a guy who is trying to put this puzzle together, and he’s flying by the seat of his pants, perhaps out of his league in many respects, in terms of some of these negotiations. But do you believe that this. This continuation of the Wolf was doctrine and the Project for a New American Century is.

Is going to culminate into a war or the United States getting a bleeding nose? I mean, arguably, they’ve had that with the Houthis already. What’s it going to take to put the brakes on this and revert to that multilateralism, that bipolar world that we had in the 80s where it wasn’t. It wasn’t necessarily stable. There was always the risk of nuclear war hanging overhead. But at least, as you said, we had treaties. We. We were kind of on the upside of that. And now you have these people who are a continuation of this new neoconservative philosophy, who believe that the United States existence relies on being the global hegemon and are not willing to concede any territory, even though ultimately they will be faced with that material reality.

So what is the end result of these talks going to be? I mean, you recently just wrote an article that will talk about, with respect to putting NATO troops into Ukraine. But it seems like there has to be some sort of event that puts the brakes on things and just causes a shift, like a clearly demarcated shift towards, okay, now we are in a multipolar world, and this is a new era of. It’s probably going to be a cold war. I mean, it already is, arguably. I think what has to happen is Donald Trump has to repudiate American hegemony.

He has to say, this policy is canceled. Now, I haven’t had a chance to pay close attention, but I believe he came close to that and may have started that in Saudi Arabia because he gave a speech to the ruling prince. And in the speech, he said that in the past, America had bullied and tried to impose on countries. And this was a mistake. And this. As far as the Middle east goes, the Arabs. As far as the Arabs go, this policy is over and done with. Well, I’ve got to look at that speech and think about the context and give it some thought.

But it looks to me like if he can repudiate American hegemony over the Arabs, he can do it over the Chinese and the Russians and possibly even the Iranians, though he’ll have a hard time because of Israel and that deny you. And they’ll be doing everything they can to sit on his head. But this speech he gave in Saudi Arabia is very unusual, and it has promise. So, yes, something good could happen from that. That would be my answer. But as long as the American foreign policy analysts, as long as they continue thinking in terms of American hegemony, it’s hard for the policy to change, even if the president repudiates, because it’s the way the, the, the foreign policy analysts think and act and write and advocate and interpret and.

But yes, there could be this big development. It was definitely a compelling speech. I was actually quite surprised when he sort of renounced that American exceptionalist viewpoint. And it was something to the effect of, you know, we always kind of took credit for your. Your society’s achievements, when, in fact, it’s been your culture that has been like the primary pillars of those, you know, achievements and building the wealth and the infrastructure that has allowed your society to flourish. It does. However, you know, to, to take the other side of the coin. You know, I find it.

The timing was interesting to put the brakes on the Houthi situation. It seemed like, okay, I got to make a trip to Saudi Arabia, so we’re just going to turn the tanker around for a few days, and, oh, yeah, now suddenly we’re not friends with Israel anymore. And even though the weapons shipments are flowing, and that’s kind of what I go by nowadays, I just look at. Okay, with all of this mixed messaging and contradictory statements being made, are the weapons still flowing? If they’re not, then, you know, and I guess maybe we’re making progress, but they seem to be still flowing.

So what is your take on the, the supposed enmity developing between Netanyahu and Trump? This is a story which was first pushed out by the Israeli Radio News Service or something like that. And it just kind of started to catch on that perhaps there’s some rift developing between Bibby and, and Trump. Do you believe that’s realistic? What is your take on whether or not the situation with the Houthis is going to flare up again? And this whole thing with this whole love triangle between Israel and Saudi Arabia and the Houthis in Iran? Well, I don’t know what, what to make of it.

It may simply be a cover. It may be a cover for something else. It may be intended to put Iran off balance. I, I don’t think we can know at this particular point. I always suspect stories that come out like that as a cover for some kind of policy. They don’t want you to know what’s really going on, or they’re using it to unbalance a target somewhere. So it could be possibly being used to set up Iran. On the other hand, it will be. It would be really embarrassing to Trump after that speech he made in Saudi Arabia.

If that’s part of a deception as well, it certainly won’t do President Trump any good in terms of negotiating with foreign leaders. They just will discount whatever he says. Another thing about Trump is he, he throws out all kinds of things and produces chaos. Nobody knows what, what he means or what is he going to do or what he’s going to reverse. It’s just like the terrorists. They’re on, they’re off, they’re not really there because the list of exemptions is so large, nothing is covered by the tariff. All this information comes out later. So it could just be some way.

Trump’s operating. He’s throwing out all kinds of signals. So nobody knows. That is one plausible explanation. Now, if he’s really intending. You see, Saudi Arabia is the only, I think the only remaining Arab country. We destroyed all the others for Israel, they’re destroyed, they’re gone. There’s no country in Libya. There’s no country in Syria. It’s occupied by four different powers, the Israelis, the Turks, US and, and these Jihadists. There’s no country there. Iraq? No. Libya? No. Where are the Arabs? Well, the Egyptians are not Arabs. The Iranians are Persians. They’re not Arabs. The Afghanists are not Arabs.

They’re Muslim. All these people are Muslims, but they’re not Arabs. So we have destroyed the Arab world in the 21st century. It’s destroyed what’s left, Jordan, which is a puppet of us. It’s a place where Israel has moved all the Palestinians. It’s evicted from Palestine. Lebanon is now headless. Hezbollah has been beheaded. There aren’t any Arab states. There are a few tiny little oil emirates, but they have no. They have no consequence. So if we have already destroyed the Arabs, Israel, why are we suddenly changing? Am I. Why are we. Why are we providing, what is it, $142 billion worth of weapons? What do you make of that deal? The official excuse is, I think.

I think the official excuse is that it was already approved by Biden, and these are just Biden approved things. And somehow the succeeding government can’t interfere with what the preceding government. The commitments it made. These commitments were made. And so American honor is on the table. And if we will repudiate these commitments, yeah, this works for Israel. It wouldn’t work for anybody else. But I think that’s the official excuse. How real is it? I don’t know. I don’t know. All of those laws and, and, and the way that they have been followed or not followed in the past, it seems almost like, I mean, a friend of mine who’s knows a lot about the Middle east, he seemed to think it was kind of like the kiss of death, you know, going there before things flare up, because I don’t know.

When they were parting ways, when Trump was leaving Saudi Arabia, there was a moment there where the. It was kind of like, I want to call it a heartfelt moment, but you could almost see that they’re like anxiety in the Saudi prince’s eyes, like, did I make the right decision? Do they know something is coming? Do they know, like, that is the United States? Obviously, they’re depending on them to bring a certain level of stability within that country itself. But they must have they. Looking at the global chessboard, they must be asking themselves, did we make the right decision here in terms of completely opening ourselves up to, to this neoconservative agenda, knowing what we know about the limitations and the rise of China and Russia? I don’t know, I just got the sense that, you know, perhaps this was an attempt to try to go there and quell any consternation about what might happen with Iran, make sure everybody’s on board.

I don’t know, that’s my intuition. But hopefully I’m wrong. And hopefully it is, you know, the most optimistic outcome. Well, it’s hard to know. I think that it’s impossible for Russia and China to allow attacks on Iran. It’s impossible for Russia because if China is turned into another Libya, Iraq, Syria, it will become a pathway for us to funnel jihadists into the Muslim republics inside the Russian Federation. You know, Russia is a multi cultural country and it’s got Muslim provinces like Chechnya. And so Iran is their buffer from us funneling in our mercenaries, our jihadists. And so they, they really can’t tolerate the fall of Iran.

And China gets a very large percentage of its oil from Iran and has massive investments there and really cannot tolerate losing that. You see, we already stripped China of its oil investments in Libya when we owed, through Gaddafi, China had massive oil investments in Libya. There were 30,000 Chinese there working the oil fields. They were building a port in the Mediterranean. And a lot of people think that’s one of the reasons we overthrew Gaddafi, because we didn’t want China having a port in the Mediterranean and having control over Libyan oil. And that this is the real reason that we destroyed Libya and murdered Gaddafi.

So I think. And that was some years back. Well, now China is industrially and manufacturing ahead of us. They’re far more powerful, their population’s five times ours. We can’t possibly march, match the armies in the field. There’s really nothing we can do to it. We can try to cause trouble with Taiwan, but they’ll simply ignore it because they know they have Taiwan. We, we are the ones who created the One China policy. There’s only one China, so that means there’s no Taiwan. So I think that maybe this dawned on Trump or maybe it dawned on some of his advisors that Israel is not going to attack Iran.

They want us to do it for them like we did it for them in Iraq and Syria, and they want us to do it again. And I have the feeling that even though the American military security complex would like a war because it’s profitable, more weapons, more weapons, that Trump, if he is at all serious about his domestic agenda, can’t afford to be involved in a real war. A proxy war may be in Ukraine, but not a real war where American forces are in direct conflict, particularly with Iran, because they are air defenses. As I understand it, they have the Russian S400.

So we can’t penetrate their air defenses, every plane we sent would be blown out of the sky. They have these long range hypersonic missiles that our ships can’t defend against. They can sink every one of the carriers in the region. They can hit and, and destroy all of our bases throughout the Middle East. So a war, a real war with them is likely to be a major humiliating defeat for the United States. We would simply be defeated. Now, what might save us from defeat is the Iranians refusing to fight it because they realize if they hand us the defeat, out come the nukes.

The Americans will be screaming, we got to get them, we’ve got to have revenge, blah, blah. And so they are worried they’d be nuked. Now, that could be prevented if Russia and China said their nuclear umbrella extends to Iran, but they haven’t said anything like that. All of these wars would be instantly terminated if Russia, China and Iran announced a joint mutual defense agreement. An attack on one, it’s attack on all, that’d be the end of it. All wars stop. Nobody is going to go to war with Iran, Russia and China at the same time. Why do you think they haven’t done that? I don’t know.

I don’t know. Maybe they don’t trust each other enough yet. I almost, I floated the idea that perhaps Russia kind of wants another front opened up in a way that is sustainable and not going to lead to any sort of regime change. Like you would say would destabilize their southern flank just to an extent to kind of occupy and try to deplete the United States, get them into a morass in the Middle east in which they were basically pinned down in. And then that would allow the Russians to do what they needed to do in, in Europe is because it seems like there’s even a reluctance with the Russians to engage in any sort of military agreements.

I mean, it took a long time to get that last agreement signed with the Iranians. Apparently Putin is supposed to be going there for a visit. I’m sure there’s a lot of concerns about security in light of what happened to the Hamas leader there, but. Well, on that point, I think you are off base. Okay. I think the Russians have no intent on Europe and they were forced into Ukraine by the cold shoulder that they got from Washington, NATO and the European Union. During December of 2021 through February of 2022, when Putin and Lavrov did everything they possibly could to get a mutual security agreement with the west, they pleaded, they begged, they got the complete cold shoulder and that is what forced them to intervene in Ukraine because we had equipped and built a huge army.

And it was about to be released on the two breakaway Donbass republics that Russia eventually and belatedly recognized as independent republics. These territories are, were once part of Russia herself. They were separated out of Russia by communist leaders and put for administrative or political reasons into the Russian province of Ukraine. So Ukraine has been an independent country only for 30 years. We created it when we broke up the Soviet Union. So these are Russian people and they were about to be slaughtered. And there was no way Putin could tolerate that and survive. So we forced the war.

And it was not Russia that refused agreements. It was the Biden regime, it was the eu, it was NATO. Yeah, no, I, I actually agree with that and I perhaps misspoke when I said maybe. I said Europe. I don’t actually subscribe to the notion that Russia has a broader imperialist ambition in Europe, but more so related to. Okay, we’re. Right now we’re fighting pretty much the entirety of the west inside Ukraine through the Ukrainian proxy. And if we can, if there’s another front that opens up in Iran, that would take some attention away from the United States, who’s already, it appears, trying to get out of it or trying to refocus somewhere else.

Not so much to fulfill any sort of imperialist broader ambitions in Europe, irrespective of how the war started. But just to, I mean, there’s a couple benefits. One would be right now, oil is very low. And as that’s one of Russia’s primary exports, you know, their economy will eventually start to struggle as a result of these really low oil prices. So even the Saudis, both of them kind of have a vested interest in the price of oil rising. I see you shaking your head. You disagree? Yeah, well, I don’t think Russia needs to sell any oil.

Why do they need to sell oil? Well, aren’t they one of the biggest exporters of. Isn’t that one of their biggest sources of revenue, that in natural gas? What do they need the source of revenue for? Well, I suppose they’re fighting the entirety of the west, so they have to. Well, what could they do with it, with all the sanctions? It’s the, The Russians don’t need to sell any oil. The Saudis may, but. And the oil price isn’t that low. In fact, Exxon stock is way up. They’re all. Stocks are not low. So like they need like a seventy dollar per barrel to kind of be at a level where their budget needs are fulfilled.

No, I don’t think so. The financial press in the west is useless. Here’s the situation. I think what Putin wants and I think the reason he refused to win the war, he’s let this war go on for more than three years. And I think the reason is he wants to use the war to get a grand settlement with the West. He wants another Yalta agreement. He was refused and at the end of 21, beginning of 22, trying to get a mutual agreement. And he’s fixated. He wants an agreement with the West. He wants a Yalta agreement in which everything is worked out and they can then go about their business without having to worry every day about what we’re going to do next.

So I think he’s with. I think he hopes that somehow the war will end in negotiations, and out of these negotiations he can get this new grand settlement. And Russian analysts themselves write about this. It’s in their foreign policy journals, in their newspapers. They’re all very interested in having a new Yalta. Some years ago, the Russian Academy of Sciences asked me to address them on the question of a new Yalta. So it’s been in the works there in their minds for a number of years. So that’s my explanation of why Russia, which has overwhelming military power over Ukraine, has let this puny little war go on and on and on.

He wants to use it to get a settlement. It’s not going to happen. Now, another point I would say just to. Sorry to interrupt you, but you don’t think it’s going to happen because of this kind of continuation of the neoconservative agenda. Yes, we don’t want a settlement. I think what the peace negotiations are about is they are intended to fail. And Trump then can walk away from Ukraine, but substitute Europe to continue the conflict. Washington wants out of the conflict so it can focus on China. There was a paper in Foreign affairs maybe three weeks ago now by Wes Mitchell.

He was Assistant Secretary of Defense in Trump’s first administration. He’s the business partner of Trump’s current under Secretary of Defense. And this Foreign affairs paper, now, Foreign affairs is the journal of the Council on Foreign affairs. And it’s the place where you read what our policy is. And Wes Mitchell says that what this peace process really is is sequencing our wars with Russia and China because we can’t possibly take them both on at the same time. And so we’re going to use the Ukraine negotiations to withdraw us from that conflict so that we can focus on China.

And Wes Mitchell says we’re doing that because China is viewed to be the strongest opponent and Russia the second strongest. So we will withdraw, Europe will come in and then we can focus on China. Now, this is in foreign affairs and he says this is Trump’s policy. Now, I have seen no response to this myself and John help and that’s it. And I’m trying to get some Russian foreign policy analysts to respond to it so far. Well, if that’s the case, then, well, how does Iran fit in? Well, I can see that we can’t really go to war with Iran and China at the same time.

I mean, what it would require for us to attack, much less invader, and would be every bit of force we have. So it could well be true that Trump is trying to smooth everything over in the Middle east while he pulls out of Ukraine and focuses on China. Now, alternatively, we can say that Wes Mitchell’s paper, he’s blowing smoke, doesn’t know what he’s talking about. If you haven’t seen that, you, you should go read that article in Foreign affairs this West Mitchell. Yeah, it definitely sounds interesting. I’ll definitely have to do that. So, yeah, I mean, I guess the only problem with that argument would be that I doubt that the Russians would put too much stock in any agreement that was signed with the west at that if their intention was to get some sort of deal.

I find it hard to believe at this point in time that they could ever trust anything written on a piece of paper and that they’re going to have to accomplish their goals with force. And in the end, that’s my view that. But it’s not Putin’s view. And if you look still, Putin and his foreign minister are bleeding and bleeding for negotiations. They bleed. We’re for negotiations. We’re for negotiations. But they mean by negotiations something serious, not something Trump is conducting through the media. They mean since it’s America’s war with them, that the two leaders sit down and resolve it.

It’s got nothing to do with Zelensky. He’s not even a legitimate president. His term ran out a long time ago. So it’s not even, he’s not even officially in office. So today Rubio, Rubio said today that he kind of agrees that. And I mean, you know, listening to anything that guy says is pretty much a waste of time. But he did say that they’re basically at an impasse and the only thing that could potentially change things was a face to face meeting with Putin and Trump. What do you make of this whole trying to bait Putin into coming into a NATO country on a very short notice and then saying, oh, he didn’t show up.

Ergo, they must want to continue the war because Trump declined to go. Trump said, I will go to Istanbul if Putin comes to Istanbul. And of course Putin wasn’t ever going to go. I mean, that’s just ludicrous. Putin said the same thing. I’ll go if Trump goes. And Trump never said he would go. Okay, I wasn’t aware that Putin said that. Oh, yeah, Putin said, I’ll go if Trump goes. And, and Trump said, I’ll go if Putin goes. And they, and Trump said, well, I might go. But yeah, you know, Putin has to worry about being arrested.

And why haven’t Putin and Trump met then if, if, you know, there’s got to be. I mean, because it’s not serious. It’s not serious. Yeah, it’s a charade. It’s an act. It’s a stage managed show and it’ll let us pull out. Trump can walk away. Zelensky won’t agree to anything. Putin won’t agree to anything. Oh, I wash my hands. I’m out of it. Okay. This is. Wes Mitchell said in Foreign affairs, this is how we can focus on the bigger enemy, which he says is channel Now. I’m actually in agreement with almost everything you say, but I’m trying to steel man the argument and play the devil’s advocate just to make sure that we’re covering our, our analytical bases here in terms, really, I’m just reporting.

I’m just reporting. Wes Mitchell, what he said. And if you look at does kind of fit what we’re seeing, doesn’t it? Look, I’ve made the point for the longest time that Trump can stop the conflict in Ukraine immediately. All he has to do is say no more weapons, no more money, no more diplomatic cover. Then what’s Zelensky going to do? Well, and that’s, that’s the question. You’ll have to do whatever Putin tells him. Or they already know what Putin wants. Yeah. I mean, or they do something crazy to try to ramp. Nothing they can do. There’s nothing they can do.

You don’t think they have any cards up their sleeve, eh? Attack a nuclear power plant, do something crazy like that. Well, it’d be the end of Ukraine. Yeah, I mean, the Russians are showing a remarkable. All Trump has to do is say we’re out of it. It’s not my war. I didn’t start it. I can’t get agreements. I’m going home. There’s definitely a reluctance of him to do that which perhaps signifies that, you know, like you said, this is a bit of a Kabuki theater of sorts. It’s a facade. And in terms of then looking at China, if that is the main focus, if we go by that theory, would we initiate a conflict in the Taiwan Strait? Or is the safer bet from the neoconservative point of view is to go asymmetrically at their.

Which undermining the Chinese economy by starting something with Iran? I mean, I think that’s where the energy is flowing. It seems as though that because to get in a direct conflict with China over Taiwan, that seems like suicide at this point. Like, I mean I, I just can’t see them doing that asides maybe building up their forces in that region. I just can’t see them. Especially when you got the chip manufacturing there and all that stuff. What is your take? Where do you think the next thing is going to flare up? What I noticed is that although Wes Mitchell talks about how this extracts us from the conflict with Russia by turning it over to Europe, he doesn’t say how we’re going to have a conflict with China.

What are we going to do? Well, obviously we’re not going to send an army. If you send an army into 1,300,000,000 people, it would simply disappear, be engulfed. Are we going to launch nuclear weapons? They’re going to come back at us because China used to have them too. And most likely the Russians won’t stand for it. So we’ll get the Russian ones on top of those coming our way. So how is this conflict with China going to happen? Any of our navy in the Taiwan Straits will be instantly destroyed by Chinese missiles. There won’t be a single American ship afloat.

What is tiny little Taiwan? It’s a speck on China. What is it going to do? It can’t do anything. So it doesn’t really make any sense. I think what they mean is they’re going to go in and use money that they’re wasting in Ukraine and with Israel and try to buy the Asian governments in him, China in by buying off the governments that are cooperating with China, the Silk Road and, and the rest. Or maybe they’re going to use the money to try to buy China out of Africa where they’re doing things and, and in Panama where they’re doing things and probably elsewhere in South America.

So it could be it’s a way of, of getting attention refocused on China, how to block them, how to use the money to pay people not to cooperate with them. Anymore and that sort of thing now I just, I’m just speculating, but off the cuff it’s the only thing I can think of that we could do because I don’t think we could possibly engage in a military conflict with them is especially on their own territory. So what else can you do? And I think that to try to go China through Iran, to deny it oil, the Russians will just compensate.

So but again, as we, as I said earlier, if we get into war with Iran, we are going to get our head handed to us. We’ll be defeated if they fight. But do you think that maybe the plan is they know that because if you look at the state of the American military, I mean there has to be something to, I mean Hagseth is on this campaign to try to make it cool to be in the army again. And it doesn’t seem like it’s generating the returns that they thought it would because I think they’re trying to get recruitment up.

They understand the situation. They almost need a more smaller regional war to stimulate that in order to prepare for the bigger war, I would think. So maybe they’re thinking, okay, we go into Iran, we or maybe Israel, it starts things off by doing some strikes, Iran responds. Then of course we have to come to the rescue, right? Because you know, Israel is just helpless. And, and then of course now we’re in a situation where we have to boost our recruitment and we have some rally around the flag moment because of some false flag or maybe real or imagined event.

Who knows? It just seems like they’re, you know, if they’re really serious about going up against China, there has to be some impetus to expand the military in a very significant way. Well, if you want to know the truth, there’s no way we can expand the military sufficiently to be able to go against China. Certainly not troops because they have three times population, not five times our population. Moreover, as all the news has reported for the longest time, of all American men of fighting age, of military age, only 25% of them are qualified for service. The the rest are either so obese or they’ve got mental problems, they’ve been vaccinated to death, they’ve got all kinds of vaccinated associated illnesses, they’ve got their own drugs.

We have 25% of the military aid population that qualifies for military service. You talked about how NATO plans on deploying troops to Ukraine and that Keith Kellogg had revealed that there is a plan to actually do that. Do you think that they’re actually going to put troops in there. And what do you think the result of that is going to be? Well, look, it follows from what West Mitchell said in Foreign Affairs. He said the peace process in Ukraine, it’s being used so we can withdraw and focus on. On China. But we’re not giving up the war because we put the.

The Europeans are going to go in to conduct it in place of us. So, yes, if the Europeans are going in, this is why the countries that Kellogg named out, let’s see, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and there was another Poland, Poland. They’re going to send troops to Ukraine to be sure that Russia continues to be occupied in a conflict which Putin let go on for so long, that this could happen. You know, I said three years ago, if you don’t win this war immediately, it’s going to get wider and wider and wider and you’re going to lose control.

I was right. It’s exactly what’s happened. So it fits perfectly with what Wes Mitchell wrote, unless I completely misunderstood him. Maybe I read the words backwards or something. But what he said, this fits perfect. Yes, we’re getting out. Our focus is shifting to China. As far as I can tell, there’s no way it’s going to be a military. We’ll keep all the stuff going in Taiwan, of course. But what I think the plan would be is what I said. We’ll use our money that we’re wasting in Ukraine, wasting in Israel, and try to purchase the governments away from China.

That’s traditionally the way we operate. We simply buy people. We buy the leaders of countries and then we own them. And so I think this would be our approach to China. We would be buying Vietnam and Laos and, and whatever the countries are now. You know, they’ve all, you know, Thailand, they all had names changed after decolonization. And I went to school before the names were changed, so I still know the old names. So there you have it. I think that it fits. Now, is this going to happen? I don’t know. I’m just putting it out there.

There’s something to watch. It’s a different way of looking at it than the way the official narratives. The way the media presents things is false, actually. Narratives, they’re trying to control the way people think so they can control agendas. So you can’t believe a word in the print TV media. I actually think what you’re saying is optimistic view. I mean, as good as it’s going to get, really, if we can pull out of Ukraine and then just try to buy off some Asian countries and Hope that, you know, we can continue to contain China in that respect without it going kinetic.

I mean, really, and possibly extract ourselves from the Middle east. Then that would be an ideal situation. But wait a minute. But that, that’s just temporary beginning. Right? That’s the beginning. Then we go back and help the Europeans finish off Russia and then China is weakened and frustrated and then we find a way to deal with them. So no, the article and Foreign Affairs, I think uses the phrase that we have to sequence our wars with Russia because we can’t fight them at the same time. So we have to sequence our wars. So this, this is just the way we go about sequencing and, and weakening them.

So the war will go on in Ukraine and the missiles and drones will continue to hit inside Russia and this will eventually cause the population to lose confidence in the government. I mean, you’re aware that it was recently that all four Moscow airports had to be closed because they were. The drone attack. Well, this has to be humiliating for Russians. Humiliating. So where’s the red line then? When does Putin finally lay the smackdown? I think when he gives up his crazy idea, if he indeed has this idea of getting a new yalter from the west, getting a grand settlement.

You know, if you look at this whole thing, that’s always been the central element in my view. He wants a grand settlement with the West. He didn’t want to win a war that he could use for a grand settlement. What in the world is Russia ending a war? Negotiating instead of military victory? They can win the damn war any minute if they want to. Do you think they’re trying to. Russia’s own military people have complained he won’t let us fight. Right. Are they trying to attrit the Europeans and the Americans? Is that, is this an attritional.

They’re not trying to trip or trick anybody. They want like a trip the west to say, okay, we accept you, we’ll leave you alone. Yeah, no, that’s not, not, not trick, but to a trit. So to try to slowly deplete them of military capability, is that possibly a strategy? Well, I think this is in the heads. They, they, you know, if you read the Foreign affairs article, you see, Wes Mitchell says the reason Russia is the weakest of our two main enemies is that we have depleted them in the Ukraine conflict. They’re depleted and this is, well, this is nonsense.

That may be Wes Mitchell’s idea. It’s nonsense. How are they depleted? You know, the weapons we send the Ukrainians, they haven’t any chance against the Russian weapons, they all get destroyed almost immediately. Well, I guess the question is, if, if we’re already shooting missiles and drones into Russia, we’ve already crossed that red line. Why haven’t they sent more advanced weapons if, if it’s not really going to do much to raise the bar anyways, like, why not send them some Jason’s or some, you know, something else? Well, you mean nukes? Maybe. Maybe that’s the only thing left.

I don’t know. Yeah, I think we’ve sent them everything. It doesn’t matter what we send them. The original intent of the neocons with the maiden revolution and building the army and forcing Russia to enter Donbass, formerly part of Russia, was to create a war that together with the sanctions the policymakers in Washington thought would weaken Russia and that weakening the government would result in Putin being replaced. So this was the original notion, but of course, the sanctions were a great boon to Russia. It forced them out of globalism into independence. So they’re not dependent on the world economy, they’re not dependent on globalism, they’re not dependent on imports.

So we did them a great favor. Yeah, it’s definitely in the short term, made them a lot stronger. And so it’s now a situation where they don’t need the world, so. And we send in mercenaries and all of that. And so they got the North Koreans and said, well, we can do that too. Could I just ask you one more question about. Because we didn’t really talk too much about Netanyahu and what the Israelis might do if Trump attempts to pull out and extricate the US from this Houthi situation and the Iranian situation. What do you think Israel is going to do? I recently was reading a write up in the Jerusalem Post that states that Israel is deeply concerned, concerned about the emerging nuclear agreement between Iran and the United States.

According to two sources, Israel’s stance remains firm that Iran should not be allowed to possess any enrichment capabilities, even for civilian purposes. Meanwhile, two Western officials informed the Post that progress has been made in the talks. So what does Israel do if it looks like the US Is about to get out of dodge? Well, they can’t do anything. Israel doesn’t want any agreement because they want us to attack Iran. So you don’t think they’ll do it independently? How, how they go? Well, you’re going to use their nukes, maybe. Are they going to nuclear attack Iran? I think that would be the end of Israel.

It would just be. By now the world has to be fed up with them and if they start using Newts, I think, you know, the Russians would say, we better take those fools out. They’re crazy. And that’d be the end. Israel, it only take one Russian Newt and Israel would be gone forever. I don’t think Israel can do anything. They’ve never done it. We do it for them. And if Trump is refusing to do it this time, I don’t know that he is. As I said, this may all be a cover. They may be putting Iran off guard.

I don’t know. Fair enough. But if Trump actually, he has an incentive, if Wes Mitchell is right, Trump’s incentive is to cool things down in the Middle east so we can deal with China. Okay, so just like if, if West Mitchell is right and we’re getting out of the Ukraine thing so we can focus on China, we certainly don’t want to be deterred by things blowing up in Iran. So Trump would want to calm that down. So it fits what West Mitchell says in the Foreign affairs article, which he says is the Trump administration’s policy. Now, maybe he made that up, maybe it’s not, I don’t know.

But he’s formally a high Defense Department official in Trump’s first term, and he is a partner with the current third ranking person in the Pentagon under Trump. So we assume he knows something. Yeah, yeah. And, and he says this, and Trump didn’t repudiate it. I haven’t heard. And the media won’t mention it because it doesn’t fit the narrative. So this is limited to the foreign affairs audience. So all the foreign affairs specialists get the new line. They get the new line to follow. So maybe that’s what it is. I bring all this up because I know the official narratives are lies.

They’re wrong. It makes no sense. None of them, none of the official narratives make any sense. The negotiations make no sense. You don’t conduct serious negotiations in the media, contradicting, changing your approach every minute. You know, if you want to have a negotiation, you get together with the other guy and you work it out and then you tell the world what the deal is. But there’s never a deal and it can’t be the way Trump’s going about it. So clearly it’s not serious. It’s not a serious thing. I’m not the only one who sees that. So something clearly is going on that we don’t know about.

And I was trying to get at what it could be. Well, I appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective. It’s always enlightening, for sure. And you Give us different things to think about. Is there anything else you wanted to add before we conclude? No, I just encourage everybody not to get caught up in the narratives. The narratives are false. They serve agendas, they don’t serve the truths. And to see, use your own eyes, your own brain, and you can see that what we’re being told makes no sense. Nobody would conduct negotiations in this way. Nobody that was serious about them.

And that’s why I always encourage preparedness, because time and time again they fool people. And I’ve just learned that the only thing we can really do as individuals is to get ourselves in a position where, you know, if things got hairy, we could ride it out. Well, that’s good advice. And you know, the Mormons have been following that for a very long time. Yeah, they are the first preppers, perhaps. Yeah. And I think people should be prepared for things to come unglued and because everyone gets lost in the lies and nobody knows what’s happening. And nowadays it’s even worse with so many different channels and streams of information.

But I would encourage people to go and check out your website, paulcraigroberts.org where you publish quite frequently. A few times a week, it looks like. I want to thank you for coming out. Well, thank you for sharing your audience with me. It’s pleasure to talk with you. You have a good inquiring mind. You ask good questions. And I think you are contributing to people’s ability to see what might really be going on. And they’ve got to learn that they can’t rely on media. They simply cannot. They’ve got to look for alternatives that make sense and start thinking that’s what they’re going to have to do.

They can’t let people think for them anymore. Yep. If I can do that, if I can get people thinking about stuff, you know, my objective is never to try to impute my knowledge or tell people what to think. It’s just to get people thinking. Because I think if you can do that, get people asking questions, questions, then that’s a big part of the. The. That’s a huge service. It’s a huge service. Yes, it is. All right, well, thanks a lot for coming out today. Well, thank you. You take care. 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.