The Russia-Ukraine war has evolved into a complex multi-state conflict involving Russia, Ukraine, the United States, Britain, and the European Union, with Europe increasingly locked into the conflict for prestige, financial, and military reasons while the US maintains strategic distance through intelligence and infrastructure support. The war demonstrates how modern conflicts involve economic warfare, nuclear deterrence calculations, and the breakdown of international institutions like the UN, which faces funding crises and structural limitations in addressing global conflicts. Russia's strategic calculus focuses on attrition warfare within a defined 'box' to avoid direct confrontation with NATO, while Western powers continue provocative actions that risk escalation. The conflict highlights the challenges of international cooperation, the influence of transatlantic networks, and the persistent tensions between major powers despite historical ties between Europe and Russia.
327 | US Iran Trade Fire.Russia Advances In Konstantinovka & Orekhov, Ukraine Strikes ZNPP,追加:
Heat.
Heat.
Heat. Heat.
It is that time Monday morning.
You are listening to the Jamal Thomas Morning Show. My name is Jamal Thomas.
This is indeed my show.
I love that intro. Um, I hope you guys are doing all right this morning. Um, we are here. We are puttering about.
Have to give me a new hat at some point.
Um, but nevertheless, we are doing the news uh once again and I hope you guys are good. I'm glad that you guys join me on this new episode of the Jamal Thomas Morning Show. Um, we have a damn good show for you today. Damn good. And a long show for you today. In fact, let me check two things before we kick this off. I don't hear echo, so that's good. And the volume is at 64, which is perfectly fine. That means this boat is rocking. Um, damn good show for you today. Jeff Rich, he's going to be on the show, The Burning Archive. We're going to talk about what seems to be morphing into a Russo European war. Um, basically another one.
Um, we're also going to have Mark Sabota. He's going to be on at 8:15. Um, obviously I do the show with Ted RA from 10 to from 9 to 10, but at 10:00 we're going to have Karen Kawatowski.
And at 10:30, we will have Leif Maru to talk about what's taking place in Lebanon. Obviously, Israel has gone on a murder spree. And let me fix my tag in my thumbnail. My tie is like all all over the place. Um, but obviously Israel has gone on a murder spree and expanded the genocide further into Lebanon. Um, from my understanding at this point they're moved south of the Latania or at the very least you can say from their perspective north. But the reality of it is um they have gone on a murderous kill campaign in Lebanon and it's apparently some reporting is that they've asked the Trump administration about going further into Beirut in regards to bombing. Now all of this is disgusting. Clearly they've murdered like 3,000 people over the course of the last several weeks.
beyond the murder of the several people, a question needs to be asked.
Why the uptick in violence in this way?
Now, the reality of it is Israel has taken what 60% of Gaza, something to that effect. They're occupying that much territory and they've basically put out and eat it that they're going to expand that to 70% of Gaza. The people who I talked to in the area point out that the conditions that people in Gaza are effectively living in and that not much has changed short of you could say the extermination campaign that they were running but from the standpoint of the conditions the people are effectively living in. More to the point why is Israel doing this now? And I suspect a lot of this has to do with, let's say, the heightened talk of negotiations with the Trump administration between Iran and the US because Iran has effectively said that Israel is a front in a war in the Middle East and that the US needs to get his mad dog in order. Now, if indeed Israel asks the US about bombing Beirut, this would add credence to that. And if the US wants a deal, Israel must be included in that deal, which is going to create an interesting dynamic for people who often question whether it's the tail wagging the dog or the dog wagging the tail. Obviously, Iran seems to believe it's either the dog wagging the tail or some amalgam of both. But it's the belief that the United States ultimately controls its mad dog. And that mad dog in Gaza and Lebanon needs to be put down. And what it seems as if Israel is doing a mad scramble for the next stage of any negotiation that takes place considering it seems that the US cannot uh go on indefinitely in regards to this kind of energy crisis.
Obviously, this is an economic war.
Sure, we get tradeoffs fired, but ultimately it's economic war. Iran doesn't have the capacity to fire missiles that hit Washington DC or California or pretty much any other homeland. It does have the capability of hitting missiles or let's say hitting bases that are surrounding it in the Middle East. The US apparently did bomb strikes on command and control facilities in Iran. Iran responded with fire on Kuwait. It's saying that Kuwait was the location that fired or that the attack was launched from. In which case, Kuwait became open to attack. Iran is doing a tit for tech. Basically, we're going to put attacks on you every time you put attacks or you attack us. Saying T Ax, not attack. Even though I know it sounds like they're saying that I'm pointing out that they are doing tit for tat. We will escalate when you escalate.
Period. Now, question or comment can be made that response needs to be far more significant.
By the same token, it's Iran that is running the war. They know their capabilities. Um, and I wonder whether this is ideological or whether this is material. I don't entirely know which one. Meaning would Iran's attacks be more pronounced if they had the capability of having more pronounced attacks or meaning within which means they're fighting within their limitations.
Fighting within limitations or is it ideological?
Sure, our attack could be more robust, but we prefer to do a tat for ideological reasons. I don't know which one. As an American, I assume that they're fighting within their limitations, meaning they have hard limits in regards to what they can do against, let's say, the US not seemingly caring about um getting hit in response.
I don't know which. As an American, we tend to be maximalists, so I assume that they're doing what they can, fighting within their means. Either way, either way, this is an economic war and there is a question of how long this economic war or how much of this economic war Trump can tolerate. Now, truth be told, what seems to be happening is that Trump is manipulating markets. Now, I don't know why markets are still paying attention to anything Trump comes out with or Trump says, and yet they seem to, in which case, fuel prices remain relatively stable in the US. Sure, they're at 450, and sure, diesel is near six, but it's been stable at those prices for a while, despite the fact that the war continues, and there are thousands of boats sitting in the street of Iran popping off shots whenever one of those boats pops his head up or for that matter. Obviously, it's not necessarily the most, let's say, enthusiastic thing for a ship captain to be fired upon. Hence, they stay where they are. I guess the point I'm trying to make is it's unclear to me how long the US can or how long Trump can manipulate oil markets while simultaneously sabotaging what ultimately will be a US surrender.
I'm not a triumphist. It's not that I believe that this is an automatic win. Iran obviously needs to play its hand to the degree it can play its hand against a superpower.
But let's be honest, it's played its hand up to this point considering its deficits and considering the US excesses. Three, well, what is Trump going to do? He seems hesitant for military strikes because I would imagine he knows the consequences of those military strikes or at the very least has a sense of the threat to the US economy in those strikes if oil effectively evaporates.
He's in a fix. He's in a box and he seems to be in a holding pattern which obviously does not look good for a US president.
You will not get a better deal than the JCPOA regardless of what Trump says. He's lying. We will see if any deal comes out of this at all. But I strongly suspect and I still go with the idea that there will be renewed strengths even if there's skirmishes. But I don't believe for a moment that the US is just going to acquies to a deal with what it considers to be a weaker power.
We'll see. Um, I see my guest is in the background though and we have a lot to talk about. I am joined with the one, the only, the man from down under, Jeff Rich. How you doing, Jeff? You doing okay today?
>> Uh, very well, Jamal. Uh, winter has struck here in Melbourne. It's a very cold, stormy, windy night. Is it?
>> Yeah. Yeah. But, uh, you know, it's not always sunshine in Australia, is it?
>> Well, it's warm here. I mean, we're in >> Yeah. Well, there you go.
>> Yeah, we're going to have summer months.
Um, Dr. Jeff Rich, he's a historian, author, retired government official from Melbourne, Australia. Um, with a Let me get my glasses. This always gets hard to read. With a PhD in history and over three decades of experience in government, he created the burning archive, YouTube channel, and Substack where uh where he shares commentaries, book reviews, and interviews on world history, culture, and politics. Jeff has written four books, including 13 ways of looking at a bureaucrat. Jeff, I am glad to have this conversation with you and I saw your email before you came on and yes, let's have that conversation about what seems to be transforming into a larger Russo European war for lack of a better term for it.
>> Um, give me your thoughts.
>> Where do you think, See, I got to be honest with you. I thought for a long time that this war wasn't going to end and it was going to morph into something much more nasty because it didn't seem like Europe could call it a day, call it a day and back off. In fact, from my point of view, and I think I mentioned this to you before, I thought the Europeans were far more cynical than I think even you thought, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, I thought the entire point was to throw away Ukrainian lives until Europe got to the point of being able to quote fight a war or handle the Russians on their own, which was US strategy of effectively handing off responsibility to various theaters because the United States, like the Romans, can't necessarily carry the entire world's burdened on our own. I mean, after all, we're $39 trillion in debt and we're well past that at this point. Give me your take on this. Do you think I'm being too cynical in my thoughts about what the Europeans are doing? And do you think this is morphing into a Russian European war? What are your thoughts? Well, the idea that it's morphing into a Russian European war is the the thought of uh Professor Richard Sackwar who's like, you know, one of the world's leading experts on on Russia and Ukraine. He wrote the book um Frontline Ukraine uh about the situation up to about 2018 2020 something like that. uh and he's actually just published a book on the history of the of the Russia Ukraine war uh as well and he was uh doing a interview with George Samueli and Peter Lavel of the Gaggle Petel you know I think he's still on RT has various shows on RT as well uh and it was in that context that he was saying it he fears it morphing into a Russo European war by which means the USA is sort of pulling out uh and Europe is hardening and mobilizing I guess a lot more around its sort of war project uh so to speak over over Ukraine and you know some of the rhetoric from the European uh politicians particularly around you know Ursula Vanderline and uh your favorite Kaakalis uh has been pretty harsh uh comments We we love Russia so much there should be 40 of them. Let's break it up sort of thing. Uh and you know the the EU has pursued a bit of a militarization strategy as well.
So I do think there is quite a a degree of truth to that that there is uh increasingly within Europe a sort of locking in behind the sort of um the the aggression towards Russia and similarly increasing exasperation, anger, annoyance etc from Russia that you know all these drone attacks etc start happening. Uh I I have a somewhat slightly different perspective as well which I mean my analysis over a while which I haven't revisited uh for a little while has been that it's best to see this as a five-state war which is Ukraine, Russia, the USA, Britain and the European Union. And with the I mean the USA despite everything it says is still heavily involved in this war. So uh and and the the reality of Europe and NATO's military operations uh command and control structures infrastructure uh uh interoperability of its weapons systems the the way its troops work uh the intelligence services all this kind of stuff with with you know uh heavy US presence and interoperability between Europe Europe and the USA means it's it's it it's not so clearcut to really say, you know, Europe's doing this or the USA is doing it because it's it's a little bit murky about exactly what's happening. But I think one should be pretty, you know, upfront and clear that Europe has since, you know, really since 2014, I think pursued war objectives. let's be blunt about it, or at least policy objectives, strategic objectives, uh, in relationship to Ukraine. And sometimes they've been in conflict with, uh, or, you know, in alignment with what the US wants to do and with what Britain wants to do. And sometimes they've been a little bit more discrepant. Uh and I think really the situation we're finding now is that Europe is the you know Europe is Ukraine's neighbor and Russia's neighbor and uh you know the United States can maintain the fiction that it's not involved by retreating off to the Atlantic even though it's providing all the intelligence and surveillance and etc etc the military bases and the infrastructure.
Uh but Europe is is locked into this sort of fight that they increasingly feel that they cannot lose for prestige reasons probably for financial reasons, you know, just the the the legacy of rebuilding in Ukraine, uh as well as as any sort of military reasons. So, it seems like we're uh increasingly um almost escalating between Russia and Europe. Uh which I personally think is an absolute tragedy. I think Russia and Europe should sort of realize that their common enemy is the United States. But >> is that Russia? Is that Russia?
Look, when Putin goes out and gives these speeches and he's like, I don't know if you saw the interview that he gave, I think it was a couple of days ago >> and he about Europe, he was like, >> basically these stupid idiots are selling out selling out their populations >> to America. We should be working together. And if you think about it, when Russia was working with Germany with Nordstream, >> it was the Americans that took issue with it. It was the Germans >> that decided to give that up. It's not the Russians. The Russians are perfectly fine with working with Europe. It's the other way around.
>> And by the way, I would I would tell you something else about this. Well, not tell you.
>> Yeah.
>> But when uh what is his name? Nenzia, I believe, uh was at the UN and he was giving this speech.
>> And part of that speech was historical context that I have to be honest scared the hell out of me. And it scared the hell out of me because it made me think these guys are serious about this.
Meaning Russia is very dodgy about it borders. Obviously, they're in a war in Ukraine right now. And when they're telling the UN, we fought Germany and Germany is being empowered to rearm. And there's a historical context to the fight that we had with Germany or for that matter the fight that Japanese had with um China. This is from my point of view. They're not saying this just to say these are warnings that are coming out that are getting more stripe. The um allowing um airspace to be used in Europe. Okay, that's a big deal. that makes them, you know, that's Kasa's belly in and of itself. Allowing the locations in Latia to be used to attack Russia. Again, these are problematic issues. Russia has done everything in their power to keep this isolated to Ukraine and Europe seems to be using the fact that they're trying to keep it isolated to Ukraine as a as a mechanism by which to attack them. I mean, give me your take on that. It doesn't seem like it's the Russians that don't want cooperation with Europe. It seems that Europe doesn't want cooperation with Russia.
>> Well, that would seem to be the case. I mean, yes, absolutely. Um, I do feel that Russia, uh, perhaps in retrospect, uh, it probably made sense at the time, but in retrospect probably put too much, um, effort or faith or hope into doing a deal with the United States after Trump uh, came to power with the view to, you know, getting the United States out of the war. And there's you know there's a strong element within uh Russia which you know John Helman talks about who are uh you know pretty pro- oligarchical interests in America and in Russia. Uh so there there has been that that that I mean it goes back to Yeltson you know he sort of love affair with the United States sort of thing. So there there's that that element there in Russia. Uh so I agree with you that uh Europe has been an aggressor and I think Richard Saqua makes the same point that Europe has wal from being a peace project into a war project and Russia has become the external enemy and he Richard Zwa puts it in even deeper sort of historical u context of saying that in a way it's as grave a security threat to Russia now from Europe as any time in the last I think he even said in the last thousand years of Russian statethood. Um because we sort of have a a mobilized, armed and um ideologically passionate um frenzied almost um Europe uh with Britain, you know, safely calling uh you know, calling the shots from the back seats uh safe there across the British Channel. Um and Well, I yeah, I'm not say but that they might imagine themselves to be. So, they're far from the front line. Let's put it that way, >> right?
>> And and uh uh and yeah, it's it's a real threat and it's a deep economic threat that doesn't have any real solution.
Whatever happens with the battlefield outcomes in Ukraine, there's this social mess on the on the doorstep of Russia which is going to create, you know, uh a long period of uh security risks of various kinds, human security risks, you know, people movements and uh you know, just crime and as well as uh terrorism and ideological fanaticism and hate. and bad memories and uh as well as direct conflict. So it is a very dark situation but I also feel it's it's well it's a situation that the United States also needs to take responsibility for you know egging along and and and urging Europe to you know fight the Russians so that the Americans didn't have to do it themselves uh and you know fight till the last Ukrainian and all that sort of thing.
and the the the inherent possib or or potential for cooperation between Europe and you know across all sorts of fields not just geopolitics but in economics and culture and all sorts of things uh of you know positive peaceful relationships between Europe and Russia is just so uh obvious and So it has been a big part of the history of the last 200 years as well or you know well more than 200 years last 500 years let's say uh as well as all the invasions and all the rest of it. So I just think it's just so so so tragic that it's gone this way.
But I mean it's it really is quite sobering to hear as well informed and um sober assess you know assessor of the issue as Richard Sackwa >> talk about it in these terms and and really being quite pessimistic about how things will go.
>> I think he's right. I think it's existential. I really do. I mean, like when Putin went in to Ukraine, initially there was shock um because none of us at the station thought he was going to go in.
>> Yeah.
>> But then when you think about it in Russian terms, okay, well, they've been invaded multiple times, you get um the United States backing this overthrow of the Ukrainian government. This is the same government that overthrew Iraq, has been invading countries left and right.
from the Russian point of view that invasion was imminent at some point.
Meaning they're looking at this through a historical lens and they're looking at the love the passion the burning passion that seems to be in Europe to get wrecked.
>> I'm curious why are they so as you point out they are why are they so hellbent to fight the Russians in this way? Because as you point out, there's ties that could be made. Like it makes Europe is right there beside Russia. It makes all the sense to the world to cooperate and they've been cooperating for God knows how long in regards to getting energy and everything else. Why >> this behavior?
>> It's a very good question and look, I think one element of it is the sort of transatlantic networks. So I mean I think increasingly one needs to not think of Europe and the United States uh as you know entirely independent you know sovereign distinct actors that they are states that mobilize institutions and networks and resources that uh you know intersh uh and overlap and have some distinct interests but also uh operate in a highly coordinated fashion uh uh with different different um you know factional focus you know like the MAGA crowd or the Democrat crowd neocons you know different flavors over time >> right >> and and certainly I think the United States's uh anti-Russia frenzy since uh Well, in many ways since 1991, but on steroids since uh whenever it was, you know, the Russia gate business, 2016, 2017, uh, you know, has has totally poisoned the atmosphere and encouraged the most zealous anti-Russian elements within Europe and empowered them as well. you know it, you know, cuz you know the United States has a say in who is who is the head of NATO and you know all those kind of things.
Uh so I think the there's that element of the of the sort of shared ideological frenzy let's say of the transatlantic uh networks and there just doesn't seem to be enough of a strong counterbalancing faction within those at the moment to really sort of turn the the dial down on it. the the sort of you know oligarchical interest to use sort of um John Helmer's uh sort of analysis uh uh uh you know just there to get business deals done and interests served but they're not really going to sort of redirect the the the strategic direction of these complex states >> uh military institutions and diplomatic networks across multiple nations. So that's one element and then the other element is just the you know the what we call the Russ Russophobia uh sort of Russia hatred sort of thing and I just think that that is I mean I mean I don't know what the right analysis of that is but I think it's it is a it is a profound social phenomenon of our time just this um uh antipathy towards Russia both in the you know large parts of the general public but also certainly within the elites and I think that antipathy drives a lot of these decisions especially in some of the states with historical grievances against Russia which uh would include you know Estonia where Kaakalis comes from uh may include Germany you never know and uh and you know the the the the states of Eastern Europe, Poland and and others. Uh so that um I think there is that sort of uh sentimental socioeotional element that is actually driving it and and provides this very supportive public environment for people to, you know, go as hard as they like against Russia. You know, I mean, I I've over the years just found it at times just deeply shocking what, you know, generally nice ordinary people here in Australia will sometimes say about Russia and Russians. It's just it's sort of like it's like you know um I've been writing a lot about anti-semitism on my substack and I'm not comparing it directly to that but you know anti-semitism in its worst forms in you know 1930s 1940s uh in Europe but also in the United States uh was driven by some uh uh you know dark elements of the human soul let's Okay. Uh and those things were there in the public but they also informed key decision makers. So I think there's certainly that element as well.
And then I think the third thing is the is the conflicting interests and this is where um you know one shouldn't be naive about Europe not being in conflict with Russia and Ukraine. You know Ukraine is the second largest country in Europe after Russia. It is a big uh you know has significant resources, significant number of people etc. And Europe was pursuing, you know, from the, you know, early early uh 2000s pursuing sort of economic objectives in uh Ukraine as well like uh uh Emanuel Todd's book, The Defeat of the West, refers to German hubris in seeking to effectively, I guess, turn Ukraine into let's in simple terms like an econ economic colony, an extension of its sort of Eastern European industrial zone, uh, you know, integrate the labor, etc. So, Europe has absolutely been pursuing interests in Ukraine and having invested so much in it now over the last period of time. You know, it wants to get an outcome too, just as the United States wanted to get an outcome through through its peace negotiations over the last year. So I think those three things of the sort of transnational elite networks, the ideological fanaticism or the social antipathy towards Russia that affects decision makers as much as you know the person in the street and the the the conflicting interests uh of Europe which have increasingly meshed with with uh you know US business interests as Well, >> have driven this disastrous set of decisions.
>> Have it have they just forgot what it means to have millions of Europeans die in a war? Because that's the thing that I keep coming back to. It's like, okay, so what is the thought that you guys are going to confront the Russians? Okay, well, your largest military is getting trash.
>> So, what do you think you're going to do? And even if you did think you can confront the Russians, what do you think is going to happen? They have nukes.
>> It makes no sense to me. Have they just forgotten what it means to die in a larger world war? Or they just don't believe gravity is real?
>> Don't know. Or maybe they think it won't get to that. Or maybe they think uh for you know like like you know if it's all drone it's like drones hitting infrastructure and you know not too many people die that's okay. it it might still have the same effect on the uh in terms of the political objectives that they're pursuing. You know, like if you if you can send a thousand drones and it sort of damages 500 um industrial facilities in Russia or whatever whatever the calculus is, but you don't actually kill many people and you don't put any of your own people directly at risk there. uh then you may you may think well I mean what's the harm in that we still get our objectives of an enormous prize of uh the economic control of Ukraine and potentially economic control of you know at least a fair share of the largest territorial country in one of the commodity superpowers in the world >> they're dreaming they're dreaming >> like this is >> people do dream I mean it's it's extraordinary ordinary how powerful people can often be driven by these grand illusions, but you know they are uh but they're also driven by the situation. They're sort of like um h how can we get out of this now? Like how can we get out of this without a win? We can't what's Europe going to do? Uh if they if they just pull out now, it's humiliating for them. Uh as well as uh sort of issues >> probably expensive. Yeah. So is this sort of locked in the situation in a in a negative way? Again, >> do you think that's the main issue that for all intents and purposes under Joe Biden they supported this full stock like lot stock >> and now Trump comes in and Trump is ambivalent like yeah he's still running like the CIA is still running the war or whatever.
>> Yeah. Yeah. for all intents purposes, he's focused on other things and Europe is still stuck with the bag. And now you have HexF coming out saying, "Yeah, we're no longer going to subsidize Europe, which means basically you are now taking over the cost of the Ukrainian war."
>> That's effectively what he's trying to say.
>> They just can't back up. I mean, they've they've locked themselves in to a particular point of view, and it would look ridiculous for them to be like, "Okay, we got this wrong.
Well, I think there is a element of that which I mean it's not it's sort of it's sort of like you know how do you get yourself out of a bad situation you need like you know in a bad political situation like that you're going to have to have some leaders and enough um you know enough uh of a constituency for people to say no we've got to change course here we have to change course here. I mean it was like when when Europe in the 60s and 70s uh sort of put you know took a step back from America's cold war zealatry and tried to form good relations with Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. I mean Daytona was initially the idea of Charles de Gaul.
So it was very much a European-driven idea, the Helsinki Accords, all that sort of thing. Uh so so uh but it required people who have enough uh political vision, enough political skill and also a strong uh elite network to back them up. You know, you need to have the the backers in the media and the in and all the rest of it. But what do we have at the moment? We have poor quality leaders who are who just sort of repeat, you know, media talking point nonsense and have no real historical vision of the the potential and the history of the deep deep interconnections between Russia and Europe over you know a thousand years. Uh and uh we have uh um what was my second point? We we forgotten the the point, but um >> you made a point of saying the connect between Russia.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um yeah, they they don't have the political skill to sort of get themselves out of that. So they're just sort of um you know there's and they don't have enough backing because the media has become so monochrome because the academic networks have become so monochrome and because so much power has been vested in the you know the the security bureaucracy or the security institutions, the intelligence services, the military um all the think tanks, all the consulting firms who are all just, you know, living off the the the permanent war against uh against both Russia and the sort of rivals to the west. So, it's sort of uh there's if you're in that situation, there's so much pressure on you to just um well, what's the next thing? How can we get our next win out of this? You know, let's let's manufacture another drone crisis in Romania.
one to this that we should and it's >> I would argue racist or let's say superiority >> this idea that somehow they're morally superior that >> you know like even in the media when the media talks about Russia they talk about them in a particular way when we talk about Iran we talk about them in a particular way even China in a particular way >> and that it's always dimminionative it's always kind of like um well the Russians are doing so and so and us with our values are obviously morally superior.
That lunatic from I think it was Palunteer recently came out and made the statement saying, "Well, the Russians don't care about their people."
>> Are you serious?
>> Yeah.
>> That's what they say. And by the way, they said the same thing about the Chinese. And even when they talk about the Ukraine wars, like the Russian hordes, Russia has not been sending wave attacks, just for clarity, right?
They've been they've been trying to preserve their men. Um, and this is even in the face of people saying, "Hey, you need to be more aggressive, more aggressive."
>> But that's the way they talk about it.
And I guess my point is when you talk about it in those terms, and I just mean when the media talks about in those terms, politicians talks about in those terms, how can you ever make a deal with somebody who's the Satan, who's the devil, who's like Hitler?
>> Yeah, that's right.
>> Like, it's that stuff, too, right? I mean that plays into the way they look at their actions versus let's say Russian response or Russian actions.
>> Yeah. No, totally.
>> Because you could disagree with >> Oh, no. I totally agree with you on that. I mean, you know, it's hard to know whether to call that sort of racism, but it it it is uh a it's mobiliz Yeah. or morally superior is a good way of doing it, but it's also mobilizing and validating forms of uh antipathy or social hatred. It's, you know, it's saying it's okay to, you know, dehumanize, to uh to to uh dismiss the humanity of uh Russians, to minimize the pain and suffering that they feel when school children are bombed. Let's not even report it. That sort of thing.
Um and uh you know uh it's interesting because you know I have been doing all this stuff on anti-semitism so it's a little bit on my mind at the moment and you know uh uh there's there's more than one sort of uh form of you know social evil let's say you know there's racism there's anti-semitism but the hatred that people express towards Russia and Russians at times over the last, you know, particularly since the war began in whenever it began, 2023, 2022. Uh it seems so long ago now. Um it's it is quite shocking and it is it it mobilizes all these deep uh cultural tropes like you know the Russian horde and >> yes >> uh you know when the war began there was all this sort of uh you know all the the nonsense about the like Genghaskhan and the Mongols and all this sort of stuff which in itself is is you know a very old racist this trope from Europe as well that actually doesn't comprehend the nature of the Mongol Empire at all, but that's another story.
It's like it's closed off. Let's >> So yeah, it's I just find it it's so disturbing and it's just created this terrible terrible tragedy where um uh it's it's just so hard to see how uh some sort of genuine reconciliation could happen at the moment.
>> Yeah, I feel like sleepwalking into war.
I I don't know if you've ever read that where basically how Europe slept walked into the first world war like one stop after the next Christopher Clark's book.
Yeah. Brilliant.
>> Yeah. It feels like that to me where it's like okay we've seen this picture before.
>> Yeah.
>> And one step after the next after the next. I mean for God's sake Russia's fighting in Ukraine, Iran's fighting um the United States and the US is backing both.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. That looks dicey.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> And now the US is like, "We need to confront China."
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. It seems like it's one war with multiple fronts. That's what it comes across as.
>> Yeah.
>> I I don't know, man. I This seems very dicey to me, especially with the degradation of the political space in the United States and all of this stuff is kind of happening simultaneously.
It seems like it's going in a bad direction and I don't see the corner.
>> I just don't.
>> But I suppose we'll see. I'm curious where's Australia in this? The um HexF was in what? Uh Shangriela I believe not Shang.
>> Oh yeah, the Shangrila dialogue. Yep.
>> Was the Shang. Okay. So I was right.
Shanga dialogue and effectively reiterating, hey Australia and South Korea and Japan, we need you to you know China. I'm curious on how is Australia I'm I'm always fascinated by that because China is Australia's major trading partner.
>> Yeah. is like, "Hey, you need to go to war with your major trading partner."
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> What's the response in Australia to that?
Well, again, there's a big discrepancy between the, you know, elite political response, particularly within the defense and security establishment, and I guess the general public response.
And, uh, the general on Russia, you know, there's like I, you know, I I I I'm ostracized in Australia for my pro pro That's what >> what do you mean?
>> You know, but people, you know, people look a scance at at the various things I say, but um >> really >> and there's there's very little uh you know, there's not much at all um sympathy at all for for for Russia within the sort of general Australian media. even though I mean there's a not insignificant Russian community here and all the rest of it but it's it's pretty bad but more broadly with the China thing the the you know the uh the government the opposition the the main uh institutions the state are all pretty much locked in behind the US security strategy if sometimes we kind of like oh we wish they wouldn't be so crude about it but you know I guess it's in our interest to sort of serve America as well as possible and as a result you know there's really no no real uh distancing at all or no particular independent thought on foreign policy there are I mean there's like you know war bal and lots of critics etc who who do offer different views >> uh and there's one or two politicians who starting to raise questions or they they tend to raise those questions in relationship to China but not in relationship to Russia or particularly even sort of Iran. So Australia has always has you know continued to be this super loyal um member of the US alliance system and you know it's it's it's largely I would say because it not so much uh an attitudinal thing within Australia because within Australia it's a very uh multicultural society uh you know we've just got some data coming in that India is now the largest source of migrants to Australia. Uh you know very large number of Chinese migrants as well. So it's um and it's a very high migrant you know society not at all like Europe or or perhaps even like the United States. Um so uh it's not so much the social base that's driving this. It's the elite uh interests who are very locked into the US alliance. Uh and you know it's just it's sort of going nowhere. We've got this huge Orcus deal which is like over $300 billion that going to give us these dud subs in 30 years and and not really do much apart from make us uh a more likely target in any sort of war and allow sort of US nuclear uh ships to sort of base in Australia.
So it's just uh uh in many people are just in absolute despair about the nature of it but it's very hard to change because you know the the army the military the the sort of uh elite networks within the politicians all benefit enormously from you know being part of the five eyes alliance and we get all the best intelligence and we play a special role in special operations. s and and in addition there's you know very strong financial interests uh between the United States and Australia you know uh well we get a lot of our capital investment from the US so so one of the big worries during the 2008 financial crisis was that the money from America was going to dry out and no one would be able to you know get any loans for anything in the in Australia. Um and uh the other thing there is the sort of media control. So Rbert Murdoch of Fox or or Sky News uh you know he he's the sort of original Australian oligarch really. He he his father was a you know successful newspaper tycoon.
uh he he set up a you know his own sort of media company in the 1960s and in the mid70s moved to America and then sort of took o over the world and his his his media imprint uh um you know dominates I guess the Australian uh intellectual landscape in many ways. So, you know, it's sort of uh it's it's a pretty bleak bleak situation in Australia.
>> I want to get your take on something before I let you go.
>> Yeah.
>> Um we I think you and I have had this conversation about international law. In fact, I've had this conversation.
>> Um and they think I'm way too cynical.
Like, dude, it doesn't exist. You know, it's like let the UN die. Like, I could be real extreme on this. The only reason I'm extreme on this is because I feel like the UN has failed in its responsibilities. So now there's this complaint that well the UN is running a budget deficit. It's running out of money. Apparently the US hasn't paid its dues to the tune of billions of dollars.
Apparently China has been very gentle about paying his dues.
>> And so Gierrez has put out the complaint that by July or August that they could cease main operations or let's say various operations in the context of the UN because they're not getting the money. And from my point of view, what have you done to deserve it? meaning meaning we've watched a gen genocide.
We've watched a war take place in Ukraine and for that matter in um Iran.
We've watched the US be the aggressor in the war in Iran. We've watched Israel be the aggressor in regards to Gaza and the UN has done squat.
>> Yeah.
>> And so it becomes like okay well what is the point of the UN? Is it just factional where there's a rules-based order and the moment that you get a faction then nothing can take place? And if that's true, then the UN is a pointless endeavor. Now, that's me being a hard ass, and I know I'm being a hard ass on this. Fair enough.
>> Um, speaking of the UN, though, you're gonna love this. So, this took place at the organization that apparently is running out of money because the US hasn't necessarily put money into it.
>> And this is Marco Rubio saying just amazing things.
I think it's a real test of the UN.
>> Come on, Mark.
>> As a function, as something that functions to that can solve global problems. What is the purpose of the UN?
The UN was supposed to be a place where you could peacefully resolve global conflict. Right now, you have a country who is unlawfully, criminally, and illegally taking possession of an international waterway and blowing up vessels and putting in the water. I don't know if people appreciate how outrageous this is, how unacceptable it is that any country would fire and try to stink commercial vessels or put mines in the water. Both of these things are illegal. And so we're going to take it to the UN. We're gonna >> Isn't that amazing?
>> That's amazing. I mean, I I heard there was a country that was shooting fishing boats with one or two people in out of waters with no warning and and then going back for a double tap.
>> Yes.
>> Bloody outrageous. I think maybe the United States should bring that to the UN Security Council, too. It's just >> I mean, he says it with a straight face and he like works himself up. It's outrageous that people are shooting boats. He is blockading Cuba as we speak.
>> Yeah.
>> And and let's not forget, we attacked Iran, not the other way around.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Look, I I do think the world is a better place because of the UN and and if if if there's one key fact about it is decolonization. So in in 1945 there were 55 states in the UN and a third of the world was subject to colonial rule. Uh and today there it's kind of less than 0.001% 0001% is you know of of people as subject to colonial rule. So that is one of the major achievements of the United Nations and it should never be forgotten. It has not been able to do all that it's aspired to do. But I also don't think uh you know frankly the United States can uh fail to accept direct accountability for that.
And there's a very specific thing I I learned about just recently in in writing my various pieces on anti-semitism which include sort of discussing the sort of you know the development of the the close relationship between Israel and the United States which was after the ArabIsraeli war and then in 1967 uh it very very much strengthened the um relationship between Israel and the United States and we had the sort of 1971 1973 sort of oil crisis and then in 1975 the UN General Assembly passed this resolution condemning uh condemning Zionism as a form of racism uh and and and talking about Israel as an apartheid state that sort of thing while South Africa was still an apartheid state in 1975 and let's not forget the United States was one of the last countries in the world to um you know withdraw its support from that apartheid state in South Africa. Uh but at that point that that totally flipped out both Israel and the elites in the United States about the UN and this book I I've been looking at uh by Mark Nazar on on anti-semitism uh refers to the then uh US ambassador to the UN. I can't remember his name basically saying you know we're going to have to go into opposition uh against you know at the UN and so basically from the mid 1970s from the mid 1970s so that's whatever that is 50 years ago so for 50 the last 50 years uh the United States in many ways because of the intimate sort of social, cultural, political relationships with Israel has pursued a policy of undermining the United Nations related to some of the same issues that we're complaining about now, Palestine and all all the rest of it. Uh, and if it had not done that, uh, the world would have been in a very very different place. So, I agree the UN is in a very very broken state. Uh but I think there's one country in the on earth that has uh like you know blood all over its hands uh and has caused that problem and it is the USA and um I mean I've I I even think sometimes the UN should just expel the United States and say you you turn yourself into a decent country and then you can join the UN again. Uh I I and and this is part of my brief uh my uh disagreement with you know some of our you know your fellow guests uh about China's response to things because I just think there's not been enough assertiveness from China and and you know other major powers including Russia frankly both of whom are members of the UN security council and so have a additional global responsibility for how the UN actually functions. There hasn't really been enough effort from them to uh force force a change. And I I just think we're probably now at the point like the League of Nations was in the 1930s where it's going to break down and something else is going to uh get formed in its in its place. But um you know that could take could take you know five to 10 years. I guess the question I would have is is it pos I'm sorry you've gotten into an interesting area for my point because I agree with you. I agree with everything that you're saying but I think it's because we're in the west >> like meaning we have >> we are products of our cultures.
>> Yeah.
>> And the US can be very aggressive militaristically and diplomatically when it's going after an objective in a way that China seems to be less. So >> it it's super interesting like when you're talking to Chinese guests and they're like >> it's under control.
>> Yeah.
>> Everything's great.
>> We just need to coast. We'll be all right.
>> We'll have a better world. And from our point of view, it's kind of like dude, are you serious? Like meaning you if you have the capability of being more boisterous and being more assertive against a naked hedgeimon, you should do so.
>> And I feel that way about the Russians, but they're already in a war. Yeah, they are.
>> Yeah, it's China.
>> And so I do feel there's a and I disagree with the people who say it's all all fine and you know I mean because they tend to say well what do you want China to do? Fight World War II and it's like hey there's a couple of other steps you could take >> right you guys be a little bit more boisterous. Yeah we're not trying to fight a war. Nobody's asking you to fight a war.
>> Oh no. I agree with you on this point.
>> Yeah. Is it possible to even have a a body like the UN and a hedgeimon?
Meaning, is the next iteration of it no hedgemons? Is it that? And I don't even know what that world looks like. I don't even know how you get a world like that.
>> Yeah. Well, I mean, in practical terms, I mean, people claim the title of Hegimon.
>> The United States claims the title of Hgimon, but you know, in in reality, does it have that? Is it the world's is it clearly the dominant military power or the dominant economic power or the dominant political power, cultural power? Any of those things? It it it isn't really >> people respond to it like it is.
>> Well, they do. They do. They do. But I guess that is that can go in the blink of an eye as well. And that's that's where I wonder whether China has hasn't got a little bit of, you know, rose tinted glasses about, you know, uh the good United States that, you know, um uh you helped China sort of, you know, climb back out of the the mess of the cultural revolution with Dang Xiaoing and all that sort of stuff. Uh, I do think there's a a element of strategic blindness there. I don't think it's just a different cultural disposition. I actually think it's uh a misjudgment, an overvaluation of their capacity to sort of ride the waves of history, an underestimation of the of the violent degradation of the of the violence of the United States and the degradation of its sort of political system and culture and all the rest of it. And uh you know I just think it's um it's it's just a little bit um I don't know if complacent's quite the right word but >> uh yeah >> they seem to be very chill.
>> Yeah.
>> I it's while and I'll let you go after this um I guess comment back and forth.
John Helmer, I think, makes a really good point where he points out it's like, and I think what they what Helmer is getting at is when I asked him the question, he went kind of a roundabout in order to get to the point, but if you listen to him, he makes a point.
>> Yeah.
>> Where he's like, "Dude, the Russians are we're already at war.
>> The Iranians are already at war.
>> And it's like these three countries, China, Russia, and Iran, are almost like the fulcrum and the guaranter of a new world in the context of a warfare. as I don't know a a world based on world order or at the very least law as opposed to the kind of unruly um neaked aggression that the US is effectively showing >> and China has been very chill about the fact that these two countries are at war currently where it has been able to kind of coast without it now it's fascinating hearing him make that point I agree with you >> I do agree with that and the other point I'd add to it is the other to me The other crucial country is India and you know China has has not been entirely so chill with India over the last 5 to 10 years as well. And I I reckon if India and China could have a different dynamic uh that would make a very dramatic difference in terms of the world world diplomacy. Even just on the UN Security Council, there's lots of people in in India who believe that China's been blocking India being on the UN Security Council for decades. So, so you know, uh, I think I think it it really is important that all the members of the UN Security Council get, you know, their feet put to the fire in terms of the extent to which they're actually helping the international system work productively rather than, you know, just winging about what's going on in America.
>> Yep. Jeff, I always appreciate these conversations and I often um anytimes when I'm talking about you or your channel, I often talk about how good the channel is and the interviews that you have on that channel, the Burning Broadcast.
>> It is informative. It is a great channel. I saw the things that you were doing on China recently also.
>> Um >> great channel, man. And just so the audience would know, Dr. Jeff Rich, he's a historian, author, retired government official from Melbourne, Australia.
With a PhD in history and over three decades of experience in government, he created the Burning Archive YouTube channel and Substack where he shares commentaries, book reviews, and interviews on world history, culture, and politics. He has written four books, including 13 ways of looking at a bureaucrat. I would love to, by the way, um have book reviews with you if you ever want to do >> That's good. Yeah. Um I I I am I don't know what I don't know if you are purely um a non-fiction reader. I used to do only non-fiction and somewhere along the way I saw it I think it was the three body that got me into >> fiction where it it grabbed me and just had me into like fiction and literature but for the longest time I only did non-fiction.
>> If you want to do book reviews I'm down.
You can pick a book. Yeah.
>> Go with it. I'll pick a book. We can go with it. We can share it on the show.
>> We could do it. We could do like a one of these shows like on one of Do you mean like Yeah, we could just talk about a book. Yeah, sounds great.
>> I'm down for that. I'm totally down for that. I I'm a sucker for that.
>> That'd be a lot of fun.
>> Wait, it doesn't have to just be books.
It could be movies. It could be any of those. I was having a conversation with Nick on um Killilmonger and Black Panther, like whether Killilmonger was right and what he was going after.
>> And I get enamored by that stuff like but it's so I get enamored by moral quanders. Yeah.
>> People put into where they may have a right answer, but they do it in the wrong way. And it's like, okay, he's a bad guy, but he has a point.
>> And and fiction in either, you know, like literary form or or film, you know, it's just such a great way of um sort of putting yourself within that moral quandry, isn't it? So, yeah, let's do that sometime. That'd be great.
Jamal, >> I am totally up for it. Jeff, Dr. Rich, you have a good night, man. Be safe.
Okay. You too. Ciao everyone.
>> All right. Shout out to Dr. Jeff Rich.
Um I love talking to Jeff. He is fantastic. Um coming up very shortly is going to be Mark Sabotto. In fact, Mark is going to be up in about 10 minutes.
Um as we pointed out, the US is talking about I'm sorry, Israel is talking about bombing Beirut. Now, this bothers me greatly for obvious reasons. I don't like to see people lose their lives, but I also actually have friends that live in Beirut. So, this to me is disastrous news. One of the things that I do want to point out again, well, I guess there two things. one the economic damage that we're taking here in the United States for whatever reason oil and I know the reason they believe Trump won't let it get to about a certain extent but they're acting as if Trump is in control of this situation where Donald Trump I don't believe is fact of the matter is Trump is sabotaging any kind of negotiation that's going to take place apparently there are dueling deals back and forth, but for all intents and purposes, we're stalemate.
Um, as Donald Trump gets his mind right to surrender. This is Trump when asked about whether he cares about the pain that Americans are effectively going through right now. And of course, >> what extent are American financial situations motivating you to make a deal?
>> Not even a little bit. The only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran, they can't have a nuclear weapon.
I don't think about American financial situation. I don't think about anybody.
I think about one thing. We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That's all.
>> That is going to be run during the election over and over and over again. I don't care about Americans financial situation, especially when you find out or the very least they run immediately after that comment that Iran wasn't looking for a nuclear bomb. That's even under Donald Trump's own director of national intelligence that will be on her way out very very soon. Apparently, she's claiming that her husband has cancer. I believe she's probably right that her husband has cancer, but that's probably not the reason why Tulsa Gabbot is effectively leaving the administration. And I would go so far as to say she should have left in more of a huff. And it's interesting that she didn't leave in more of a huff in the way that Joe Kent left where he effectively left with an indictment of the administration on his way out. I would argue that is a national duty, not necessarily saking away in the shadows.
Um, the other one I want to show once again because just how wild the comment is is Marco Rubio claiming that the United Nations should get involved in opening the straight of moose, something that wasn't an issue before the US attacked Iran.
Not to mention the blowing up boats and everything else from the standpoint of Venezuela. all of these things. It's just outrageous. And yet Rubio will get up there and say, "Well, the United Nations should do something even though we're not even funding the United Nations at this point."
Um, there's something that Jeff said or the commentary in the conversation we had with Jeff about a UN whether the UN has value and I think it does just not in the form that it's currently structured. It doesn't work. But that's okay. The reality of it is to get slightly philosophical for the moment and not even philosophical. I guess I look at it as mechanical.
If you look at your societies, the individual society of states, the larger society of nations and the world as a whole, all of these things are almost psycho organisms.
They grow and they grow in a way that seemingly tries to balance out to reach a certain degree of stability.
When something doesn't work, as in the United Nations, and part of the reason it doesn't work because there's a hedgeimon. How on earth can the United Nations get anything accomplished when there's always a singular entity or a group of entities that lumped in with that singular entity to tell the UN to basically to [ __ ] off? It doesn't work.
And so whatever comes behind it, ideally hopefully it would at the very least have some structures in place that would allow it to function. But again, how does that work in the context of a hedgeimon? Whether that's the US, whether that's something else. And what you may get is a balance of forces, but again, a balance of forces can be unwieldly. And I suspect and I would argue that that's what you have now.
Russia, China, Iran, India versus what you could call a western conglomerate of the US, Europe, Australia, adding Japan to that mix and maybe adding South Korea, but South Korea's government has been a bit adversarial at this point to US interest. I mean, hell, he's talking about he's going to arrest Netanyahu if Netanyahu steps foot and soul.
But you get a world that is effectively broken with a United Nations completely incapable of minding the gap. In which case you get a United Nations that is a pointless endeavor. Will that change?
That is a damn good question. I would argue it has to for it to be a valuable entity. It has to. This is Rubio because I did say I was going to play this one more time because this video is outrageous.
It's a real test for the UN, right? As a function, as something that functions to that can solve global problems. What is the purpose of the UN? The UN was supposed to be a place where you could peacefully resolve global conflict.
Right now, you have a country who is unlawfully, criminally, and illegally taking possession of an international waterway and blowing up commercial vessels and putting mines in the water.
I don't know if people appreciate like how >> that is amazing. I swear to God, that's like a superpower, isn't it? To be able to just lie, brazenly.
Just brazenly lie. Look into the camera, look into a person's eyes, and just brazenly just radical hypocrisy. Um, I see my man in the background though. Let me bring him in. I don't want to um delay. We are joined the man, the legend, Mark Sabota, international relations security analyst. And of course, you can find Mark at booie um.com if you look in real politic or if you just put in his name.
Mark, how you doing today, man? You doing okay this afternoon?
>> I'm alive, Jamar. How the hell are you?
>> I'm alive too, believe it or not, according to um it it was shocked some.
But Mark, I'm glad to have you. And there are I I have like 10 issues on my page. Um and I got to be honest, I'm not even sure where to start. I guess let's start at the attack on this Abrosia nuclear power plant. Now, Ukraine tried to make it look like it was the Russians that were attacking their own power plant, which is very bizarre considering it's in Russian's possession, but this is rather serious. The IAEA didn't necessarily seem to make a big thing about this, but obviously there's a hole in the side of a power plant made by FPV drone.
What is going on with this? And you know what better story Kiev I I want to get on Kiev for a moment before going to Zaparosa nuclear power plant. Um Russia has pointed out that Kiev is now fair game and even went so far as to tell all the diplomats and everyone else whoever is in Kiev to leave. Sinsky has been out begging for air defense saying he sent a worded letter to Trump. Trump didn't respond and that the US is apparently not producing enough air defense for the Middle East and for the wars in Ukraine.
Obviously, he's talking about himself.
He seems freaked out about the whole thing.
>> As we've been saying for months, if not years.
>> Yes, we have. We've been saying it for a while now, right? Um Zillinsky apparently is only now realizing this.
Um is this a new tenor to the war now? I mean, is that what we're looking at? I mean, they've effectively said he had this fair game and we're going after decision-making centers. Is this an escalation?
>> Okay. So yes uh we can expect ever uh increasing escalations uh everinccreasing provocations everinccreasing atrocities and red lines moving forward.
I mean that that is you know what the conflict is going to be. We've we've got now enough uh signals uh the Kremlin uh those who uh believed that there for whatever reason that there might be um some type of uh some type of political settlement some deal achievable with Trump have effectively given up that ghost. Right. the as as um uh the Russian uh uh presidential foreign policy aid Yuri Ushukov, which is the you know essentially uh Putin's national security adviser, was asked about the spirit of Anchorage uh by a journalist last week. uh this uh phrase that has has been tossed around by the Russian certain people within the Russian side uh over the last uh year or so. Uh supposedly some type of understanding that was reached with Trump that the US never acted on that Trump never followed through on like he never really follows through on anything else. So, um, that's that shouldn't should not have really been a surprise to them. But, uh, Ushkov replied that there really is a spirit of Beijing. It is a real thing. And as far as a, uh, spirit of, uh, Anchorage, he's not sure whether uh, such a thing ever existed. Uh, and he said that he certainly never used that term, which sounds like a actually a a little bit of a slap against Putin there on on that one, uh, to my mind.
>> Um, but the Europeans, not only is there no settlement, it's impossible even to talk to them. I mean they're years later they're still talking and arguing amongst themsel about talking with Russia who would talk to Russia and what they would say and they have no clue uh yet except more war right that's that that so uh and and absolutely there's nothing uh possible with the Kiev regime the latest you know outrages the um attack uh the start of Bill's mass massacre against the uh college dormatory in Lugansk. And now I mean there we have seen repeated repeated repeated repeated attacks on the Zaparosia nuclear power plant for years now. I mean years. We've been we've been talking about this for years.
And you know, they start out uh you know, in the uh outside town of Anergador and then they're moving in and then there's storage facilities and then they're hitting the electrical lines that bring uh emergency uh that bring power to the uh uh pumps and so forth. And it's important to understand one the Zaporosia nuclear power plant is the largest nuclear power plant in Europe. Okay. Two, it's been shut down in cold shutdown now for more than two years, right? Uh going on three years. Uh so it's not running. It hasn't been. That said, you still do need to maintain a certain degree of flow of cooling water uh uh to the reactor, right? Uh to to prevent uh a catastrophic situation. Now there are fail safes, there is regular pumps, and then there's emergency power and diesel pumps and uh reservoir pool and and and so forth. Uh and as far as I can tell, the Zaporosia nuclear power plant has never really been in, you know, a type of critical jeopardy yet.
And such a thing would be hard, right?
you can't attack the reactor itself. Uh the domes surrounding it would would you know require at the least attack nuke hitting them but some of the equipment like the cooling water pumps right are are are vulnerable right are more vulnerable the power supplies and so forth. Uh so this was the first strike that actually was targeting one of the main machine buildings of the Zaporosia nuclear power plant and evidently it didn't actually damage any machinery uh but it did blow a hole in the wall.
Uh so this is a serious escalation and already uh since then we've seen a further attack on the Zach Barro nuclear power plant right and there was a point reached somewhere over a year ago where it was quietly admitted I I somewhere in the mainstream media I believe it was the New York Times but don't quote me was a a source of record that yeah it has been the Ukrainians uh attacking the the Zaparosia nuclear power plant. Duh, because Russia controls it all along.
But that's vanished once again into the 15minute memory. And we're back to pretending that, well, we can't tell what had happened. It was probably the Russians, right? because they don't can't accept the acknowledgment that the regime they're supporting uh the regime they're supporting in Kiev is insane enough to attack a nuclear power plant on territory they claim is their own to control, right? With with their own supposed citizens to rule over uh there they can't admit that. So they accept any provocation by the kev regime. No matter how outrageous, no matter what they do, if they line 10 people up on camera and shot them in the back of the head, the western mainstream media would figure out a reason to blame Russia for it, right?
>> So I mean that's that's you can't deal with these people. The only thing is the battlefield. That is all there is.
um you know it its various forms because there's more than just the physical battlefield but the war the conflict the special military operation uh the kev regime must be removed this this is a mad dog right it keeps obviously this is a provocation right they're not achieving anything by attacking the zapperia nuclear power plant right they're not regaining control of the territory they're not cutting power because they're it's not you know providing power to any, you know, it's not energy infrastructure. This is just a provocation out of spite and provocation.
And they're trying to provoke Russia continually into over response, something that would drag the NATO countries uh into the conflict. That that's, you know, ultimately always the ultimate goal. uh and if Russia responded by say hitting uh one of the three remaining nuclear power plants under the Kiev regime's control uh in Ukraine then that might be justification right for uh you know the voices of Europe oh we have to act because the mad Putin is attacking nuclear power plants never mind what preceded it right that's the kind of and indeed there were responses from Dmitri Midv exactly to that point that if the attacks on Russia on Zaparosian nuclear power plant continue then uh attacks on power plants uh in uh you know the K regime controlled parts of Ukraine the three of them left or power plants in Europe are are fair game now here's the problem is I don't believe the Russian government is going to do that so that is kind of a toothless threat a toothless bluster. Uh there, you know, there are multiple reasons why it would be stupid for Russia to respond to that provocation by giving the NATO countries. There's plenty of other level of of responses possible. But that's, you know, the type of escalation, more attacks on civilians, right? Um more attacks uh that assassinations, you know, murders, um that sort of thing. that that is what the war will be. It will not get any better. It's just going to get nastier and nastier as uh the possibility of, you know, victor, not just victory, but even, you know, a holding on the front line becomes more and more impossible. The resort to more to more um unconventional warfare, asymmetric warfare, whatever you want to call it, right? it. Uh uh David Ignatius in the Washington Post a year ago called it uh the dirty war and he said the dirty war has just begun. Yeah. The dirty war is still >> it's going to get much worse. Right.
That that's to understand this regime is not going to go quietly. They're not going to sign papers. They're not going to surrender. They're going to try to burn the world Ukraine and the world if possible down with them. Well, is it fair to say that I think you pointed something out and I think it's an interesting dynamic that seems to be taking place. Ukraine and NATO nations seems to be creating provocations to get Russia, let's say, to strike NATO nations or at the very least tempt them to do so. And the reason why I bring that up >> this event in Romania, >> yes, the event in Romania is one >> allowing the drone spaces to go through um western countries, >> allowing the platforms in western countries. All of these things cost his bellies. Like all of them are provocations.
>> Yes, they are. They just today another um tanker carrying Russian oil. Not a Russian flag ship. Uh it was uh flagged.
>> Yeah. Um, it was the the the TGO. I think it was stopped by uh the French in international waters. And I it was amazing to me that Maccron dared to claim that it was in line with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, but certainly is not. It's blatantly illegal piracy, right? It is piracy. It is if if it was flagged under Russia, it would also be an act of war. Now, whatever, you know, country it's flagged out of is not going to go to war with with with France out of this, right? It's a uh it's a part of the maritime com, you know, uh commerce and shipping industry.
Um you know, that is simply making money by transiting Russian oil from point A to point B. Um so, um but that is a further provocation. Now we've heard a lot about you know over the last two years about interception of um Russian ships or more frequently you know the shadow fleet again meaning the maritime uh shipping industry that you know that continues to trade with Russia. Um uh it it happens in spurts right of activity and then nothing happens. I mean, and you know, when there's dozens of tankers every day going back and forth, it's selective provocations. They don't have the capability, right, to stop every tank, right? They can't blockade Russia. They can't blockade the Gulf of First of all, if they tried to do that, that would be an act of war and Russia would respond it. But even if they tried, you know, hunting down every tanker in the Atlantic or the Mediterranean or whatsoever, that that would be um, you know, uh, impossible for them to do.
They don't have that type of naval capability any more than the US has the capability to effectively enforce a blockade of Iranians uh, Iran supports uh, cities uh, in in the Gulf of Oman.
But let me point out the insanity of this. We are in a global energy crisis, right? uh in large part exacerbated uh by the the US Israeli war on Iran and the closure of the straight of form and everything else uh that has resulted from that and their their warnings about uh uh the amount of oil and oil products you know that were at a precipice that were uh looking forward if this continues for another month to global depression the Europeans are are are going to be um completely out of jet fuel and there will be a a diesel and gasoline crisis in Europe and everything like this. And yet they're seizing oil, right? Not because they're going to steal it because they won't do that. Not the French. The American Trump might uh but uh they're going to detain it and thus push global PRICES UP MORE. YOU IDIOTS. Every time you attack an oil refinery in Russia or something like this that does negligible damage to the bayoth size of the Russian energy industry, but the stock market, right, the price of oil is an emotional creature, right? It is human agency. It is not logical. It responds to every up down, every uh BS social media post by Trump, right? It they react in all kinds of crazy ways and you keep interflowing with the shipping of tankers around the world or blowing up refineries that is going to help push the prices up more and more.
And while ultimately right that sort of thing doesn't affect the economy of Russia as time and time and time again have shown out because you reduce some of Russia's oil exports a bit and you push the global prices up and Russia still makes bank selling less for more.
That is the impossible logic of pursuing this war against the world's greatest global commodity supplier. It's it's it just the strategic logic is it it it it's broken. It it it does not work. It has not worked. We're we're five years into this now and they're still trying uh this same dumb thing and all they're doing is further provoking and further leading to calls within Russia and by you know uh Russian sympathetic voices.
Oh, you need to do something. We need to drop some nukes. We need to kill some some leaders. We need to um you know uh attack their oil. You know this.
Meanwhile, the the Kremlin, coldblooded uh to a fault, uh realist pragmatists they are, they're still in this box of the war of attrition and the proxy war and they're they they everything is about the math, right? It's they understand that they are in a war not just against the KF regime, not just against NATO, but the entirety of the collective west, right? I mean, Taiwanese drone production to that first goes to Europe and then to the Kiev regime is hyping and ramping up. South Korea, Japan, everything, right? You know, so it's not even just NATO, it's the entirety of the collective west. But as far as the Russians are concerned, they're doing the math. And Russians love their math. Let me tell you, the math still adds up to them winning, right? You hit an oil refinery there.
You hit a girl's dormatory in Lugansk there. These are, you know, a terrible personal tragedy. But ultimately, they're looking at the strategic math.
And it still, as far as they're concerned, despite everything that's happening, despite all the provocations, comes out in their favor as long as they stay in this box in the war by these rules. It is only if they are provoked outside of that box that the math becomes uncertain that we don't know where a direct Russia NATO confrontation ends because nuclear is always a possibility and the the west particularly the Europeans but yeah the Americans as well uh as a result of the uniolar moment have forgotten their fear fear of nuclear war, of mutually assured destruction. The Russians, the Chinese, right, they have not. They have not because they are the adults in the room.
And there's so many calls that Russia that Putin needs to respond to this.
They they can't let the the Europeans get away with this. And that's all, you know, that that if you failed to deter them, they will keep escalating. And that's that's true to a degree, but ultimately they always come back to that terrible math and they say despite this for now, we are still in that box and we don't want to go outside of it because we are confident that we can still win this war, not just against the KV regime, not just against NATO, but the entirety of the collective if we stay in this box.
Um, >> no, >> it's it's real easy to say that Russia should, you know, provoke outside of that, but ultimately Putin has to make decisions not as a a a knee-jerk call of duty outraged Call of Duty warrior, however good their intentions, right, on social media, right? However, you know, their geopolitics is right, you know, their their conception of what's going on is right, but their their emotional outrage, right, at really, you know, um, dents, right? We had this comment from the Wall Street Journal last week that that the Kev regime is hitting Russia's oil industry but failing to dent Russia's economy.
That's right. These are pin pricks, right, for the size of Russia. Yes, there's still an outrage, but the Kremlin does a very good job of not responding to outrages, except of course for Dimmitri Minv, who is their dedicated anger management translator, right? I mean, he's he's he's the one who vents uh for them, for the Russian people, for you know uh that audience.
But ultimately the fate of roughly 150 million Russian people and a few million uh Russians in in Ukraine and other surrounding countries more um and more than that you could argue the fate of all of us at the a terrible you know uh spiral down event outside of that box is a possibility. And the the Russian government is at a core it is conservative and cautious in foreign policy and you know it's easily understandable why >> right >> and they are pushed and they're pushed and they're pushed and suddenly they respond and uh take Crimea right that's that's the way they work. The the US does this salami the US the Europeans the kev regime they do this salami slicing of escalations and provocations constantly and constantly and constantly uh and and Russia is not really responding certainly it's not responding outside that box right the Europeans uh you know do some uh some new provocation you know they allow their air corridors to be used And Russia says, "Damn you, Baltics, you yapping Chihuahua." And they raise their fist. And they punch Kiev.
Or not even Zalinski, right? They don't because despite Russia's saying they're going to go after decisionmaking centers, unlike the US in the West, they still don't meet political leaders.
They've they've made it clear they're not going to attack the uh the Kiev presidential residence or the presidential offices of Benova. They're not going to attack this pushada uh uh the parliament uh in Ukraine because as far as they're concerned, one Zalinsky is never in Vancouver and and two the Rada, you know, they don't consider them decision makers when it comes to military things. You can quibble about that if you want, but ultimately when they say decision making, they still mean military and intelligence services decision makers, not um political. And to that I say, well, that's not really a change of the rules of engagement at all. Technically, Russia has always been willing to do that. It becomes more a question of, shall we say, managing the public demand you know understandable for response right with branding to be done as a response which I believe this you know dedicated now campaign but it also has to do with capability because now Russia is in a window they haven't been to this degree certainly before ke regime has no air defense left right no no effective air defense whatsoever their Soviet legacy air defense which was far superior was worn down over three years. Right now the the hodge podge western provided air defense has been worn down or exhausted and it's effectively non-existent. On top of that, Russia's production of long range strike drones, the capabilities of those long range strike drones and the uh the production of missiles, of ballistic missiles, of cruise missiles, of hypersonic missiles, of friginics now has increased to such a point where they feel they can now begin a serious bombing. campaign against the military uh uh intelligence leadership in Kiev.
They now have the capabilities increasingly with the Arashnik to hit the bunkers right deep underneath Kiev that they all operate out of which is you know part of what of what was limiting Russia before. Um and so now they're prepared for this and already people are like well Putin promised to do this but he hasn't done it yet. All right. So they're g because it's not just diplomats that they have invited to leave. It's also western nos and all of these other uh you know uh bottom feeders uh that uh the eco western ecosystem that exists in Kiev. They'll give them a good week to two weeks to get out of dodge before they start following through on this. But I believe that ultimately whatever they may claim this is a response to starter bills, this was going to happen anyway. It's time with the spring rolling into uh summer offensive plans and they're capable of doing it now. And it's all the Russian military really operates on timing of coinciding various things that are happening across the entire battlefield that certain things should happen uh uh according to their own internal sense of sequencing and timing. That is is probably for for you know for most of us including analysts it's really uh opaque. It's really hard to understand, but if you listen to them talk right to the the Russian generals, you know, that that part of their uh uh strategy, their thinking of warfare, that timing is very part of of what they do. They have plans and they try to stick to those plans as much as is possible and they're very long-term plans particularly when Russia is engaged in what it ultimately it does very well if you know it's not great for uh the uh age of social media and 247 you know it's attrition war it's a slow >> grinding brutal but the other Upside of that is the war of attrition goes on.
But for 99% of Russians, life continues as normal. The economy is doing from well to good, right? For some people, possibly even great. Life continues as normal. And so the the single greatest hope against hope of the West has always been to create some type of political response, some political crisis in Russia because they know they can't win on the battlefield in Ukraine. So, you know, the original plan was the sanctions that were just supposed to destroy the Russian economy and bring the people out into the street and Putin would fall and Russia would collapse and be splintered. I mean, that was the plan and everything since then like uh likely uh this attack on Lugansk are designed to as as really political terrorism, right, by its truest name. uh they are designed to uh create a a a fear and political response in Russian society.
Uh to um compel the Russian people to punish them hoping you know this is the logic of sanctions always and uh you know across the world and all that sort of thing. Uh that that that will change make the uh government change policy.
>> Right. really rarely works. Um, and it's certainly not a strategy that is working at all in this case. Um, Russians are, you know, after five years, there is a certain amount of of remove. Life goes on and the war happens for 99% of Russians, you know, 99% of the time over there, right? It's not something that's happening here. But that hasn't decreased the support of it. In fact, if anything, I think the majority of the Russian people would be in favor of escalation, right? if particularly if that ended the war quickly. Although again the Russian government in that that is extremely politically cautious about casualties and whatever the nonsense coming out of the KV regime and its western mainstream media stroggraphers, Russian casualties are still despite being many more Russian troops involved along a much larger front now Russian casualties are still on a long downward slow downward but long downward trend.
Well, of course, the EK regime's casualties are on the opposite end. And you know, despite all their nonsense statements, oh, Zalinsky keeps saying the Russians are now taking more casualties than they can take every month. It's just it could not be further from the truth. I mean, it's like literally the polar opposite. They can say anything like Trump and expected to believe. But if my bellweather on that is not only my understanding of what is happening in Russia, but this lovely western um uh uh information warfare outlet media zona, right, uh funded by the west, you know, with with pro-western, you know, Russians and and so forth that keep track of actual verifiable Russian KIA um by names, right? you know, something that is a real count, right? Not some madeup number, uh, and so forth. And they're very good at finding the names, finding action, Russian casualties. I mean, they stake out cemeteries and they harass families and they bribe their way into databases and so forth. and some assessment has been made and and even determines that uh they an audit of their that they may be inflating numbers and there may be doubles but even they can't find more than some I think it most recently it's like 230,000 Russian KIA after five years of war which is a tragedy but it's still a fraction of what the KV regime and again to keep inside you know the state the scales of this war right you know how what is all you know uh the the stakes of it is going as well um and uh you know those casualties as coldblooded as it may be are still well within Russia's um calculus of of the math you know that don't provoke a negative response uh from the Russian population as a whole again like I said because they are on on a slow downward trend despite vastly more Russian troops being involved than were involved in the beginning of the conflict. And you don't have to trust my word on that, but you want to trust BBC uh funded media zona who very quietly continues their count but is never quoted in the western media because that's not a number that matches the ridiculous narrative and propaganda they are trying.
>> They're acting like it's million and it's just outrageous. Um I'm curious on something else. Uh so you pointed out the battlefield that effectively Russia is fighting within the context of a box because the ultimate objective is to win the battle in Ukraine, not this larger war with NATO. Basically, we're not they're not trying to end the world.
>> They they they don't Yeah, they don't want they still hope to avoid whether that's possible or not, we can discuss, but they hope to avoid a direct war with NATO that would ultimately involve the United States. And you know do the math how many you know the probability that that would then end in a nuclear exchange and and they want to avoid that and it's understandable why >> and consta >> and constant >> thank you constantka >> there we go >> what is go what is going on in those two locations from my understanding that I guess muris was using the term breakthrough um uncomfortable using the term breakthrough, but at the very least it seems like there's a military push in those directions.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, a breakthrough is an okay word to use here. Um in Constantine certainly um now Russia has Constantine is in the Dunbos and it's the tail end the southernmost of the three Kiev regime cities that are their last defensive line in Donbos. Something that we've long talked about and now we're theirs. Right. Slavansk, Kromaturk, Constantineka. And Russia has been fighting in inside Constantineka, right?
Starting in the outskirts and flanking it for half a year now, right? Slowly, right? Um the the necessity how warfare has changed with drones necessitate slow infiltration tactics, you know, grinding attrition over time. uh but they are in a point now where they have uh the city surrounded uh logistically you know like in terms of operational control on three sides now um and they are have pushed through the center of Constantine and taken the citadel which is that that is what is the citadel is a reference to the high-rise section of any settlement you know, the residential buildings that are turned into giant fortress barracks by uh the KV regime, you know, you know, the most of the civilian population, although not all of it, has long since moved, you know, away uh fled. Um and uh they they use these buildings as fortresses, and they're always the hardest thing that takes the longest period of time to take. Um, and uh, you know, Russia drops fabs on them when it has to, but you can't fab an entire city right into dust. Uh, because the Russians aren't the Israelis and they they don't actually want to destroy these cities as much as possible. Uh, because they w these will be their cities, right? They are Russian ethnic cities and they will be Russian controlled cities going into the future.
So they would like to preserve as much of them as is feasibly possible. But uh the citadel in Constantinovka has been taken and now uh the logistics to the remaining forces in Constantinovka are just absolutely uh impossible at this point because of Russians own drones, right? Uh and other means of operational control like artillery.
There was a CNN report last week uh that came there. I actually put it in my weekend review. Um and you know they became very much aware of how impossible logistics and movement was that you can't move around in vehicles uh in or anywhere near uh Kiev regime controlled parts of Constantinfka because Russian drones are everywhere. uh and they had to make a say uh a journey that should have taken them you know uh embedded with K regime troops some 50 minutes right you know taking a look on the distance on the ground and it took them more than five hours uh because they were you know had to go into hiding some 14 times when Russian drones uh were uh you know doing the the terror movement in the skies looking for targets. and and so forth. Um so uh Russia, you know, there are very various estimates of exactly how much of Constantine Russia controls at this point and that really goes from 40 to 60%. So it's tough to say, but regardless, the KV regime's commanders on the ground are all crying that it's up, that we can't get any supplies, that we can't get out. and Cerski just flew into well not Constantine itself but outside of Constantine and you know that's the death sentence you know when when the high ranking leaders that means the situation is bad and they're trying to you know force their troops to stay and fight to buck up morale I don't think's appearance has ever given any K regime troops any amount of morale I mean there's a region they refer to him as the butcher and it's not because of what he does to the oppos opponent, right?
Um, you know, but you know, the tactics he uses with regards to casualties to his own troops. Uh, but again, the K regime commanders are seriously worried that everything is falling apart there. Uh, now falling apart, you know, of of a siege, if you will, that has started six months ago could mean that there's another month or two, you know, on the other end of it. I I think it was just in the past couple of weeks that the western mainstream media finally quietly admitted that Russia took Picrosk over half a year ago, right? Uh so you know they will continue to fight and then fight in the outskirts and send infiltration groups back in and so on and so forth. But everything kind of rolls into each other now, right? because this is one big urban fortress elomeration going from Constantinovka to a smaller Dujka and then onto uh Kromators and Slavansk and Russia's advancing from all you know well well not every side but almost every side right at the same time they're also moving into the suburbs of Slavans they're moving into the suburbs of um Kromaturs uh Leman is again roughly 80% taken by Russia at this point and Leman opens up the road through his zoom to the north the vulnerable north of Svansk as well. So it's all again coming together on this last defensive line. Uh, and I mean this this I believe that by the end of this year, I know Putin said that by the autumn that Russia could take Donbas. That's optimistic. Um, but I think that by the end of this year, uh, this last defensive line will be broken or all but broken. uh and then Russia will be you know catching their breath for a moment and turning to the Kev regime in the west and saying are we done yet and of course they'll say no and then Russia will go on towards Zaparosia city and the Rahoff in the south is not quite in the same position that that that Crmatorus is in yet. Uh there may be Russian troops fighting in the outskirts of Arahhoff. Uh but that's in the south in the western Zaparosia region. Arhoff is this the small city that uh the uh ill-fated Kiev regime NATO offensive that Russia crossed in 2023 was launched out of and Russia is very seriously bombing northern or now. uh which means that that's where they believe that the fight is going, right? Uh so um but that that is still some time away from following but again it's about advancement right and the the advancement on the ground is not always apparent because of course it's also an attrition war uh which is something that is much harder for people to factor in particularly because everything is propaganda about what casualties well it's really only propaganda about the Russian side casualties because no one ever talks the western media never talks about casualties ies on the K regime side. They never ever you know uh will will address that topic and you know with good reason you know why they don't. Uh but uh there is advancement in Rahof even if it's still not at you know shall we say what the KV regime's commanders are calling the breaking point like Kromat like um Constantine is in the Donbos and like Leman is uh in the southern Hardikov northern Donbos area there but um that's at the same time there were some 10 settlements taken in last week by Russia all along the contact line. Some in Sunumi, some in Harov, some in Zaparosia, another one in Donbos. So there is despite this noise about deadlock and stalemate, advance is slow but advance is happening and once again advance the speed of advance is not the metric that Russia is using for this war. It's about the math.
It's about the attrition and that's it's not something people can can feel satisfied with you know and then at some level it is a matter of understanding and belief I guess um but it requires a holistic understanding with a lot of attention to the details of this conflict and and a lot of it listening to what the other side is saying not the nonsense coming out of Benova out Kiev, but what the KV regime commanders are talking about amongst the ecosystem of theirelves on social media and and stuff like that.
And then you you get a sense of where they are. You know, if you don't want to use breakthrough, you know, they're at a crumbling of defenses, right? I you know, I I don't use the big C collapse word. I never have. I I don't believe in it. Certainly not in military terms. Uh but there's a crumbling going on. Yes, in Constantine it it's comfortable saying it. It's been a long time coming, right? Russia is has been going on since December. Uh but I mean they're through again once the Donbos is gone, once this tight urban elomeration is gone, right?
That is great for defense, great for use of drones, all of the things. Once that defensive line is gone, then we're in open step and that's not so good for the defender, right? That's that's not so good for the defender. So they're they tried to fight this war in the Dunbos because it's the best uh geographical and uh topographical and and you know demographical area to fight the war, to conduct their defense. And uh it's we're we're on that last defensive line and and you know the end of that defensive line is now crumbling. So that's where it is.
Muted.
Muted.
I am sorry. I didn't realize I was muted. Um There's a train that comes behind me and I shut the thing off because I don't like the horn to blow.
Um, Mark Zabota, international relations security analyst. I always say Mark, you are one of my favorite people to talk to. Your analysis of this stuff is barone. I thank you for it. You be safe.
Okay. You have a good day.
>> You as well. Cheers.
>> Byebye. All right. Shout out to Mark Leotaa.
There we are. Shout out to Mark Labota.
Um, I am ending this. Um, I'm going over to the program uh with Ted R. And I I want to hit this before I go right here.
So, we have Flying Flying Boore. It's easy for Mark to say cuz his kids aren't dying. Yeah, but Mark lives there. He's in line of fire.
Flying bore. Look how Iran did in the Middle East. Well, even Iran is fighting within a box. Look at what they're doing in response. They're they're fighting within a box. Look at what Israel is doing. Learn from that. Well, Israel is going on a murder spree. I don't think anybody wants to learn from that. Sparky Epstein and Kushner. And yes, Epstein and Kushner. That is an odd thing to end on, but damn it, we'll end on it. Follow me on the program with Ted Raw. It's starting now. Have a good one all. Be safe. Be kind to the degree that you can be kind. I'll see you in a moment.
関連おすすめ
Guess Which Country Trump Is Threatening To Bomb Next! w/ Chris Hedges
thejimmydoreshow
5K views•2026-05-30
Why Was There No Mention of Israel or Gaza in The DNC's Autopsy Report
wearefindout
227 views•2026-05-29
Trump Just Got HUMILIATED... And It's Going VIRAL
harryjsisson
46K views•2026-05-29
Potential Iran deal is 'a big defeat' for US: John Bolton | Elizabeth Vargas Reports
NewsNation
1K views•2026-05-29
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
