Ritter and McGovern provide a blunt autopsy of fading American hegemony, stripping away diplomatic veneer to expose the friction of a shifting global order. Their analysis offers a necessary, albeit polarizing, counter-narrative to the prevailing Western consensus.
Installieren Sie unsere Erweiterung an, um sofort in jedem Video zu suchen
THE WORLD THIS WEEK - Scott Ritter & Ray McGovern - CHAOS OF THE OLD ORDERHinzugefügt:
Welcome to the world this week episode 19 chaos of the old order. This week after the Russia China summit, Trump's Iran meltdown, or is there peace this time? Can Cuba survive? I'm Joe Lauria, the editor and chief of Consortive News. The Russian and Chinese leaders declare unilateral attempts to dominate the world have failed and a quote new type of international relations is emerging. Meanwhile, Trump loses it over Iran. one day war, one day peace while he mulls inviting invading Cuba. After their summit in Beijing on Wednesday, just days after Donald Trump's trek there, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin issued a communicate that said in part, quote, "Attempts by a number of states unilaterally to manage global affairs, impose their interests on the entire world, and limit the sovereign and development of other countries in the spirit of the colonial era have failed. The system of international relations in the 21st century is undergoing a profound transformation evolving toward a long-term state of polyentricity and the emergence of a new type of international relations. Most states, drawing on their historical experience, have deeply recognized the dawn of a new era and the need to pursue the path of forming a more a cohesive international community as well as mutual respect for fundamental interests, equality, justice, and mutually beneficial cooperation without dividing the world into opposing regions and blocks. On the other hand, the global situation is becoming more complex. Negative neoc colonial tendencies such as unilateral forceful approaches, hegemonism and block confrontation are on the rise.
Fundamental universally recognized norms of international law and international relations are regularly violated and it is becoming more difficult for states to coordinate their actions and resolve conflicts within global governance institutions, many of which are losing their effectiveness. The global peace and development agenda is facing new risks and challenges and there is a danger of fragmentation of the international community and a return to quote the law of the jungle. This is clearly not a settled matter as the old hopefully dying order led by the king of the jungle continues to so chaos from Iran to Ukraine to Cuba. With us again to discuss the dramatic events of the week are former CIA analyst and briefer of presidents Ray McGovern and Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector, UN US Marines counter intelligence officer, author and pundit Ray. Before we get to the broad picture as expressed in the Xi Putin summit and then bore down into the details, let's start with the latest news. Uh at 4:30 p.m. Eastern time in the US. Donald Trump wrote on his social media account, quote, I'm in the Oval Office at the White House where we just had a very good call and he names the leaders of the UAE and Qatar as and he said he also spoke with Marshall Sed aim Ahmed Sha of Pakistan. Uh, President Idawan of Turkey, uh, Cece, President Cece of Egypt, King Abdullah II of Jordan, King Hamad bin Isa Khalifa of Bahrain concerning the Islamic Republic of Iran and all things related to a memo of understanding pertaining to peace. An agreement has been largely negotiated, Trump says, subject to finalization between the United States of America, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the various other countries as listed separately. I had a call with Prime Prime Minister BB Netanyahu of Israel, which likewise went very well. Final aspects and details of the deal, capital D, are currently being discussed and will be announced shortly. In addition to many other elements of the agreement, the straight of Hermuz will be opened and as he often ends his messages, thank you for your attention to this matter, Donald J. Trump. The New York Times reports, quote, "There was no immediate confirmation from Iran or Israel, but and this is significant, three senior Iranian officials said Thran had agreed to a memorandum of understanding that would stop the fighting on all fronts, including Lebanon, reopen the straight of Amuse without any tolls, and lift the US naval blockade on Iran." It then says the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly added that the fate of Iran's nuclear program which had been a major point of contention would be negotiated within 30 to 60 days. It was not clear whether the proposal the Iranian officials said they had agreed to was the one that Mr. Trump was referring to in his social media post. Ray McGovern. Is this just another case of Trump manipulating markets, facilitating between peace and war in public, losing his mind over this, between pressure to get out and pressure from Israel to continue? Or are we really on the cusp of a real peace to this awful situation in the Gulf?
>> Well, Joe, you put a damper on this thing. I was getting my spirits up. You know, all you have to do is trust Trump and it's going to be all right.
uh this time I think it may have a degree of reality to it. He forecast that he was going to talk to the Gulfies uh this afternoon. He's done so. Now we have I hadn't seen this announcement fresh off the off the press. Um but it does seem to me that those were the terms that could be ex could be accepted by Iran as well. Uh particularly putting off any talking about reprocessing the nuclear issue to a second stage. what 30 to 60 days is what I copied down from from your notes. Um, so, uh, yeah, let let's hope that Trump realize he's in a a no-win situation and there are people willing to smear enough lipstick on this pig of defeat to let him let him off and say, "Well, you have stopped Iran from getting that nuclear weapon which they aspired to, which they hoped to, which they had designed to, but for some reason we know never were working on the weapon part of things. reprocessing.
That's another thing. So, yeah, I I welcome this news. Let's see what he says tomorrow.
>> Yeah. Uh Scott, >> yeah, let's just make it as clear as possible. The United States can't resume conflict with Iran. We're incapable of doing this. Um we don't have the military capacity to do this. The military has put Trump on notice that they're unable to fulfill this order. Um and the political consequences uh economic consequences of Trump overriding their objections and insisting on it would be catastrophic uh for the world for the region. Uh literally you'd be seeing the United Arab Emirates commit suicide uh cease to exist as a modern functioning state overnight. Um and they know this. Um and you'd also see again um the collapse of the global economy. You can't remove 22% of uh the world's energy production capacity um on a near permanent status and it the world won't adjust. It's just a statement of fact. Um so Trump can play whatever word games he wants. I mean this is you know it's word salad at this point in time. It's irrelevant. Uh the the what the Iranians know is that the United States can't um resume this.
That doesn't mean we won't because Donald Trump of course is insane. Um but you know the military is resisting because it we've already been humiliated. I mean it the the the consequences of our failure are manifest. Um you know we we we we signed this tripart agreement with South Korea and Japan where we're going to you know take on the North Koreans and we're going to be able to enable them to stand up against China's pressures and all this stuff. And the South Koreans and the Japanese bought into this nonsense.
They uh you know they got invited into the nuclear room, the bake room. They had to play nuclear warf fighting planning and oh my goodness, aren't we important? Um, and then this conflict in with Iran started and we immediately stripped bare all of their air defense.
Literally all of their air defense, all of FAD batteries gone. Patriot 3s gone.
Um, they've got nothing. Moreover, Japan had been told that um, you know, it's time for them to put on their big boy pants. you know, forget that World War II and your constitutional prohibitions against uh pretending to be warriors.
You're warriors. Act like a warrior. And they said, "Okay, we're going to buy 400 tomahawks to use as a counter strike capability. So, if those North Koreans ever dare attack us, we're going to pound them into the dirt." Uh, well, no, they're not. They're never going to have tomahawks. United States put them on notice. It just isn't in the works. We have to take control of all production because we're out of tomahawks. Um, and it's going to take forever to get to fill our order. you're never going to get him. You might as well get used to that. Um, you know, so we've been humiliated. The military is I mean I I wouldn't want to be on active duty right now because the the the weakness that we are projecting is beyond belief. It's so weak that I don't even think the Cubans take it serious anymore. Um, so I I I I don't see us going to war against Iran. I see Donald Trump um playing stupid word games. Um but the the fact of the matter is nobody in the Middle East wants this conflict.
Nobody nobody can afford it. Even Benjamin Netanyahu understands uh he can't win this conflict. He can't participate in this conflict. There's nothing for Israel. They're getting beat by Hezbollah. They're getting waxed by Hezbollah. Um there's there's nothing Israel can do. Again, you know, remember this. Israel and the United States bombed Iran for 37 days straight.
There's nothing more they can do. It's not like they went in with the B team.
They went in with the A team. The best intelligence. They had the best capabilities, the best weapons. And it's turning out they didn't do anything.
They killed an old man in his home. Wow.
That's a real big military accomplishment. But when it came to actually degrading Iran's military, it turns out they didn't they didn't accomplish anything. The air force went underground. Not only did it went underground, an F5 actually bombed Kuwait. No one talks about that. That an old F5 fighter about 50 years old broke through all the air defenses and dropped bombs on Kuwait. Pilot got back. He's a national hero. Um you but their missiles um you know couldn't be stopped. Their missile production facilities are underground. They're still building this. Um it turns out Israel and the United States didn't accomplish anything in terms of meaningful impact and that was with the best we had. So you know people keep saying well Israel is going to do XYZ. Israel is going to do nothing because Israel has nothing. They literally have nothing left and they know it and they know that Iran has everything. So you know there won't be a follow on to this war. This war is over.
Iran has won and now Iran's just busy dictating the terms of peace.
>> Yeah, Ray, some of those terms are still to be worked out will be the nuclear part and that could be where it all collapses. And frankly, I wouldn't have believed Trump except this three these three Iranian officials in New York Times quotes unnamed uh saying that there is such an understanding. But what my question to you, Ray, is how will Trump make this look like he didn't lose the war and and that it is a better deal in the end than what Obama had that he tore up.
You know, Joe, maybe I'm being very simplistic here, but most Americans think that Iran is working on a nuclear weapon. We in the intelligence community and the inspectors and everyone else knows that they stopped working on a nuclear weapon no later than 2003. Okay.
But in this case, the relative ignorance of the American people on this key issue ser could serve Trump's purpose.
uh he could make out that look now I've got the Iranians to sign on a dotted line or to agree promise forever and ever forever and ever and never to have any ambitions even much less uh actually working mechanically on a nuclear weapon. Um, you know, that sounds like like pie in the sky, but there's no indication that however much incentive the Iranians have uh to follow North Koreans's example rather than Libyans, and you know what I'm talking about.
Libya gave up its nuclear weapons. North Korea didn't. uh I don't see that there's much sign that Iran number one feels the need to develop a nuclear weapon at this point and number two that the fatwa against it signed by the the president Ayatollah's father has uh has been reversed and that would be necessary before Iran would do this. So in answer your question, I think there is a a pathway as they say these days.
There's a pathway toward uh playing on the ignorance of the world community and saying look I Trump got the Iranians to forceare ever working on a nuclear weapon. And besides, they've given some of their highly enriched uranium to Russia for and they're going to dilute it or they're going to do like well like Russia did uh during the JCPOA. So, I do see that there's a way that they could let him down gently. Not that they want to, but you know, the stakes are so high. Uh nuclear weapons are now openly discussed. So, that's how I see he could get out of this mess. Maybe I'm wrong.
I've been wrong before.
Do you agree with Ray Escon on that?
That's how he could portray this?
>> Well, let me start by saying that Iran has never had a nuclear weapons program.
It's CIA about 2003.
They never had a nuclear weapons program. There's no evidence they had a nuclear weapons program. Uh there was evidence that they uh you know went to the black market to get uranium enrichment capability that was denied to them because of illegal sanctions imposed by the United States at the behest of Israel. And Israel interpreted this as a pursuit of a nuclear weapon, but there was never a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Game, set, match, over, done. And it's important to put that out there because when I was a UN weapons inspector in Iraq, um I you know, the the Iranian the Iraqis kept saying, "We don't have any more WMD." I said, "Well, but you did acknowledge having at one point, right?" Yes. And what happened to it? Well, we destroyed it. Okay. And now you want us to go dig it up and verify you destroyed it. Yeah. But I have a question. When you had it and you were hiding it from us, who hid it from us?
And they wouldn't tell us. And therefore, that opened the door for us to say, "Well, if you're not going to tell us who hid it from us, we have to assume that they're still hiding it from us." And so, we began a series of investigations. Um, this is why I'm a stickler to details. The moment you acknowledge that Iran had a nuclear weapons program in 2003, then you can never once ever ever ever ever say they have no intent, they have nothing until you confirm what it was.
Because if it existed, you have to verify it no longer exists. And this is why I don't accept anybody saying that there was a nuclear weapons program in 2003 because the moment you say that you create a window of verification requirements. If there was a program in 2003, what was the program?
And until somebody tells me what it was, I as an inspector, as somebody who does compliance verification for a living, I can com I can verify nothing and you're not in compliance until I confirm that whatever you had doesn't exist anymore, which requires I me to determine what you had. So that's why I start off with this. Um, they never had a nuclear weapons program. They never were pursuing nuclear weapons. There's no evidence whatsoever that this CIA crap was true or that anything the Israelis put out there was true. So now we move forward because let me just make it as clear as day.
Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon. No ifs or buts. Again, no one has been able to provide any information to sustain any allegation of Iranian intent. People like me have done connect the dots. why did you produce 60% enriched uranium listening to the the talks of others? Um and so I I I agreed that there was the potential but the fact is there is no hard evidence that Iran ever did it. In fact we have the opposite. We have statements from the president from the foreign minister from senior people saying we have no intention to do this.
And we have the fatwa religious edict which in an Islamic republic like Iran is is the core thing. And here's the important thing too. The fatwa isn't just one supreme leader. Two supreme leaders. The first two Ayati and Ali Kame. Um, and now here's the most important part about the third one. He's the son of the supreme leader who said we will not have nuclear weapons. Do you understand what the importance of this legacy is? The son is not going to contradict the father. Which is one of the reasons why the son was made the supreme leader. They didn't want to bring in somebody who was going to reinterpret the fatwa. They brought in the son whose job is to preserve the legacy of the father. And the legacy of the father is Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. End of story. So now we come to Trump.
You know, it's not an accomplishment to get Iran to sign a piece of paper that says we don't want a nuclear weapon. Iran has been saying where do you want us to sign here? want to sign here. We can initial both copies. Whatever you want us to sign, we'll sign you. That's not an accomplishment, you know, and it's it's this is Trump's chance because let me go back to the JCPOA. The JCPOA was the worst deal in the world if your job was to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. It was the dumbest deal ever. It shows the pathetic nature of the Barack Obama administration because they were desperate. They had boxed themselves into a corner where they had no option but either to strike a deal or go to war and they didn't have the gumption to go to war. So they struck this bad deal.
The whole purpose of the JCOPA JCPOA was to create a one-year breakout window, meaning that if Iran signs a JCPOA, if we detect anything happening through, you know, they we have a this blanket tight inspection regime and anything any deviation, any chance the Iranians break free, it will take them one year to acquire enough enriched uranium to produce a single bomb, one year. Um, and we believe that in that time we could come up with a variety of pressures and everything to get Iran to back away from that. But the problem is the the the the deal had sunset clauses that undid that whole one-year window.
You know, suddenly Iran is only allowed to have old centrifuges, but now they can build new centrifuges. then they can feel those centrifuges and then they can begin acquiring stuff and next thing you know the one-year window is 7 weeks 3 weeks and that's what happened by the end of the the time all the sunset clauses went away the oneyear window was down to less than a month and that doesn't mean Iran was looking to do it just means that Iran now had the capacity to enrich and produce file material within a which means the the whole JCPOA was a lie, was a charade. And Barack Obama admitted this in April, three months before he signed it. Someone said, "What happens about the sunset clause?" He said, "Well, we'll we'll cross that bridge when it comes. We're hoping the Iranians will change their whole attitude between now and then. But if they don't, then we'll make sure the sunset clauses never expire, which means the United States was never going to abide by this deal ever. We were always going to break it because we only wanted Iran to accept zero enrichment and go to zero, but we couldn't because of the deal. Here we have a chance for Donald Trump to do away with any notion of sunset clauses. Yes, you're talking about 30-day, 60-day, but the deal that they're going to cut means that Iran will be capped at 3.5%.
Capped. They won't have the ability to accumulate uh you know, enriched uranium. They won't have the ability to have unlimited enrichment uh you know uh you know capability.
And so the there's no one-year window.
There's a zero pathway to a nuclear bomb. Zero pathway to a nuclear bomb.
That's a better deal. So it doesn't it's not that Donald Trump has to spin it.
Donald Trump can literally say there is zero pathway to a nuclear bomb. I have done what Barack Obama couldn't do. I have the best deal out here. I am the man who prevented Iran from acquiring a weapon they never had intended to acquire. But it but I so I think there's a victory here and they don't have to have stupid American people and all this. There's a victory here. It's a real victory. He didn't need to do this because the Iranians were ready to give us this exact same deal to us on February 26. It's the same freaking deal.
>> Yeah.
>> Now we ourselves and and but we're getting the same deal.
>> The the the Obama deal was working, however. The IAEA declared repeatedly that uh Iran was not enriching beyond what it was allowed to enrich. That's number one. And number two, well, how do you know the details of this uh current memo of understanding? There's been nothing said about the nuclear issue.
How do you know this going to be capped at, I think, 3.5%.
>> Well, is that's been the negotiating position all along. We know what they've been saying. I've been talking to people who in Iran, the Iranian government has put out details. People have put out details. We don't know what the finalouou is, but I can guarantee you I'll put all the money in my bank account that theou is not going to deviate from past practice. We know what the Iranians agreed to in the past and they're not going to suddenly agree to something different and not and the Iranians have been a very hard line on their uh on their nuclear side and and what they'll accept and what they won't accept. You could say the JCPOA that was being was being adhered to. Sure, the Iranians it wasn't a question of Iran Iran not adhering to it. My point is as the JCPA aged out, the adherence of the Iranians would get them to one month away from a nuclear weapon. That's why it was a bad deal because they would do what they're allowed to do, but they're suddenly allowed instead of having a handful of old centuge cascades. They can now deploy newer modern centuge cascades with increased enrichment capacity, they could accumulate more stuff all within the agreement. That's why it was a bad agreement. Yeah, but the agreement, excuse me. The agreement also called for snapback sanctions.
Excuse me. If Iran tried to do that, so there was that uh >> No, no, no, no, no, no. Iran tried to do it. Iran was allowed to do it. You can't snap back in sanctions if Iran is doing what the agreement allows it to do.
That's the problem with the sunset clauses. The sunset clauses basically did away with the one-year window. And Barack Obama instead of being mature about it, saying in this year in in in the in the 20 years that it's going to take to get rid of this uh will have confidence that the Iranians are pursuing purely a peaceful program. So it doesn't matter what they do. They'll be going to Article 4, which allows them to do all this the same as other nations doing. I'm not saying that it's ill intent on the party of Iran. Iran would simply be doing what the Netherlands is allowed to do, unlimited enrichment. Um you know, because that's what Article 4 allows for. Iran had said at that time that ultimately there cannot be an Iranian exception to the new the to the MPT. One of the things they're saying now is that there is an Iranian exception to the MPT and Iran is going to accept that exception that they are limited to 3.5% and all this.
>> All right, Ray. Um this >> Yes.
>> Can I talk?
Yeah. Um, no one knows more about what has just been described than two people, Scott and a fellow named Gareth Porter, whom we all know who wrote the book on it. Okay. Now, he is a quintessential journalist, the receiver of the Martha Gho Prize, and he's been at this for a long time. Did great work on Vietnam.
And what he did was interview every every single person involved in all this. I'm sure he tried to get to interview you, Scott, but I think you were probably on active duty then. Anya in any case, he said they were never working on a nuclear weapon. Okay. And he proves it and he said the only information you have is from the from these manufactured laptops that the that the that these oh we got we got a laptop and look what so was all kind of confected. So Scott is exactly right. So what happens?
There's the debacle on Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction. None. Zero.
And that was what 2003 2004.
But then as the noon cons were saying, real men go to tan. Okay. So they fully set their sights on tan. And some some clever person in a position of authority somewhere in the intelligence community says, "Oh my god, we're going to have to lie about Iran having nuclear weapons now and and weapons. Oh my, let's get a national intelligence estimate and let's let's find somebody honest to run it and maybe we can prevent this war against Iran." Long story short, that happened.
They had to go to the Department of State. Fell's name is Tom Finger. He he deserves a lot of gratitude. They said, "Tom, you can bring some of your own experts in. You get in there and you you have court blush to work for a whole year. You can throw away the old stuff.
You can look at it. The old stuff. 1990.
Iran is about about five years away from a nuclear weapon. 1995.
Uh Iran's about say four or five years away from a nuclear oh 2000. Oh maybe four or five I mean it was a farce. They never had any good evidence as Scott has already said. So what they want to do is prevent the war based on phony evidence of the kind that was introduced to justify the war in Iraq. They got Tom Finger. He worked for a year and he they think Scott you know better than I. He was lucky because they had some real good in information come in sort of gratuitously on the side while they were working on this stuff and they decided in November 2007 Iran has stopped working on a nuclear weapon at the end of 2003 and has not resumed work. Unanimous decision by all 16 intelligence agencies at the time. Now I asked Tom actually I know that Gareth Porter asked Tom well what about before 2003 and he said look you know there are limits to what I what I could do with taking on the CIA it suffice to say they're not working don't bother me with those questions all right so it's clear that Finger was courageous enough matter of fact Finger hung around in the CIA for a whole year more so he could protect the careers of the people that worked for producing that estimate. So, we have sort of we're shadow boxing, aren't we? Uh what did Tulsi Gabbert say when that wonderful senator from from Georgia what what's his name? As osaf when he asked you now look in your prepared statement you said that uh that Iran's ability to do enrichment was obliterated and doesn't have any more chance to do this. Is that what you're testing? Yeah. Well, was that the testimony of the intelligence group? Yes, I was. Well, well, then why do you think that they might be working on a nuclear weapon? Well, we can't say anything. Well, how are they are they really close? Do we have to preempt it?
Well, that's for the president to say.
We really can't say. He says, "Well, wait a second. You're you're giving a threat assessment, right? And you say the threat? Well, the president's going to decide what the threat is." That's the kind of garbage going down. Isn't it ironic that given all this history, it's a kind of a blessing in my view that nobody pays attention to us on this one because everybody can say DONALD YOU GOT US OUT of here and there won't be any wide war whiter than it already is and maybe people come to their senses in Europe as well. Uh, in other words, it's a strange kind of paradox, but I I guess you and I agree on on this one, Scott, that there is a path, as people say, that pathway out of this. It's just whether in my view, BB Netanyahu will be able to put the kibash on this one as well. And I just don't know how to gauge that.
>> Well, that was that was going to lead me to Israel. But before that, there's some details that we don't know about like the 60% uranium that was mentioned that was a bargaining chip but looks like that Iran did that for that reason even though I think that led to the snapback sanctions and uh we don't know about their demands that the US leave the region or that the sanctions are lifted on Iran and any frozen assets be released so there's a lot of details there but let's move to Israel uh and this part of the equation Scott the New York Times has a piece this morning uh I think it overstates itself but That's my view that Iran says that Israel was now the passenger, it says to the US train here that the United States is calling the shots and Israel's in a subordinate position to Trump. I don't know if you read it this morning, but is that true?
And and we'll find out, won't we, if this deal goes through?
>> Yeah. I mean, uh I don't know.
I I don't know the the people the New York Times was talking to and you know I'm I'm not uh privy to what's going what what I can say is again I I just come down to logic. Um we know that there's a very strong pro-Israeli lobby in the United States and we know that um Donald Trump has surrounded himself with pro-Israeli um you know pro-Zionist uh people who populate his you know his inner circle.
the cabinet, etc. Um, and we know that Israel got us involved in this war in Iran. We know that Benjamin Netanyahu made the case on February 11th together with the director of the MSAD, uh, Marco Rubio has acknowledged that we went to war on behalf of Israel. He later, you know, tried to clean that up, but, you know, he told the truth. Um, and, uh, we also know that we lost this war.
There's no ifands or buts about it. We lost this war. It's a strategic defeat for the United States. It's amazing what happens when you suffer a strategic defeat, how few options you have. Um, we are very limited on the options that we have going forward. Uh, which means that no amount of Israeli leverage can get us to do that which we lack the capacity to do. Um, and so right off the bat, that's that's a disenfranchising reality for Benjamin Netanyahu because a lot of what he does is put pressure United States to do things in support of uh Israel. We're not in a position to support Israel anymore. Um, not not in terms of the immediate, you know, range of options available. We just can't resume a conflict with Iran. We can't do it. I mean, it's a it's just this is it's a statement of fact. Um we will the strategic defeat we have suffered will increase by an order of magnitude should we go forward with this. Um has anybody thought what it means to have the United Arab Emirates cease to exist as a modern nation state? Do they understand the ramifications of the depopulation of Abu Dhabi and Dubai? Well, the UAE certainly understands that and they they see it staring them right in the face. They did a vulnerability assessment. It's over game set match. The second Iran says, "We're taking out your desalinization," you have no water.
You can truck it all in. There ain't enough. And when they take out your power generation, when the temperatures 54 degrees, you got no air conditioning.
Life is unlivable, no refrigeration, no power, no money because you lost all of your uh energy production capability.
It's the end of the United Arab Emirates, which means if you can kill the UAE, you can kill Kuwait.
You can kill Bahrain, you can kill Qatar, you can kill Saudi Arabia and they will die. And the I think there's a wakeup call right now in the Gulf Arab states saying we're really in big trouble here because we can't defend ourselves and Iran has retained the capacity to bring harm to us and America can do nothing to stop this preemptively or defensively. So this is the reality that Donald Trump operates in. And Benjamin Netanyahu will never be able to alter that reality because the Israeli Air Force proved that it can't solve the Iranian problem either. 37 days the Israeli Air Force had a chance to go in and do their magic. And all they did is kill an old man. That's it. They didn't do anything else. So Israel's got no cards. Israel tried to make itself relevant by expanding the war into Lebanon. Well, two things happened. One, Iran didn't abandon Lebanon. They were supposed to. We're supposed to be beaten into submission and say, "Well, we're going to worry about ourselves. We're going to Iran said, "Nope. We are an extension. They are we are one." Two.
Lebanon kicked the crap out of Israel.
They Israel got sucked in. Now they're stuck. They're They're fighting headtohead in the villages. And Israel's losing the standup fight and losing the fight into the rear area. Hezbollah is deploying FPV drones. Israel does not have a solution to FPV drones. This should be a wakeup call to all Western militaries. What happens when you go up against an opponent like let's call it Russia who's very good at using FPV drones. It will be the end of you militarily. And Israel right now is stalled. They can't do anything. Um and this is why I think it's not just the sidelining of Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel now has no choice but to accept a peace arrangement where there's a ceasefire in Lebanon and eventually Israel is gonna have to get out of Lebanon. Um and this is a huge victory, a huge victory for Iran and for Hezbollah. Um so you know I I again I can't tell you what you know who called whom and who said what to whom. All I can do is you know throw some dots on the map and connect the dots and try and see what picture it puts forward. The picture is not very good for Israel. Uh they literally hold no cards in this game. They can't fight Iran by themselves and America's not going to help them fight Iran. They were hoping to align with the United Arab Emirates who is playing stupid games for a little while, but the UA just woke up to the fact that they will die instantly if the war is resumed. Therefore, they no longer have an appetite for war, which means Israel no longer has an entree in the Persian Gulf to, you know, use as a springboard for continuing the conflict.
I I think um despite everything that Benjamin Yahoo may want, peace may actually break out because there are no other alternatives. The he he can't he can't continue this war.
Scott, uh, sorry, Ray. Scott says that Netanyahu has no cards, but we, lots of people, including us here at Conservative News, have been saying that one of the cards he holds was the Epstein videos and files about Trump and that he could hold that over Trump and try to get him to do something. So, if this actually does happen and there is a peace deal, does that mean he didn't have the cards or he didn't play him?
Uh, what's going to happen with that?
It's a moment of truth.
>> Well, Joe, I was going to pick up on the the no cards thing. Uh but I think even more important than Epstein who can gauge how much influence Epstein has is the fact that in draits uh Israel has nuclear weapons. I hate to bring that up but uh in extremists let's let's look at this guy Nathaniel.
Well he does genocide he does force starvation. He does a lot of things but would he ever use nuclear weapons and extremists? H I think he would. Okay, now he's in danger politically. They're coming after him. Actually, as I read the the stories coming out of Tel Aviv, he could very easily end up in jail and the bridal suite that they that they prepared for his wife and for him. I don't think he'll come to that. I think he'd probably get out of town right quick, but I think he's totally discredited. And uh Scott says uh you know there's not much he can do except and that I would say is well except uh either threat or actually deploy one of these not one but his nuclear potential.
Would that be crazy? Would that be counterproductive? Well, yeah, but that's what you do when you're an extremist and that's what you do when you don't give a rat's patootuti about killing a whole bunch of people. And that fits the description in my description in my view of Benjamin Netanyahu.
>> Can I just add one thing though? Um, Israel is not a dictatorship. Benjamin Netanyahu is not the chief executive and he doesn't make that decision. Um, Benjamin Nya literally cannot pick up the phone and make that decision. There has to be a war cabinet. It has to be a consensusbased decision uh to have any legality. And uh so I I I just I I I there's there's no way that um the war cabinet would sit there and go, "Oh, Ben BB's afraid to go to jail, so he wants to nuke Iran. This is a good idea. Let's do that one." You see, there's consequences. Israel using nuclear weapons. Uh one, it would be fatal to their relationship with the United States. Again, I just I I keep bringing up to people the fact that um this policy of deliberate ambiguity which dates back to Nixon and Golden is the letter of the freaking law. It's not a it's not a it's not optional for Israel.
Uh Israel doesn't get to use nuclear weapons unless they go through a very, you know, truncated process, a defined process. I lived through it during the first Gulf War. I watched it happen. I watched Israel bring the Jericho 3 missile out. I watched Israel launch the Jericho 3, which is a nuclear capable missile, uh, the exact distance that it takes to go from the launch pad to Baghdad, but they pleaded into the Mediterranean. It was a signal, which is what they're obligated to do, telling the Iraqis, if you hit us with a chemical weapon, we will nuke Baghdad.
Now, they didn't declare they had a nuclear weapon. They just declared that a weapon capable of carrying a nuclear weapon could hit Baghdad. Um, message received. We tracked that the entire time. But I, you know, that was several years ago, so I I don't think I get too much trouble. I'm just going to say that if you think that Israel gets to move its nukes around without us knowing, you don't know anything about what we do.
Israel doesn't move its nukes without us knowing. We know everything about Israel's nuclear weapons program. And uh what we don't know is again what goes through Benjamin Netanyahu's mind. But again, he doesn't have the authority to launch nuclear weapons. He doesn't get to wake up in the morning in a in a rage and push a button. There is a consensus driven decision-making process that has clear consequences uh if they use it without America's green lighting. And you won't get America's green lighting unless you go through the process. And Israel has a record of going through the process. They never get up to the launch point. But when Israel wants to make a point, they do what they're obligated to do. And and the other thing I just want to bring up, there is no such thing as the Samson option. There is no Samson option.
Seymour Hurst wrote a book called the Samson option. Read the book. It's a hypothetical. It's a name somebody else threw out there. There is no document that says this is Israel's nuclear war plan. This is what Israel is going to do. It's a hypothesis that people have put out there about what would happen.
Why does Israel have nuclear weapons?
Well, it's to destroy the world like Samson brought down the thing. There's no Israeli stated policy for that. So, we we've blown a lot of, you know, we've inflated this uh this this this dummy with and and populated with ideas. But the reality is Israel's nuclear weapon program has constraints, has limitations, political and, you know, technical. And um I'm not worried about Israel launching nukes against Iran. I'm not worried about it at all. Um because the the the situation that would require Israel to launch nukes would have to be an existential threat to the state of Israel. An existential threat to the state of Israel.
Netanyahu is not the state of Israel. He may think he is the state of Israel, but he is not the state of Israel. And nobody in Israel believes he's the state of Israel. And Israel will not use nuclear weapons to save BB Netanyahu's skin. That's my belief.
>> That's uh very reassuring. Uh actually, it is honestly. Uh the only problem I have is that the Israelis also have a reputation for going ahead and uh and doing things and not asking for our permission but later sort of asking for our understanding or forgiveness.
Uh I grant you that it would be extreme in this case but that's the that's the worrying precedent uh that I see and and I said this would have to be an extremist whether it was a a threat an extreme threat to to Netanyahu alone or to the the Israeli state. I think then all bets are off and I I think that Israel probably would not go through all these uh regulated things to make sure that the US approves. US would not approve. I'm sure you agree. And so, you know, it's one of those unknowables, but it's one of the cards I think that we have to pay attention to.
I just looked at Heretsza's coverage of this and they're saying that uh Trump has now told CBS News he'll only sign a deal when he gets everything that he wants. He also uh there's no word in this article from Netanyahu uh which in an Israeli newspaper so he hasn't reacted yet not officially and Trump uh says that he had it went well with Netanyahu on the phone whatever that means. Now the Iranian foreign ministry spokesman is quoted as saying that what the what this uh memo of understanding actually is is a a framework non-binding framework agreement to extend the ceasefire by 60 days in during which these details will be worked out. So maybe that's what we're about to enter which is hardly the end of the war.
If you guys want to react to that.
>> I don't believe the war will ever end.
Um I mean I I again I just come down to the fundamental concept the United States is agreement incapable. Um so Donald Trump will his ego will get in the way of everything. There will be I I believe that there will be a memorandum of understanding that creates a framework for continued dialogue and I believe that from that dialogue there will be arrangements uh made that um that that allow oil to flow from the straight or moves which is an absolute essential for all parties involved including Iran by the way. Uh and there will be some sanctions relief um not all. Um because again what people have to understand is Donald Trump can't undo acts of Congress and many of the sanctions imposed against Iran are congressionalbased sanctions. Uh which means that Congress would have to um end that and you know Congress isn't inclined to uh be weak on uh on Iran. So I I I don't think there's going to be this this um you know awe inspiring peace agreement where you know angels are going to come down from the heaven and trumpets are going to sound.
The United States is incapable of that kind of agreement. I think what there's going to be is we're going to find a a soft spot that allows the global economy to function, that allows Iran to um you know get its economy back on track to integrate with bricks and the SCSO and everything. But also Donald Trump's just going to screw it up. On occasion we'll intercept a boat. On occasion we'll um I don't think we'll bomb Iran because that's a that's that's an absolute nostarter. But, you know, we aren't going to lift all the sanctions. We're not going to return all the frozen assets because Donald Trump's incapable of such an agreement because if he did that, it's 100% capitulation.
It's it's just a known capitulation. And he can't afford to do that. Donald Trump has to ride into the midterms, you know, creating the perception that he's in large and in charge. So, I'm not waiting for a peace deal. There's not going to be a peace deal in my mind. What there's going to be, I believe, is a minra of understanding that m meets the definition the Iranians put out and things will happen. Oil will flow. Um but and and there won't be active war.
But the concept of a peace the way most people would recognize it, a peace based upon a treaty relationship.
The United States is treaty incapable.
We're agreement incapable. Donald Trump's incapable of entering into agreement with anybody. And even if he did, you he'd break it within a month because that's just who he is. So, you know, that that's that's what I'm looking at.
>> Well, right. None of the goals stated goals in Iran were achieved. There was no regime change, which uh this particular Israeli government under this most extreme in the history of Israel uh sees this as the opportunity they've been waiting for for decades. Naro said it himself to actually get try to get that done. and they had Donald Trump to let them do it where other presidents had said no. Trump said yes. And yet they were unable to overthrow the regime. They were uh unable to destroy the ballistic missiles of Iran. They the CIA says 75% still intact. As Scott has pointed out, the Iranian foreign minister said they have 120% because they've been able to not only restore what they lost but increase them. And also what else they didn't get done? Um uh they didn't overthrow the government.
They didn't get they have not stopped the enrichment program. Nothing was solved. We see that the US lost the war.
We all have new details that the US lost 42 Reaper drones during the war. So these details are starting to come out now. Uh but what Scott just said was he doesn't think there's actually going to be a deal to end the war. Do you agree with that? And could this start up again under Trump?
>> Scott.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I think Scott is right. Uh but you know the the real core of the interests here is opening the straits right and not attacking not Israel and the US attacking Iran. I don't know how you work out the rest of it and that probably will take until after the midterms but I do see that if they could come to the kind of understanding where okay there's a ceasefire ceasefire in the sort in in the sense no more attack from uh Israel and and the US and the opening of the restraint under conditions that would be negotiated tolls no tolls some tolls on some people that's possible that's possible tomorrow and the interests of the whole world hang on the balance on this uh worldwide depression. My god. So the incentive is there. Uh the Iranians have the higher cards it seems in this case. And if the Saudis and the Qataris and the UAE are not going to be relying on US power anymore, well the game is over. the more so if they won't let the US overfly their territory or fire missiles over them. So I agree the chances of renewed war are very slim. Uh and I think there's the making of an agreement not a full-scale agreement but before the midterms I think that uh Trump has to do something uh to take the burden uh take the burden a bit off his own shoulders.
>> Okay, last thing on the on Iran. The nuclear non-prololiferation treaty every five years has a review conference and they just completed a couple of days ago a month-long conference at UN headquarters in New York. I've covered a couple of those in the past. Ray, I don't know. Sorry, Scott. I don't know how close you followed it. But apparently the US insisting on condemning Iran and some documents sabotaged the whole thing. It fell apart and there was no consensus agreement.
That's happened before at these NPT conferences. Did you follow it and how significant is this?
I I I followed it peripherilally. I don't um I I I I don't think you can have a viable MPT conference at this point in time given the uh corruption of the IEA process. um the fact that I mean they they can't square the the the reality that Iran has done nothing wrong and um and in in in international law is being corrupted by the United States and then and Israel stands outside of it. I I I I to be honest I just stopped following because it's a joke.
>> The NPT conference means nothing. It's a just a bunch of people coming together trying to support a treaty that no longer has any relevance because the United States has made it irrelevant.
Um, so I I there's just too much else going on right now, like a real war in Iran. And I don't know if you saw it, but you know, Russia fired an Archnik into uh into Kiev and hitting them with things. And you know, we're this we don't know how long this escalation's going to go and what how's it going to end. But >> you know, the these are the things that matter to me, not not a bunch of idiots in New York City talking about a treaty that none of them treat with respect anyways. Well, let's move on to those other things that are happening. One of them was the summit in in China on Wednesday, but that seems like old news now. What I did not see that Russia fired an arrest against K. Was that in response to the Ukrainian attack on a dormatory that killed at least eight students and there were still like 15 missing? Was that in response to that?
>> 110% response to the Iranians murdering sleeping children.
>> Yeah.
>> Iranians murdering sleeping children.
Yeah. We let's just call it what it is.
It was a deliberate attack. Um wasn't an accident. They knew what this target was and this was uh Zolinsk's playing a very dangerous game together with the British. Uh you know trying to create the conditions inside Russia that could bring about a um a collapse of support for the uh government of Vladimir Putin.
Um, in order to do that, you you have to create the perception of weakness. And they've been playing they've been, you know, doing these peacemeal escalations across the board. And each time Russia has pragmatically well withheld from any um overreaction because they were they were containing the problem uh by winning on the battlefield. Uh but the British with the Ukrainians found a loophole and that loophole were the drones long-range strike drones. And we know you know the statement perceptions create their own reality and the continued ability of Ukraine to launch these drones and strike strategic targets of violating red line after red line after red line has created the perception of weakness in on the part of uh of Putin. The British, if most people may not know this, the British uh you know have are building 20,000 drones for the Ukrainians.
The drones that are being used to attack right now. Um the Ukrainians are talking about in June uh launching 6,000 drones in a day. Uh a mass barrage against Russia. Um, Zalinsky now is saying openly that he will be attacking uh a number of targets and creating the impression that the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum is on the target list. Um, so the Russians are waking up and they're saying this this is an unsustainable path that we're on. And what this attack against this school was was a test of Vladimir Putin by the British. And um you know and and now it's it's you know let's see what Russia does. We yes an arric went in. We don't know. It actually didn't hit Kiev. It hit a place called Billy um what Kryposka White Church. It's a town 60 kilometers south of uh of uh Kiev.
The the Russians have been hitting this place. There's an airfield there. Um, and the Russians have been striking this um, consistently. So, there's something there. Um, some, even though I can't find any reference to underground facilities, there's reason to believe that that may have been an evacuation point for u some critical leadership, maybe Zillinsky himself, and that this was a decapitation strike by Russia using the Archnik, which was a very concentrated strike. If you saw the first strike of the archnic, you saw the uh the bus doing a dispersal of uh munitions. So that you had the arric submunition hitting here, here, here, here. This one is literally total concentration of the total destructive power of the archic into a single concentrated zone. uh which led some people to speculate that that's the you know that they're they're looking to penetrate an underground facility with extreme precision uh to terminate the lives of anybody in there. So we'll see.
We don't know. We'll find out tomorrow.
But um I would also be very dis if if they didn't kill Zalinski um and they don't follow up then then they haven't changed anything because the the perception will be then that this is just another token slap done by the Russians that didn't fundamentally change anything and Zalinsky will continue to uh to to do this. We're we're in a very dangerous state right now because um there there there are things going on that have never been that haven't been going on before. You know, I know Gilbert Doctoro and others have been saying that uh you know there's this unrest, but Gilbert Doctoro was always predicating his uh his his stuff based upon existing structures of discontent. Um you know, a a a you know, the the the pro-western liberal um remnants, etc. the this this is a new phenomena that uh post states Gilbert Doctoro's uh assessments. This is something that's newly happened that he didn't predict. Um and it's something the British have been working on. Uh there's a a retired lieutenant general named Andre Ilnitzky uh who was a senior adviser to u defense minister Shuyu and uh he is the co-author of um a concept called mental warfare um in which he tracks how um you know people use information warfare and how they use um you know it's not just disinformation information operations this is actually designed to get in and cause nations to collapse from within. Um and the British are playing mental war against the Russians right now. Um and you can see it's starting to catch hold. Russians are starting to doubt Russia, starting to doubt structure, starting to doubt um who they are, what they are, all the things of Vladimir Putin u you know worked to accomplish in 25 years. you're starting to see doubt springing in and and uh the goal of the British is to get a collapse is to get a Moscow Maidon moment not from the liberals but to have actually the the Z bloggers and the former Vagner and the the Russian patriots come in and say we're done with this we have to win the war now a total you know collapse of we're not there yet but the danger is this school I'm in contact with some very senior senior people in Russia right now about this about this school. This has resonated more deeply than anything. The the what the Ukrainians did here was a fatal mistake because this Russia is at a point right now where the emotion of this moment um is being magnified far bigger than the tragedy obviously is. This is becoming a key critical focal point and it it is defining the the the the emotive state of of the Russian nation right now. And um it it's it's essential that that the Russian government be seen as responding effectively to this. Um like I said, I I I have my hopes up. I'm hoping that Zalinsky was somewhere underground in this white church little town and that he no longer exists and that he and his cohort are dead and um the Ukrainians wake up tomorrow to find out that they're leaderless and uh and and understand that whoever replaces Zilinsky will be killed if he continues to go down that same path. This is the signal that Russia has to send that to do stuff like this to Russia is an automatic death sentence u not just for the Ukrainian leadership but potentially for all of Ukraine.
Or this could just be another one of those where the Russians fire, you know, missiles into an empty space and it goes boom and you go, "Huh, see, we have the potential." The potential no longer hacks it. Um the potential won't stop Ukraine from carrying out their June plan. Ukraine has a June strategy.
Zinsky has bragged about this June strategy and uh if he's allowed to implement this June strategy successfully without the interdiction of the Russians government, the Russian military, um I think this summer could be a long hot summer for Vladimir Putin.
>> Update on the the attack on the dormatory. 21 students now dead uh after the search operation concludes.
>> And as you pointed out, Scott, just a moment. The The Ukrainians hit that place three times. So it was clearly not a mistake. Yes. Ray, >> three waves. Yeah. Um immediately thereafter, Putin got up and said, "I'm requesting options from the Ministry of Defense as to how we react." Uh do we now have that? Scott, do I understand you to say that a Russian has been fired into Ukraine as retribution for that for the killing of the the college girls and boys >> that it's happening as it just happened right before this show. And several Iscander M have been fired into the vicinity of K as well. Well, well, I'm sort of sad because I was just about to predict that would happen before you told me it already happened and that I would have been right for once.
Now, this is beyond the pale and it's very much like the uh uh the Minop slaughter of those 163 little girls. I mean is it is emotionladen and um my own read is that Puchin will be discreet in how he lets himself be provoked but apparently has already done what we all expected innik uh Denipro or place near there Scott has done one in two maybe in Denipro where is this one outside of outside of where >> there's a there's a a town called belly.
It's basically white church. Um and >> yeah and um you know this is where the arric hit. Uh and as I said the um the most likely target there is a um is a is an a Ukrainian air base um >> that has been struck repeatedly by um by uh by Russia in the past. A lot of shahed activity around there. So there's something going on there of interest to the Russians. But um you know this was a concentrated arric strike which implies that um some Ukrainian leadership may have left Kiev and taken up temporary residence here and um and received a um I don't mean to laugh. I I apologize but I I'm I have to laugh because I'd otherwise I'd cry because I'm I'm in contact with um you know Jana Lrova Lantato. She's the u the newly appointed um um budsman for human rights. Um and she's leading the investigation into this and uh it's just devastating. It's just absolutely devastating. You know, the numbers may not be what we had out of Iran. Um and I'm not trying to downplay what happened in Minab. It's a horrible crime. Um but as you know it's I mean for instance and I don't I got to be careful but we know that there are moments you know we I can use the term you know Rodney King uh you know one man one police beating led to the the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak.
Um this Russia has is it the frustration that exists in Russia right now by about the Ukrainian drone strikes. The audacity of the Ukrainians and the relative impetence of Russia in terms of their response has is is seething in Russia right now.
Seething. And this incident um has coalesed everything. All of the anger and angst and frustration of the nation has come together in this incident. This is the incident. This will go down in history, I believe, as the straw that broke the camel's back.
When people evaluate either why Vladimir Putin's government was overthrown in the summer of 2026 or Russia won the war in the summer of 2026, it's going to come down to this drone strike. How Russia responds to this drone strike is is going to determine the future of not just Russia but of Europe. Uh because the emotions now are the this is visceral. It's visceral.
>> Okay. Now Scott, who's to blame? In other words, uh it was fired from Ukraine, I assume. uh did it require western technology and uh sub question NATO technology or including US technology? Who they blame it on?
These are Britishmade drones um that came in the the British also build a drone uh that is a command and control drone. So you have these these drones are coming in, but there's a command and control drone that comes in so you can avoid your electronic warfare. So you can skip through, come in, link up. Starlink is involved in this. So Elon Musk is involved in this murder. Um, and then there's there's AI.
An interesting thing is these particular drones, the Ukrainians have adapted them so that they can carry um airto ground rockets. So, so these drones come in and uh there's multiple reports from eyewitnesses that they were firing rockets into the dormatory uh and then coming back and then firing more rockets into the dormatory, coming back and then at least four of these drones um impacted the uh the dormatory. They were attacking other targets in the in in the area. The it wasn't just a dormatory.
The school got hit. Uh but the idea that this was you know in terms of the intelligence um it's like manab it's marked on a map as a school this is a known school it is only a school u the social media postings of these girls there are just tragic because literally uh an hour before they died many of these girls were posting on the the Russian Tik Tok or something like that doing stupid college girl stuff doing their stupid little dances and eating food and having fun and all this stuff just doing what college girls do and they're dead now or they're hurt or they're crippled or they're blinded or they're whatever. Um, this was a deliberate act. It cannot be pushed off as the Ukrainians are trying to say that they struck u one of the Rubicon headquart. Rubicon is the uh is the Russian elite um uh counter drone unit. So whenever the Ukrainians start doing drones, Rubicon comes in and slaughters them. And so the Ukrainians say they they struck Rubicon. Um but the only way you could make a linkage between Rubicon and this dormatory um is if you used AI just like we did in Manab and uh and you and you stupid AI which said just create a you know find me a place that has dormatory capabilities and you know and we'll just assume that Rubicon's hiding there. Uh nobody believes the Ukrainians uh about this.
This was mass murder of the most vile sort and it was done with Britishmade drones. And I I had to I I wrote an article. I I had to pull it. Um because in the article initially I I gave the Russians the targets, the names, the home addresses of every Brit involved in doing this, the directors of the factories, and I said, "Kill them. Kill them.
Mark them for death." But then I decided that that probably wasn't the best thing for me to do. Uh so I had a more uh a more blunt, you know, more broad spectrum article. But I mean, what you don't what people don't understand is that the Ukrainians are killing Russian factory work uh directors. I wanted to interview the director of the Vodkin machine building plant. Um I know his name. I've never talked about it, but I I know I know how to find his name. I found his name. Um you know, but I'm not going to release it because what the Russians said is they're going to kill him and his family. They're they're hunting down these I was going to interview the chief designer. I know who he is. I know his name. Um I won't release it because the Russians have said they're going to kill them. Uh so they don't want these interviews to take place. Uh the Ukrainians are identifying, you know, Russian defense industry people and marking them for death. They're actively assassinating generals and other people inside Moscow.
Um and so that's why I I said, "Well, turnaround's fair play. We got British factories that are producing drones to give to the to the Ukrainians to attack Russia. They're are direct participants in the conflict. They are a legitimate target of war. Um there's no doubt about that. And maybe at some point in time Russia will start treating them as a legitimate target of war, but we have to see. I I won't I I can't even imagine that until I see what Russia's done here. Um we won't know. Tomorrow we'll have a better idea of what uh what was hit and what happened. Is it just one arashnik? I hope not. I hope it's like 12 um by the time this is done. I hope they spread loaded over the course of several days. I hope every night the Ukrainians go to bed with arnik screaming in their ears because they murdered innocent girls, innocent boys.
These this was a teachers college. These are these these these students were training to become kindergarten teachers, elementary school teachers.
you know, they're the ones that are supposed to be teaching the next generation. And as I said, I'm a new grandfather.
These are the people, the kind of people are going to be teaching my granddaughter and we need them. And the Ukrainians targeted him for death.
Quick question. Uh when Buchin is briefed tomorrow morning by Bel and Garasimov, first question. I'm Vladimir. Okay. Uh, who did this? The Ukrainians using British technology. Any US involvement?
Not that we know of.
>> What do you mean not that we know of?
>> Was the US involved or not?
>> Yes, US was involved.
>> How do you say that? Uh, Garasimov, what do you say? How do you say that? Why?
Why was the US involved?
>> Let me spell it to you, Vlad. S T A R L I N K.
>> That's Elon Musk. That's not the US.
>> That's America. That's America. We know he has contracts. He wouldn't be allowed to do those contracts unless the United States government approved of it.
>> Okay.
Second question.
Uh outside of Starlink, was there any necessity for US intelligence or technologically technological stuff? Yes or no?
>> Yes, Vladimir Putin, you know.
Why the hell did you order me to give a chip to the American attach in Moscow?
Because you know that chip contained information that proved American intelligence was used to target YOU FOR DEATH. SO STOP asking stupid questions, Mr. President, and pull the freaking trigger.
>> But you say, >> you say it was the English. You say it was the English. I ask once again, do you have proof of US involvement other than Sterling?
>> Yes, we do. We have the the chips recovered replicate the same chip we gave the Americans >> this time. Yes, this time today.
>> I'm sure we recovered.
>> I can't I don't know, Gray. I'm not there. I don't know. I'm just saying that the debris are there. They will find the chip. The chip will give away the evidence. The the way this thing went down is the exact same methodology used in the past. Past patterns repeat perfectly, Mr. President. So, yes, we have every reason to believe the United States was involved.
>> That's not good enough. I want the the the parts. I want the parts of the >> parts. Well, we you have them already and you acknowledge you've examined them already. That's good work. Have you?
>> We're pretty good, Mr. President, because they killed your kids. All right. So, now we we've got there and we have the parts.
We know it's a British made drone. We know the serial numbers on the drones.
We track it back to the factory, Mr. President. So, why aren't you blowing up the British factory, Mr. President? Give me the Listen to me. Hh.
What I hear you saying is the British did it.
What I hear you saying that when you get some of the parts of this thing, you will be able to tell me that the US was involved outside of Star.
You bring me those parts and brief me thoroughly by 12:00 this this noon, Mr. Garimov and Belov because I want to make a distinction as we all have been making this distinction between US behavior on Ukraine and British, French, German, all that stuff. So if you can show me that the British and the Ukrainians couldn't have done this without US active involvement, I will make decisions appropriately. If you cannot show me that, I think we still have to give Mr. Trump the benefit of the doubt that he really does want to get out of there. He's not responsible for egging the Ukrainians or the British on. So, noon, that'll give you four hours. Mr. Velusov, can you do that?
>> Well, just one question.
>> What part of Starlink don't you understand? Do I have to headbutt it into you? Do I have to tattoo it into your forehead? What part of Starlink do you not understand?
>> Okay, so Starlink is the key. In other words, they were using that and that's enough to implicate the United States government.
>> Doesn't everybody use Starlink?
>> Doesn't everybody use Starlink?
I mean, it's not sensitive top secret material, is it?
>> Well, I don't know. We have a precedent of the United States cutting off Starlink to uh to disrupt Russian drone operations because the Russians had tapped into it. So again, we have precedent, Mr. President. We have precedent. You've been briefed on it.
Have you forgotten already, Vladimir?
Are you old enough now that your brain doesn't work on Sundays? I mean, you know, >> look, I just talked to my friend, my good friend C in Beijing.
It is clearly two against one. Now, we want to know how hard ass we need to be against the United States, but we want to do anything prematurely. So, give me that evidence and I'll crank Starink and I'll decide who I should feel worse about, the British or the US or the Ukrainians.
In other words, there's distinctions to be made. I'd like to make that distinction, but I need the evidence.
Got that?
>> I gave you the answer, Mr. President.
You're just going to push your foot around. And this is why there's going to be a coup against you if you're not careful. All right, we're not playing games anymore. There's dead children and you got to do something about this. I told you it's Starlink. We briefed you on Starlink. You know what Starlink does and you want to pretend that it's not an American decision-making cycle involved in this. Then that's your fantasy.
You're just like Donald Trump. You live in a fantasy world and maybe it's time for us to remove you from power. I don't think Putin would ask those questions because he knows the answers. He knows 100% that the United States is involved.
He knows 100%. The CIA admits now remember the CIA admitted targeting him in their article in the in the New York Times. The CIA said we are working with the Ukrainians giving the targeting information so they can bypass all of the air defense and strike these oil rigs with straight thing. So all of that that they admitted to cuz turned up to being the chip that they found trying to target Putin. So, it's the same thing, the same patterns.
>> Yeah. Well, um, >> what more do you want to see?
>> Putin, uh, I'm afraid of a nuclear exchange eventuating out of all this.
Uh, Trump is thoroughly unpredictable, irassable, and maybe even sick. Uh, he is sick in the head. Uh, I just want to be able to know exactly what went down and you're confident that you could tell me the right story when you get those pieces of that that missile and so forth. Show me. I'll talk to the people in the and we'll decide what we'll do next. But not until then are we going to use another >> Well, Mr. President, I just want to remind you that uh Xi Jinping in talking with your good friend Donald Trump um when confronted with the uh fact that the United States was promoting a 14 billion dollar defense acquisition by the Taiwanese government said if they do that we will be at war. He used the term conflict. Straight up >> conflict.
>> Yeah, >> conflict.
>> That means war. I mean I I don't know.
I'm a Marine. I'm you know but um and as a result the 14 billion dollar sale of weapons is no longer happening because >> postponed >> postponed >> it's not going to happen. So X drew a line and said you cross this line there will be consequences. Mr. President I advise that you call up Donald Trump and draw a similar line. Um you know because he's not afraid of a nuclear war. Why are you >> I don't think that she uh had nuclear war at all in his mind when he just reiterated in stronger terms and Beijing's eternal position that Taiwan belongs to China and that if the US smokes around with that there'll be conflict. Conflict is a stronger word than they use the last time, but it's still conflict. It's not nuclear weapons. Look, I'm the president of Russia. I bear more responsibility not only for all you people, but for the rest of my citizenry and the peace in the world. I'm not going to jump to any conclusions. Give me the evidence and I'll make a decision in consultation with you once we have those parts from that missile that did that or that those missiles that destroyed so many young girls and boys at that college in Luhansk. Well, I think he already made the decision though, Ray. The archnik did hit. Uh, we got Iscander M's hitting right now. Um, and there's no indication that the Russians are finished for the night. So, um, I think we're going through a a hypothetical here. I think Putin already has all the data he needs to have and the proof is there. Uh, the the FSB has been all over this. Russian military intelligence has been all over it. uh to the extent that they actually uh allowed Russian media to report on the the um you know the origin of the drone um the serial numbers involved in the drone um Starlink um you know embedded in the drone you know these are these are details that the Russian government is allowing to be released uh for a reason because the Russians have the goods >> they could do that during the night time >> well the the the the the drone attack took place at 1:00 in the morning. Um the >> the rescues were pulling the bodies out of the pl at sunrise and all day long they've been pulling bodies out of there. While they've been pulling bodies out of there, the investigative teams have spent all day combing the area for the evidence that they brought together and briefed the president on so he could make this decision to strike tonight.
But, you know, we're we're literally talking about, you know, 24 hours afterwards. So yeah, they they had a day to gather this evidence.
>> Okay, good. I'm satisfied.
Let the let the next arrest fly.
>> Okay, I got on my side now. Kill them all.
>> Sorry, Joe.
>> News has just broken. Donald Trump says this was not America involvement. It was South Africa's. Don Elon Musk is still a South African citizen. US had nothing to do with it.
>> Is this serious?
>> No. No, it's not serious. But that tells you something right there that you thought it might have been uh that's how crazy Trump is, right?
>> No, I made that up.
>> Well, don't tell him.
>> Don't tell him.
>> Don't tell him. He may think he I'll give him an idea.
>> Yeah. But what gets me is you guys last week had a very very uh important and entertaining debate about the response Russia should have to all of this. Uh Scott was saying the big attack on Ukraine would begin on decision-making centers uh on Kiev uh with the rashnik etc and that it would should extend and could extend to Europe and you disagreed about going to Europe. Why would Britain and Ukraine do this strike which was I don't think any doubt now a deliberate strike on innocent students if unless they want to provoke this reaction from Ukraine from Russia for another reason for what is what do they have in mind what do they how do they want to respond to Russia's uh response to this Scott why would they do this now to provoke Russia >> mental warfare I mean this is this is this is actually a classic British um psychological operate the goal of we got to go back and remember you remember when uh gosh Ray who was the who was our Lloyd Austin Lloyd Austin the the secretary of defense under Joe Biden in May of 2022 went to K and came out and he gave a speech where he said the it's the goal of the United States to achieve the strategic defeat of Russia. Now what does the strategic defeat of Russia mean? Strategic defeat of Russia is centered on three things. Economic sanctions designed to collapse the Russian economy. Um and then through the collapse of the Russian economy, you create political disscent uh within Russia, domestic political disscent. And then you create the uh the perception of um inevitable failure by u presenting the Russians with military impetence.
And uh the goal was and we we know this is the goal was to create a Moscow Maidan. If we go to June 2023, um there's every reason to believe that Pragoian had been compromised by Ukrainian and British intelligence. Um and that the the move on Moscow was actually predicated by communications from British intelligence that they had sources in Moscow that would rise up and support Pogosian's march on Moscow. that this was a coup attempt, a straightup coup attempt by Vagner against uh Putin.
Um now it turns out that um the British as usual were wrong and Pgoan got called out and Aialadinov brought in the Akmat special forces and was preparing to storm Rostoandon and slaughter Poggoian and Vagner when they made the decision thanks to the intervention of Lucenko uh to stand down. But my my point is that, you know, the British have been playing this game. The British want a Moscow Maidon. That's what they want. That's their goal. That's their objective. How do you achieve that? How do you get Russian citizens to storm uh the the center of Moscow and demand the overthrow of Vladimir Putin, especially when Vladimir Putin is one of the most popular presidents in any in history anywhere. Uh you know, 80% success support rate. Now it's dropped to 76%.
But American politicians would kill for 76% support. You have to do this by mental warfare. And that's what they're doing. This whole drone campaign that the Ukrainians have been running is an exercise in mental warfare designed to create to sew the seeds of doubt amongst the Russian population. Um, and this what they've done is they've gradually picked look the British are behind everything. The British are behind the initial attacks on the Kirch Bridge.
That was a red line. The British said, "Test it. test the red line, see what they do. And there wasn't a big response. The British were behind Operation Spider Rub. I mean, they built damn trucks, put drones in them, flew them out there, and attacked Russia's strategic bombers.
What did Russia do? Limited response.
Nothing. Another red line cross. They're hitting Moscow. They're hitting St. Petersburg. They hit Vodkinsk. They're hitting defense industries. They're hitting oil refineries. And Russia's doing nothing. And every day the Russian people are waking up and instead of reading about the military success on the battlefield, which Russia is enjoying by the way, tremendous military success. Instead of reading about that, it's another damn drone strike, another drone strike, another drone strike. And it looks like Russia's weak and they're planting the seeds.
>> Ray, are you there?
>> Yes, I am. Can you hear me?
>> Yeah, but uh Scott has seized up.
Hopefully, he'll come back. uh what were you what were you what were you thinking about what he was saying that this is British uh playbook to to provoke Russia to see how they'll react and this time have they gone too far maybe >> well for their purpose uh you know they're they're relaxing in their membership in NATO they're thinking that Putin is too perspeacious to risk invocation of article five of the NATO treaty um you know they like to create all this kind of confusion and hopefully Scott will be back here. But, you know, it doesn't make an awful lot of sense in terms of really hurting Russia. Uh, yeah, there's more dissent about what's happening within Russia. But uh you know with not not more anymore any 80% what 76% or whatever popularity uh I think that Putin is not going to let himself be provoked into doing something that he doesn't want to do right >> he's winning in Ukraine and u he could stave off these things and with respect to Ukrainian drones well you know the the Russians unlike the Ukrainians do have anti aircraft craft and anti-missile batteries and so forth. So, the damage has been comparatively slight until two days ago with the the college and that's an emotional thing because young people have been killed.
Will he let himself be provoked into risking a nuclear war? I don't think so.
Will he let himself be provoked into hitting parts of NATO cities or bases in NATO countries? I don't think so. I think that's way off in the future, if it ever, because of his caution and because of his reluctance to take take a big risk. And as he's got to factor in, there is article 5. The US has not said Article 5 no longer applies. And how can you predict what an unpredictable president in the White House might do in reaction to that kind of an attack on a uh a European and a NATO ally?
>> Right. Well, we're still trying to get Scott back up here, so we'll have to do a one-on-one here. Um, do you think that this is uh the beginning of Well, we don't know that, but it looks like it might be the beginning of the major attack on Kiev that Scott was talking about, or do you think this is a one-off just for this school?
Uh the situation on the ground as I understand it permits the Russians to clear out the rest of the Ukrainian troops out of Donbas out of Detsk uh and pretty much uh recapture or capture for the first time the parts of Zaparo and uh what's the other the other region there uh and and sort of reassert their their authority over these regions.
Then of course they'd be up to talking to the key of authorities if there are any left. And on that score you have you have corruption coming tooth and claw.
Uh Zalinski himself all his people all his intimate advisors are are well one of them's in year because I guess he's on bail now but he was in jail for a while. How long will Zalinski be around?
So if you look at what I think is going to happen the rest of the year the attrition the attrition the attrition will achieve Moscow's first objective and that is to uh demilitarization right that means to demilitarize the Ukrainian army now how about dennazification maybe this is simplistic answer but all those Nazis up maybe there's an Azov battalion still what are they going to do without an army Okay. I think they're going to flee to some some hospitable place and then you can have elections.
Then you can have a a relatively um calm uh a calm resolution to this in broio.
So I don't see that the Russians are playing scared at all. They're winning. Uh the attrition attrition attrition has put them in a very good place. uh even over the last months where they have been making forward progress. The thing that really makes makes it difficult for me to understand is why the western media is portraying a Ukrainian victory is saying that Russia's losing. I mean they were saying that three years ago. Have they learned nothing? And why are they doing that? I mean, you know, there is there going to be hell to pay when when Europe loses, the Ukraine loses and not Russia? I guess the answer to that is no. The the media can cover their track since there's only one controlled media.
They can explain everything away if they want to. U so, hey, welcome back, Scott.
>> My computer overheated.
>> Oh, you shouldn't breathe on it so closely.
You have a very >> I guess it got as emotional as I did.
>> Yeah, both both of you overheated. Okay.
Well, I'm glad you're back here. Um, what were you saying? Do you remember before you uh overheated?
>> I was just saying that this is that Putin's not out of the woodwork yet that this strike uh does not alleviate that.
It has to be it can't just be yet another military response uh that you know happens and then goes away and and we return to the status quo ante. Russia has to change the strategic vector of this conflict um in a in a dramatic way um because the British are executing a brilliantly conceived and um and implemented plan of mental warfare.
They are they are having an impact on Russia. It's uh it's it's you saw it, you know, again, I I'm not a big fan of Gilbert Doctrinal, but uh you got to give credit where credit is due. He wrote an article today where he called out um you know, he he he he showed the different, you know, two big shows. I mean again his his his analysis his analytical methodology of relying upon Russian TV shows as the key indicator of uh of of you know of of of Russia is I don't agree with normally but I just think it's a curious anecdotal piece of information where you have uh Soliv live um you know you're taking a very hardline um you know pro Kremlin Putin could do no wrong stance and then uh Dimmitri Sims um who you know is the the host of uh the the big game or the great game um having a much more nuanced um you know conversation where you know it shows that doubt is seeping in uh at certain segments of Russian society. Um I I I think that you know that that's indicative or symptomatic of um of of an existing problem. And I can just say and and I I am in touch with a great deal of people who are extraordinarily patriotic and um massive supporters of President Putin. Um and while they aren't artic you you can just get a it's like I when like I said when I went to the U Russian embassy uh for victory day a completely different vibe a completely different vibe and Rey you know hopefully you agree that you know when you have somebody who studies a problem um you have to respect their gut their gut feeling um you know you'd prefer to have a a well thoughtout PhD thesis to back up things, but you you have to respect an experienced analyst's gut feeling uh when they come in and they they start assessing a situation. You have to you have to respect the uh an experienced operator's gut feeling. So, I hope people respect my gut feeling when I walked into that embassy and I'm saying this is a totally different a totally different reality. Um and I think that's indicative of the situation that is in Russia. And I so I think think that there are now um heightened expectations of performance uh that if left unmet met could manifest themselves in a way that probably isn't a direction that Vladimir Putin wants Russia to be going.
>> Mhm. So if um if what we're seeing now are the opening salvos of the major attack on decision making centers in Kiev by Russia and even attempts of taking a page out of Israel's playbook maybe of trying to decapitate the leaders uh what would be the response from Britain and NATO if if in other words they call Britain's bluff and stand up to British provocations what will they do next in your view What will Britain do?
>> Yes. What will Ukraine through Ukraine Britain through Ukraine do if there's a major attack on Kiev?
>> Not a damn thing. What can Britain do?
>> What do they got? They're going to, you know, they they they they couldn't mobilize a brigade and get it across the channel. Um, you know, their air force is is non-existent. Their their fleet's going to do what? Uh, what the British have is a very uh I don't know what's going on, but I hope the computer is not uh overheating again, so I'll have to be careful with my >> Speak more calmly. Don't get it upset.
>> Yeah, I'm sorry. I am going to calm down. I think my computer's feeding off of my vibe here. Um, but there's nothing they can do. Um, you know, but the real question is what's going to happen if uh for instance, if Ukraine were to follow through? We now have Lithuania indicating that they may allow Ukraine to fly drones through their territory to strike uh Russia. Um we have Latafia with the Russians identifying seven or eight decision-making centers directly linked to uh Ukrainian drone units using Latvia as a launch pad for Russia. So what happens is I believe the next step will probably be when Russia strikes decision-making centers in Latafia and perhaps Lithuania. There's the big question. It's not about what happens when Russia strikes Kiev. This won't be the first time that Russia stri I mean using an archnic is different but it's not the first disconer that's hit Kiev.
Um you know the the question is what happens when Russia says you no longer have a safe haven. Um and there's there is a target deck right now that you know has at least been developed um to strike the uh production facilities. Um, I mean, if if if Great Britain is producing, as we know, they are the FP5, the Flamingo 5 U long range cruise missile and providing it to Ukraine ready to fire and Ukraine launches this and it's striking Russia's strategic depth. This is exact raid knows this.
This is exactly what Russia said they can't allow to happen. If you go back to December 2021, January 2022, one of Russia's big concerns was Ukraine being used as a launchpad for NATO missiles. And Russia said, "We this just simply can't happen. This is existential." Well, it's happening right now. It's happening on a daily basis.
It's happening. And this is why the Russians are frustrated because the Russians rightfully called it out in 21 2022 is unacceptable. represent an existential threat. And yet on a daily basis, NATO made missiles based in Ukraine are being fired against Russia's strategic depth on a daily basis.
So the you know why why there was a time when Great Britain was afraid of doing something that might push us into World War II. They're doing it. They're doing it. We've done everything. We've given them F-16s. We've given them now Germany is talking about giving them tourist missiles. Just going to do it. Give it to them. Why? Because every time Ukraine with the backing of Britain and others pushes past a red line, Russia does nothing.
Russia does nothing. Um, now the Russia's doing something. But again, now the question is how far will Russia go?
Um, because if they want to play this game of, you know, controlled escalation, Russia's going to lose.
Russia will lose this. The only way you you alter this present course is to change the paradigm completely. And the paradigm must be predicated on uh a Russian response so terrible, so horrific, so awe inspiring in the wrong way, meaning fear inspiring that um you know that the West no longer feels that it's in their best interest to continue to pursue the policies that they're pursuing.
Yeah, let me chime in here and point out that uh the press office of the CIA equivalent in Moscow, the SVR, issued this report after our a couple days after our last session last week. Um the press office of the foreign intelligence service says that drones are being planned to be launched from the territories of states like like uh Latia. The calculation is made that such tactics will significantly reduce the time uh launch the target. Now, um, the Ukrainians emphasized at the exact place of the launch, uh, they were they told the they they told the Lafians, "Look, you're completely safe because we'll put the the missiles and the drones in there and you can launch and no one will ever know where they came from."
And so the Lafian, really? And so the Latians as as the intelligence service of Russia says uh not very good at critical thinking uh they bought this idea that they could launch missiles from Latia and so and that's there were several located military bases by name of places that these things could be sent to Latafia.
Well, that's exactly what uh was been referred to here by Scott. And they finish up saying, "Look, uh these people in Lafia are really not very bright because we know the coordinates of everything, okay? We all know the coordinates of those things that we named." And uh look um uh the coordinates of the decision-making centers are well known and the countries now get this the country's membership in NATO will not protect these accompllices of terrorists from fair retribution.
Now, I don't think that the Russian intelligence service is going to issue this kind of bizarre public public statement while having Vladimir Putin sign off on it. So, you know, whereas last week I didn't think this would happen, this week I think it's at least 5050. That if that's a big if, if the Latafians don't wise up, if the Latafians say, "Oh, yeah, come on.
They'll never know that we that we're shot from from Latafia. If they let that happen, then I think the Russians would retaliate on these bases in Latafia even though Latafia is a member of NATO. So, uh that changes my view and the more so since Adashnik were used apparently today. So, yeah, it's pretty dicey. I still think that uh Putin in control will keep this from going out of hand.
And I think that the the evidence is such that he's got the support of most of the people that count in the Kremlin and in the defense in the Ministry of Defense. And I hope that will prevail.
But that's more hope than than uh sure thing.
>> Just a just a report just I've been read again. It's it I I don't like going off of um social media postings on Telegram or X or anything because you never know. Uh but sources that I do follow that have reported accurately in the past, they're all it appears that this strike against Kiev is ongoing um massive. Uh even the Ukrainians are saying it's the largest strike that has hit Kiev since the war began and that it's still ongoing. Um and you know the so if the Russians can continue this um and continue it through the day and continue into the next night and the next day and the next night um you know now we're looking at the the kind of strike that will strike that could achieve the objectives that need to be achieved. Uh because what really has to happen is people have to look at Kiev and say uh we can't allow that to happen to us. Um, I mean the Latafians have to take a look at if if it's just a strike that, you know, doesn't inspire fear, then people in NATO will say, "Well, what are we afraid of? We we can ride that one out." But at the end of the day, if you look at Kiev, a major city, and you see it in ruins right now, all power is out. Apparently, it's very, you know, there's no communications. So, the Russians are hitting very specific uh things. Um if the Russians could pull this off and um and and create the precedent, the Kiev precedent we could call it, um that could be something that maybe has Latia wake up and um and and not allow the Ukrainians to go forward.
Yeah.
>> And even Britain, huh? Even the UK.
Well, the UK it's sort of a if I were advising Putin on UK, I'd say, "Hey, boss, let's don't let him off the hook. Make him fear." But, um, Starmer's out. You know, why don't we just let Starmer collapse the UK as we want. I mean, because you you couldn't ask for a better outcome.
If you're if you're Russia and you want the British government to fail, it's failing. If you want the British economy to fail, it's failing. If you want the British military to be the British can't buy any new equipment until 2030 because they don't have any money. So I mean what more damage do you want to do to Great Britain? Just let them continue to commit suicide. Uh they are building drones but you know um you know yeah it's that's a tough one because they are building drones but uh and there's drones again uh the British people should be thankful my name isn't Vladimir Putin because if I found a British drone struck this college that drone factory be gone tonight. Um, but that's why Vladimir Putin is the president of Russia and I'm sitting on my ass in Delmare, New York, you know, talking >> lucky thing too.
So, >> you know, uh, Putin and Russians know how it will be portrayed in the Western media and by the Western governments if he hit Latia, for example, that this is the beginning of Putin's attack on NATO and on Western Europe, what we always feared. I think what you're saying, Scott, is that that will not affect the thinking this time of Russia.
>> That will not what >> that will not affect Russia's thinking this time. How it will be seen in the west.
>> If if Russia if Russia's made this decision then no there's nothing that will you know if Putin has made the decision and I it looks like he may have to say this is the draw in the line.
We're we're finished.
I think I mean and Rey can contradict me or back me up whatever. I think Vladimir Putin is one of the most mature, effective, pragmatic, responsible, you know, leaders in the world today, that he doesn't behave precipitously. So for Vladimir Putin to make a decision means that he has thought through the ramifications of it, that he understands you're you're putting something in motion and uh I don't think Vladimir Putin is somebody who gets taken by surprise. Um and so you know he started this and I believe his intelligence people are looking at what's happening and that he has already thought through you know option A B C where's the intelligence taking us what can we do um so I I think the fact that he's initiated this means that he has a he has a strategic vision and that this attack is designed to help get Russia where it needs to be and Russia is not a suicidal nation. Ray Ray said it absolutely correctly. Vladimir Putin is responsible for all of the people of Russia and he didn't just spend 26 years pulling Russia out of the doldrums uh just to throw it away. Um and he didn't sit there and spend the last four plus years uh executing some of the best diplomacy in the world to position Russia where Russia and China today are the leading drivers of a multipolar world that will replace American hegemony. He's not going to throw that away either. Um, so the the the fact that he's made this decision means that he has thought things through and that gives me some comfort again because I I I do have trust and confidence in the Russian leadership not to be suicidal.
Um, so >> that was a good se segue into the summit in Beijing. But I had two more questions specifically about Ukraine. Uh the very odd thing that happened in Estonia this week where apparently a Romanian NATO jet shot down a Ukrainian drone over Estonian airspace. What do you know about this Ray?
>> I don't know anything about it other other than what you said. I was counting on uh Scott to answer this question.
>> All right, Scott. What do you know about it?
about the drone that ended up in >> the Romanians shot down a Ukrainian drone in Estonian airspace one I think it was Wednesday one day this week.
>> Yeah. Look, the Russians the Russians are pretty good at electronic warfare and uh we know that Russia has um done some interesting things in Ukraine to uh to take control of a drone and send it against have Ukrainian drones attack Ukraine. Um there's a touch of irony. Uh Russian drone operators are quite proud of the fact that they've been able to um electronically take over Ukrainian drones and have them do damage on you. I think that's what happened here. I think there are several instances of uh Ukrainian drones um that were on their way to uh to Russia being hijacked by the Russians and then um and then diverted. I I think one of the greatest ironies is when the Ukrainian drone struck a uh was it an Estonian oil producing facility. Um so it it was it was the ultimate payback. Uh instead of that drone striking a Russian facility, uh it struck an Estonian facility and uh I think it actually led to the collapse of the Estonian defense minister. I think he had to resign um and things of that nature. So this is yeah this is a this is you know these are the kind of victories that I guess um you know people enjoy but they don't change the um you know the the bottom line is you Ukraine will continue to fly drones through the Baltic airspace until a strategic decision is made uh to stop that. And so far the Baltic countries haven't been made to pay a price um that uh that would do that. They they they have political rhetoric uh you know including people you know Khali Kalas uh you know saying things that are very hostile. The Lithuanian defense minister encouraging an attack on Keningrad. Uh I mean all this kind of stuff is taking place. So you know even though the Russians are scoring these um impressive technological victories it's it's not a gamecher. It's um it's it's an embarrassment, but it does it hasn't at least yet caused the Baltic states and NATO to alter the course of action that they're on, which is stunning because it it I mean you don't have to be an international lawyer to understand that if you open your airspace to allow weapons to fly through your airspace to attack another country, you are a party to the conflict. you you know uh if you open it would be different if you said oh you're not allowed to do that we're going to try and shoot it down. Um but if you say no come on in or worse you say yeah set up these seven different uh covert drone sites and you can go and launch it from here to reduce the time of flight into Russia uh which the Latvians have done apparently. Um that makes you a direct party to the com. And now you have to ask okay well who else knows about this? Well we know the British know about this. Does does NATO council know about this? Is this something discussed in Ramstein? U is the United States aware of it? You know, I mean, the these are these are important questions. Um, >> one other matter, uh, a week or two or so ago Trump pulled 5,000 US troops out of Germany. He's now announced this week he's sending 5,000 troops to Poland.
What's that about, Scott? you know, >> well, first of all, we don't know that they were going to withdraw the forces from Europe out of uh, you know, the reality that, you know, that that was a strategic direction made by the president. Uh, but then the president said that he had made a promise to the to the Polish president who's a Trump supporter. And he said, I'm going to send 5,000 troops into Poland as opposed to pulling, you know, brigade out of Germany. Um, and Congress said, uh, not so fast. uh you don't have the authority to do that. Uh you do have to come through us and we haven't approved of it. Um and the other thing is there's been no practical ground. You just don't deploy 5,000 troops into Poland. There has to be status of wares agreement.
Where are they going to be based? Base housing has to be identified.
Infrastructure has to be identified. So this is just the president saying things that have no meaning whatsoever.
>> Right? Even if we wanted to deploy 5,000 troops to Poland based upon the word of the president, those troops would not be in Poland before the president left office.
And unfortunately, I got to run right now. I I 10 o'clock was my hard drop. So I I apologize.
>> All right. So let me ask if finish with Ray. Thank you, Scott, for joining us.
One last question, Ray.
>> Two two questions. Just your >> uh general feelings about this Putin she summit and their joint declaration.
Uh they've said things like this before, but in the context of what's happening now, what what's the significance of what happened in Beijing?
>> Yeah, Joe. Uh this was the epitome of what's been happening now and this tectonic shift which kind of slowly goes for decades. Now it's reached its tip and you have two against one, no holes board. Um before you could make cases, well, the Russians and the Chinese are, you know, they're close, but they're not identical. They have they have the makings of a virtual mutual defense treaty, and that has wide implications.
Matter of fact, if uh if things got really out of hand, uh either in Iran or in Ukraine, I think the Chinese would become active participants in as much as they would be prepared to in encircle Taiwan in in in a a kind of embargo kind of way and make make the kind of sounds in the South China Sea that would give the US pause. The US Navy is not what it used to be. It doesn't even have enough ships anymore. So, I think that uh Putin and she are really close together as never before. I think Putin's been in Beijing 40 times or so. And I think 50 times they've had one or another kind of uh one onone uh either by by Zoom or whatever. And you know, I I know this is anecdotal, but uh Trump bragged about he's going to get a great great big fat hug from Xiinping, right?
Well, I mean, I could almost see she say, you know, stay away from me, man. And she I'll give you a big big handshake, but I'm going to lean this way. Don't even go near me. you know, it was very and then if you saw the farewell when she is saying saying goodbye to Putin and again uh take this for what it's worth, but Putin's waiting there, you know, and and she goes and it's a great big kind of a hug, you know, and then kind of sits back like he's looking at his little brother.
And then as Putin walks off. She goes, "You know that those spoke volumes to me. Uh I like to do more sophisticated anal analysis on the basis of other kinds of things, but they are very close." And that is that is probably the most important thing that has happened geopolitically in my lifetime since World War II.
Well, that's quite a saying that's quite a lot to say and then um that's quite interesting. Um let me just uh end the program by asking about Cuba.
While all this is happening with Iran, with Ukraine, Russia and China, the United States seems to be moving on Cuba as uh Trump has vowed. There's a US Nim Nimttz is there off the coast. uh went the CIA director Radcliffe, John Ratcliffe, went to Havana last week to speak to them and he brought with him apparently uh an official who was very much involved in what happened in Venezuela, the attack on Venezuela and the kidnapping of Maduro. Do you fear an imminent attack on Cuba by the United States? Ray, >> that was pretty borish, wasn't it?
Sending Ratcliffe to Havana.
>> Amazing.
>> With this with this guy? Clearly, that's what Rubio wants to do. Clearly, Rubio has the president's ear. Uh, they still can't get over how successful their their kidnapping of Maduro was. Uh, with the help of insiders that cleared the path. I don't think there are likely to be many insiders in Havana that will clear a path like that for any any Yankees. Okay. So, um I think that uh there is a complication here that Putin might be willing to play some cards here. After all, you know, I go back a long ways. 1962 there was an agreement.
Okay, the US agreed with Russia not to invade, not to regime change Castro or Cuba. Okay. And Horchoff said, "All right, then I'll take out my medium range ballistic missiles from Cuba."
That was the deal. That was side deal.
Bobby Kennedy said, "Okay, we'll pull we'll pull out some missiles from Turkey as well." But that was the main deal.
You don't invade Cuba. So, uh, all these years later, has that evaporated?
I don't think so. And I kind of think that uh Putin hinted in that direction when he said, "Look, these people really need oil. They're they're really perishing. I'm going to send a big oil tanker down there." And Trump said, "Oh, okay." And he did. And they went through that little embargo around or whatever it is around Cuba, got there. That was a month and a half ago. They still need another one. They didn't need those things because they used to depend on Venezuela of course and that was the whole idea. So um the thing is this what do they do after they obliterate what latent military capabilities the Cubans have. It's not going to be like Venezuela. Okay. is not going to be so peaceful and so so accommodating by people in the inside.
It's going to be very different. And so what what are the intelligence analysts telling the president now is going to happen after they after Rubio persuades him to attack Cuba? Well, if they're honest, they'll tell him that the Cubans are going to fight to the last person.
Okay? Because I believe they will. And that will that be bloody? Yeah, it'll be bloody. Will that give us a bloody nose in the rest of the world? It sure as hell will in Latin America and in the rest of the world. For what? So Rubio can pound this justice. Say, "Okay, daddy and mommy, look what I did." Okay.
For what? All right. So I hearken back to what happened to John Kennedy as soon as he came into office.
We had the Bay of Pigs operation planned. Okay. Eisenhower had reluctantly endorsed it. They showed it to John Kennedy and he said, "Oh, wow.
So, you're thinking of putting this rag tag bunch of uh of Cuban refugees into on the on the beach there and the what's going to happen then?" And then the operators Allan Dulles and his folks said, "No problem. There'll be an insurrection inside Cuba. Delos Fidel Castro because he's very unpopular just waiting for us. Okay. So Kennedy says, "Are you sure?" No problem. 100%. Okay.
And so he says, "Well, reluctantly I'll let you do this, but don't count on any US military support? No official, no people in your armed services. You got it." Well, yeah. Oh, we got it. Well, they didn't get it because we found a note in Alan Dulles's desk when he died saying, you know, when when we when we get bogged down on the beach, uh the president will have no option other than to rescue uh us by sending in armed forces lest the enterprise fa fail.
Okay? So, they're going to get Castro one way or another. Kennedy, to his credit, said, "Don't you remember what I said? I'm not committing." And you know what happened? Okay. What's the point here? Kennedy says, "My god, are these people in the CIA so feckless that they really thought that Castro would be overthrown rather than come down and man one of those arrases himself on a beach?
DID THEY REALLY THINK THAT?" ARTHUR SLESINGER, historian of of great note, who did some jobs for John Kennedy. offer look into all that sensitive information. How we got into this whole thing and and how they you why they told me that Castro would falling since four months doing this. Okay. He comes back and he says, "Here's my report, Mr. President."
The operatives on that part of the agency never told the analysts about the operation or about they're telling the president that Castro would be toppled very easily. How do you know that going through the whole things? Have you talked to the Ray Klene who was the deputy director for intelligence? Yeah, he was news to me. We heard rumors about things happen happening, you know, the good, but we know what we're told. Well, you're not asked. Were you not asked for for your assessment, your intelligence assessment on how likely it was that Fidel Castro would fall? Hey, they didn't tell us about it. They wouldn't ask us for that because we might be on to it then, right? So, so there you have the bifurcation of the CIA who all these fancy operatives wanted to do this thing. They were sure that they could mouse trap the president to providing whatever kind of armed services support they needed and that that's what happened. So is it any different now?
I don't know. But there's that precedent and it has to do with Cuba and if they think that they can get the equivalent of Raul Castro and all his best friends just saying, "Oh, okay. We give up and we or be overthrown." They have another think coming. U you might be interested, Joe, that we are commissioning a veteran intelligence professionals for sanity memo on Cuba now. We'll have it out in a week. And uh so if we can get that to the president, at least he'll hear from somebody else maybe other than Rubio.
And Rubio is the fly in the ointment now. I don't know why the hell the president listens to him on these kinds of things.
We'll be ready to publish that at Conservative News. Of course, it seems though speaking of China, there's not supposed to be a Chinese wall between the analysts and the operatives at the CIA, right?
>> Well, there is. You know, that was the big debate. Is it good to have a we had turn styles you like if getting on the D train there in Kingsbridge Road?
>> You needed a dime. turn styles between the analyst section of that big building that they built just before I joined 62 and the operators. So you had to have a special thing on your badge to let you go from one place to the other and very few of us had that. So we never we analysts never knew what the operators were planning and it was very seldom that directors who knew how this thing was bifurcated uh gave us a insight uh or asked us to pronounce on on whether it was a good idea or not this covert action that was planned. I'll give you an example.
Bill Colby uh who was a good director in terms of facing into this bifurcation uh I was the NIO for Western Europe for national intelligence officer and he says to me Ray you know um we're getting rumors uh that some of those u or some of those folks there uh who are in the Azors because they were thrown out of Lisbon uh these superanuated people they're going to uh removed those uh late colonels and majors that studied in US staff colleges and and are are are leading Portugal into a more progressive or leftist communist way. He says, "So we know about this not because anybody told us, but we know that Kissinger has been told us and we know that Kisses wants to play with these guys.
So, so Ray, uh, I want you to prepare a memo and you go down to talk to Kissinger. I'll I'll squeeze the skids for you and tell him what a lousy idea that is.
Okay. So, I did that.
Thank you very much.
And I left. I said, "Wow, that was guts." Of course, Kissinger and Kobe didn't get along and Kobe was fired a couple months later, not because of what McGovern did, but because all these kinds of things that the rest of us McGovern did. So, the the problem is that was almost unique. Uh Colby had his head screwed on right after he got out of that Vietnam stuff. Okay, he was a good director. He told the truth for God's sake. He even told the truth about the family jewels. I mean, and that's why Kissinger and the rest of them said he got we got to get rid of this guy, right? And they did.
And I would add, Joe, for those of you who don't know about what happened to Bill KBY that you ought to look into it because he was a pretty robust guy. Went out in a canoe one night, never came back, drowned. Okay.
uh the Maryland authorities were actually not able to investigate very much because the feds came over and it kind of did and there was the equivalent of a cover up and uh called me a conspiracy theorist but there are lots of people that had it in for Bill Colby for revealing the family jewels for ABC not letting them do this or that the other thing that I think that he too was a victim of the assassination squads that uh that the agency and other intelligence services have at their beck and call. So that's big. Uh and the operators never did appreciate the analysts getting involved in things that they had they had sort of convinced the director to do and Stan Turner was also somebody who would stand up to them. But outside of Turner and Colby, and I only worked for Kerner for about six months before I went overseas, those are the only two I could think of that would would not be either complicit like Dick Helms or uh you know, or just say, "Okay, well, if you want to do that, go ahead and do that." So, and I worked under seven seven uh uh directors of central intelligence and for my last two decades at fairly senior level. So, I watched that. It's a problem. And of course, getting back to Cuba, I have no idea as to what those people who still can work on Cuba in a in an honest way, what they might be telling John Ratcliffe, head of the CIA, and what he might be telling Rubio.
Why do I say Rubio?
The director of central intelligence reports to the president through the national security advisor. So if the national security adviser doesn't want the president to get good intelligence or even bad intelligence, he just closes up the the entry there and doesn't let him see it. So and that's I think part of the problem with Iran. So in any case, if the analysts are doing their job, they would be able to tell the president, look, this could be very different from that psy thing you had in in Venezuela, there are no, not to my knowledge, there are no Cubans that have been recruited with lots of dough to overthrow or to dispose of poor Raul.
Was he 74 for God's sake? You know, that's older than I am. Uh, no, it isn't. Yeah, it is. Is it? Oh, hang on.
So, in other words, it's it's a it's a real problem.
>> He's 94, right? 94. That is >> 94.
It's May the 76. Yeah. Okay. Sorry.
>> Yeah. They just indicted him very much like they indicted Maduro, which is why people think it's the same >> playbook about >> Yeah. on false pretenses. I mean, those uh those people that were shot down by Cuban air defense, I mean I mean the people who sent them knew they'd be shot down for God's sake. It's just like just like that thing that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were planning under Kennedy where an American little plane would be shot down deliberately and blamed on the Cubans and then we could get rid of all those commies and what was that called?
I can't remember. It was a regular plan that the joint chiefs of staff and the CIA were in on and said, "Look, we're going to do this. It'll just cost a few American lives, but it' be worth it to get rid of those commies in Cuba." So, we've not come a very long way. I mean, yeah, there's still commies in Cuba, but it's quite a stretch to suggest that they're a threat to the national security of the United States, as Rubio has claimed. they've never never been a threat to the United States except ideologically throughout the region. I think that's uh that's what upset the the United States that uh it stirred up opposition throughout all of Latin America to the US imperial.
>> Well, if the if the Russians or the Chinese putnik or the the like Cuba, then they would be a threat again.
They're not gonna do that. A different world. They don't have to do that. So, you know, it's really well, it's ridiculous that anyone actually would print as a New York Times and Washington Post do what Rubio says about them being a threat to the national security of the United States.
>> Yeah, maybe we'll have a Cuban archnic crisis this time. So, um, Ray, thank you very, very much for staying with us and that was extremely interesting about Cuba and let's see if Russia does act in some way to stop this from happening if they fall through on that agreement. Is Russia being a successor government to the Soviet Union, they feel that that deal is still in place, that the United States has agreed not to invade Cuba.
and on this two against swan thing with with that great that incredible statement out of Beijing which I haven't got all the way through yet but they're talking about preventing this kind of thing you know and they're saying we're we're together in preventing this kind of thing now uh I think chances are less than even that either Russia or China would do anything overtly militarily other than supplying Cuba with some defensive weapons But I think there's a chance in this new tectonic shift world that they would say, you know, well, our rhetoric is great and we make these great statements, maybe in this instance, we should put some teeth into our statements and kind of rumage around and cause some some real problems with our navy that can't handle a lot of things.
And uh so I would not rule out uh either Russia or China or both of them with mutual approval making some saber rattling that had not been made before with respect to Cuba aside from 1962.
>> We shall see. Thank you Ray McGovern for being with us and we thank Scott Ritter earlier spent >> Thank you Joe hours night and Kathy Vogen our producer uh for CN Live. This is Joe Lauria. Please subscribe to the channel. We've begun our spring fund drive. We have a Patreon page for CN Live. If you like these interviews that we have on Saturday nights with Ray and Scott and our other CN Live programs, please consider donating again for Consortium News and CN Live and the world this week. This is Joe Lauria saying goodbye.
Get out your notebook. There's more.
If you are a consumer of independent news and the first place you should be going to is Consorted News. And please do try to support them when you can. It doesn't have its articles behind a payw wall. It's free for everyone. It's one of the best news sites out there and it's been in the business of independent journalism and adversarial independent journalism for over two decades. I hope that with the public's continuing support of Consortium News, it will continue for a very long time to come.
Thank you so much.
Ähnliche Videos
Guess Which Country Trump Is Threatening To Bomb Next! w/ Chris Hedges
thejimmydoreshow
5K views•2026-05-30
Russia Clashes With Romania, U.S. And EU At Security Council Meeting | DWS News | AC1F
dwsofficial
344 views•2026-06-02
Independence Calendar (Episode #25) - With Cory Morgan & Keith Wilson
JohnBoltonAB
3K views•2026-05-31
BREAKING: TRUMP ADMITS HE LIED ON CIA
DarrenMonroePolitics
10K views•2026-06-01
Why Reynosa Is Burning Now: The Truth Explained
THEFACTFACTORYF
560 views•2026-05-30
भिंत #rohitpawar#sharadpawar#ajitpawar#supriyasule#baramati #supriyasulefc#baramatikar#ncp#ncpsp
Aapla_Maharashtraa
9K views•2026-06-02
Bengal News | Another TMC MP Attacked In Bengal A Day After Assault On Abhishek Banerjee
NDTV
80K views•2026-05-31
Karnataka's Biggest Leadership Shift! What Changes Under DK Shivakumar? | South Central | ET Now
ETNow
205 views•2026-06-01
