CIA John Kiriakou New Posdcast

本站添加: 2026-05-28

[00:00:00]former CIA officer, counterterrorism expert, author, and whistleblower.

[00:00:04]You worked for the CIA from 1990 to 2004, notably as the chief of counterterrorist operations in Pakistan due to the 9/11 terror attacks. Here, you refused to participate in the training of enhanced interrogation techniques, later identified as a torture program. In 2009, with an interview with ABC, you became the first former government official to confirm the use of waterboarding against Al-Qaeda suspects. And in 2012, you were charged with leaking classified information to journalists and sentenced to 30 months in prison. As a result, you lost friendships, your job, and were vilified in the mainstream press. Today, you focus on fighting for human rights and supporting those that face similar consequences, and you ultimately believe there are things we should never do, even in the name of national security, and the US government should stop participating in immoral and unethical practices. John, welcome to London Real.

[00:00:59]Thank you so much for having me. It's a pleasure. Looking forward to jumping into it. I think you once said, "I'm a patriot. I love my country. I want it to succeed, but I think it's making a lot of mistakes." And I'd love to get your opinion on kind of what's happening in the world. I think I'll start off with a situation that's close to home over here, and that's the war in Ukraine. And I was just wondering, what is your what is your take on what's happening there?

[00:01:25]We're what, 500-some days into it. The US is pumping tons of money, tons of weapons into that. We recently saw this Wagner quote-unquote coup happen. You know, you work for in the Sputnik radio, and so maybe you know a few things about Russia that we don't. What is your take on the situation as we see it now?

[00:01:47]I've got a I've got a take that isn't terribly popular either at work or amongst my friends.

[00:01:54]My position is, look, if we're going to be supporters of peace, then we have to be supporters of peace. I understand why the Russian government took the decision to enter Ukraine. I understand that the United States was behind a coup, a soft coup, in 2014. But, if we're going to be peaceniks, then we have to oppose war, period. And so, on on the day of the invasion, I said on my radio show, which is on Sputnik radio here in Washington, it's a Russian government-owned radio network.

[00:02:29]I said at the start of the show, I unequivocally oppose the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and I urge Russian troops to leave Ukraine immediately.

[00:02:38]With that said, I equally strongly oppose US and NATO intervention in Ukraine. We told the the the Russian government repeatedly, and I'm talking about uh President uh Bill Clinton, President Barack Obama, we told them repeatedly that we would not support Ukrainian membership in NATO.

[00:03:01]And we never meant that. We we were lying to them to placate them.

[00:03:05]And so, knowing that that was a Russian red line, we did it anyway.

[00:03:10]And we started talking to the Ukrainian government about entering NATO. We promised the Russian government that we would not allow NATO to expand to its borders. And we did repeatedly, with the Baltic states, for example, and Poland.

[00:03:24]So, to then point the finger at the Russians and say this is this is all a result of Russian hegemony, of Russian imperialism, is disingenuous.

[00:03:34]I think at the very least, everybody should be sitting at the table, and we should be trying to negotiate a settlement to this thing.

[00:03:42]Well, why do you think the the Biden administration has seemed to go kind of all in on this war? I mean, is it something as simple as, you know, it's easy to get reelected in wartime? As a matter of fact, I think there's almost like a 100% correlation. Or is it much deeper? Because they've really grabbed onto this and you know, if you it it seems like one of their core platforms is that we are fighting for whatever reasons and we're going to take this all the way. Um not always the party of war in the past. And just curious Yeah, curious on why you think they did that and was it obvious they would do that from the start?

[00:04:18]I think that's a very important question. And I think the answer is severalfold. Number one, yes, you're correct. I think this was a a strategic re-election move.

[00:04:31]Um Number two, and I don't I don't mean to sound cynical, but I really believe this. I think that Joe Biden, like every other president, uh is constantly thinking about his legacy. Every president, for better or worse, wants to be a wartime president, right? That's how you enter the history books is as a wartime president. And uh you know, we were we were pulling out of Afghanistan after two decades. We were pulling out of Iraq after nearly two decades. Uh what better way to make a name for yourself for generations to come than to take on one of the world's greatest powers in Russia. And to do it for what you say is is the right reasons. So, I think that's a part of it as well.

[00:05:14]Um and you know, one of the things that's that's utterly perplexing to me is what you've just alluded to. And that is the flip that we've seen in the Democratic Party. Where the Democratic Party used to used to lead demonstrations in the streets in opposition, for example, to uh the Vietnam War. It was the Democrats who came out uh in opposition to the little tiny mini war that we had in Grenada in the early uh 1980s. The only opposition to the first Gulf War was among a handful of Democratic senators. It was It was only Democrats that opposed the second Iraq War.

[00:05:55]Well, what what happened? Why are the Democrats all in? And And they're all in without giving long-term thought to how exactly we're going to pay for all this.

[00:06:06]And what does victory look like?

[00:06:08]Nobody's ever Nobody's ever actually quantified what that's going to be. What point do we declare victory and go home?

[00:06:17]Is it the utter defeat of the Russian military? Because that's never going to happen. The Russian military is 20 times the size of the Ukrainian military and it has nuclear weapons.

[00:06:29]So, again, what is victory? I think we should begin to temper our expectations.

[00:06:35]And whether we like it at this early stage or not, get everybody to the negotiating table.

[00:06:40]Yeah, what does victory look like? I think I was I had Colonel McGregor on a couple weeks ago. Yeah, and he brought that He's great. Yeah, he's fantastic. He brought that same question up and you know, you've heard it so many times throughout history. You ask that question about Vietnam. You ask that question about Iraq. You ask that question about Afghanistan. So many people have openly asked it and yes, right now, here we are. And you're like, well, what the hell does victory look like, you know? I I bet you couldn't even get an answer from that out of out of DC. And you've got the Republican side. People like Donald Trump, which I guess 10 years ago you'd think this guy, of course he would want war, you know, he's saying >> Mhm. But the crazy thing is both Donald Trump and RFK, and I you I know you've had conversations with him and we have as well. They both [clears throat] said, I could end this war with a phone call.

[00:07:23]And it's over.

[00:07:24]>> First of all, do you think that's true, John? Do you think both of those guys could end it with a phone call?

[00:07:31]That's That's a tough one. Um Uh perhaps. I I hate to be wishy-washy.

[00:07:38]I apologize for that. It's It's possible. It's First of all, let me say Doug Doug McGregor is a dear friend of mine and I have absolutely deep respect for not just his his knowledge and understanding of these complex issues, but for his willingness to go out on a limb even when his positions are unpopular.

[00:08:00]We need more people like that in Washington, not fewer. You know, Doug was supposed to be the US ambassador to Germany and the Republicans blocked his nomination. Now, how ridiculous is that? I don't want to get too far off topic, but uh, yeah, I suppose it it it would be popular if the Russian side were were able to trust an American leader and I think that they would trust Donald Trump and Bob Kennedy on this issue.

[00:08:31]I think that could lead to some sort of a of a settlement. And it's how ironic is it? How odd is it that it's the Republicans who have begun saying, "Look, we can't afford this over the long term. This is not a cost that the American taxpayer should bear. This is not a war that we need to be involved in. It's a war of choice."

[00:08:53]Why aren't the Democrats saying that?

[00:08:56]Why do we have the likes of of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez supporting supporting appropriations for continued war or Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren? I just don't understand the role reversal that we've seen in this war. It it it doesn't make any kind of sense to me.

[00:09:17]Yeah, and meanwhile, there's like hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians dying.

[00:09:22]There's tons of money being pumped in and I want to ask you about your theories on the wartime economy cuz it's it's it it it it bring it comes up here for sure. And then on top of that, I I don't know what you see in America, but here in the UK, you see a massive mainstream media bias towards Ukraine being the victor. I mean Oh, it's ridiculous.

[00:09:43]>> And I pull up The Guardian and The Times and then I look at the New York Times sometimes occasionally I still do. And I just look at it and I'm just like, guys, I mean, if there's any tiny little bit of victory, they magnify it from the Ukrainians. And if there's if there's any tiny slip in the in the Russians, they magnify it. Luckily, I get to talk to like guys like Jim Rickards and Colonel McGregor and they're like, look, this is not the truth on the ground. And and if you know that, you look at the media and even the media can't sell me on it. So, why do you think that's happening and what do you see? Do you see the same thing?

[00:10:16]Oh, I absolutely see the same thing. And the worst offenders are the New York Times and the Washington Post.

[00:10:23]You just can't trust uh coverage in the New York Times and the Washington Post.

[00:10:28]Like you said, they'll take the smallest setback on the part of the Russians and blow it up to you know, the end of the war is at hand.

[00:10:38]They'll take the the smallest victory by the Ukrainians and say that, you know, this is David and Goliath. I can't tell you how many times I've seen that analogy.

[00:10:49]Uh in fact, when the Ukrainians had set out to uh to begin the counteroffensive, which was actually several weeks late, uh it was the Ukrainian military that predicted that by this point in the summer, they would have moved 60 mi inside Russian territory and they would have divided the Russian military into two in Crimea.

[00:11:12]In fact, here we are months after the start of the counteroffensive. They've moved 5 mi uh inside Russian territory. They're nowhere near Crimea and they have not split the Russian military.

[00:11:25]Well, that's that's a loss.

[00:11:28]That's not a victory.

[00:11:29]But, what was the banner headline on the New York Times today? It was an analysis of how Vladimir Putin was almost overthrown in what they're now calling the Wagner coup.

[00:11:41]There was no Wagner coup.

[00:11:44]It just never happened. It was it was an ill-fated march a third of the way to Moscow that the Russian government was able to negotiate out of and the leader of this coup attempt has been has been exiled.

[00:12:01]So, rather than to focus on made-up patriotic falsities, why don't we tell the truth, the real truth, and encourage an end to this conflict?

[00:12:15]Why do the major outlets in the American media have to be cheerleaders for American government policy? That just doesn't make any sense to me. It hasn't been like that in the past, at least not to this degree.

[00:12:27]But, this is what we're up against where you just can't find reliable news.

[00:12:32]Yeah, I've had Seymour Hersh on here who used to work for the Times and now when he comes out with his theory on the Nord Stream bombing, which I might get your thoughts on, you know, they won't even talk or print what he's referring to and they [clears throat] they make some other story up. And like, you know, you spent time a lot of time in the CIA and you know about psyops and you know about surveillance. When you look at the New York Times, like how how do you explain that to yourself? Like is there someone at the top that just says, "We take the the you know, the the left narrative and we magnify it." It can't be that simple or do they really believe in what they're doing? No, it's not that simple.

[00:13:11]>> Okay. Uh yeah, they they do believe in what they're doing. And you know what? I'm going to answer your question with a with a short story.

[00:13:18]Uh my last job at CIA headquarters was as um the executive assistant to the CIA's Deputy Director for Operations.

[00:13:27]Very important job, access to literally everything. And long hard hours.

[00:13:32]So, I had I had hit a lull in my day. My boss was off in a meeting.

[00:13:38]And I kind of kicked back in my chair like this. And I was looking out into the hallway.

[00:13:44]And I was just relaxing momentarily.

[00:13:46]Looking out into the hallway.

[00:13:48]And Bob Woodward walked past my office. Bob Woodward being the the famed acclaimed Washington Post senior investigative reporter.

[00:14:00]And my brain didn't believe what my eyes had seen. So, I said to the secretary, "Hey, was that Bob Woodward that just walked past the office?" And she said, "Yeah."

[00:14:11]I said, "Without a security expert escort, Bob Woodward is just walking the halls of CIA headquarters."

[00:14:21]And she said, "Oh, you didn't see the director's email?"

[00:14:24]And I said, "No."

[00:14:26]She said, "Yeah, uh they gave him free reign. He's writing a book and and we've all been ordered to cooperate with him."

[00:14:33]>> [snorts] >> Well, I I refused.

[00:14:37]I mean, like one of the holy of holies at the CIA is that you never ever talk to the media for any reason.

[00:14:46]Well, I came to learn that of course you talk to the media when you know the media are willing to carry your water for you.

[00:14:55]You know exactly who to leak to. And who you're going to leak to are Bob Woodward at the Washington Post, Joby Warrick at the Post, um uh David Ignatius at the Post, and a half a dozen people at the New York Times.

[00:15:10]And then there are a couple of other people, you know, NBC News and the LA Times and Wolf Blitzer at CNN. Uh because they're going to report exactly what you want them to report.

[00:15:23]So, it's it's not as clear-cut as as most Americans believe. I'll give you another example. I was only on the job for a couple of weeks. This was in 1990.

[00:15:33]And um and I saw Wolf Blitzer walking the halls with a camera crew, no less, and no security escort. And he was doing a stand-up with his microphone right in front of a sign that said CIA uh historical intelligence collection. It was a an offshoot of the CIA library.

[00:15:54]And I remember looking at him and just shaking my head as I was walking out like well, somebody ought to be arrested for this.

[00:16:02]Probably Wolf Blitzer and the CIA security person who's not escorting him right now. And I I walked out.

[00:16:11]But this kind of thing happens all the time. You know, they we like to think that there's this Chinese wall between um the CIA and especially senior CIA officers and the American media. And in fact, they're in bed together.

[00:16:25]Wow. Wow. And it was funny because I I talked to Seymour about his theory on the Nord Stream bombing. And then a couple weeks later I I saw the New York Times article again with this pretty I mean, when you hear the details that Seymour gives you and then you see the New York Times article, it was this wacky theory about some Bulgarians that rented a boat and went down there. And I was just like, look, I'd never spend any time at CIA headquarters, but it didn't take an expert to realize that story sounded it sounded like somebody fed it to them and they just printed it up just to satisfy some things and just keep it moving. And it was just had a bunch of holes in it that even I could see from 1 hour with Seymour. So, um but I guess the American public doesn't really know any better. They read it and keep moving on. And so, this is a psyops that works. You fool most of the people most of the the And so, it proceeds.

[00:17:18]One of my closest friends uh uh used to be a boss of mine when I was on a 2-year rotation to the State Department. So, he's a very senior former State Department official. In fact, I'm going to have dinner with him tonight. And um when uh this explosion took place on the Nord Stream pipeline, um I called him and I said, I said, "We We had to have done this, right? I mean, it couldn't be anybody else. It had to be us."

[00:17:44]And he said, "No, no, it the Russians did it."

[00:17:48]And I said, "You think the Russians blew up their own pipeline?

[00:17:52]W- What What could they possibly have to gain by blowing up their own pipeline?"

[00:17:58]Well, he said, "It would be embarrassing for us."

[00:18:01]I said, "Don, with all due respect, that doesn't make any kind of sense at all."

[00:18:06]And I talked to Sy Hersh about it. And I said uh I said, "This was us, right?"

[00:18:11]And he said, "Well, it could be us. It could be the uh the uh Ukrainians." And I said, "Yeah, if the Ukrainians had a mini sub that would allow them to go down there. But do they even have that kind of technology? I mean, we're the only ones that have that kind of technology that I know of. When I say we, I mean the United States and NATO."

[00:18:30]I just don't get what anybody else on the other side would have to gain from something like this. And sure enough, Sy was mostly right. Uh if it wasn't us, it was the Ukrainians. We all suspected it.

[00:18:44]Uh even though the mainstream media doesn't want to actually come out and say it. And let me add something about Sy Hersh, too. You know, this is a guy This is a guy who for the last 60 years has been a one of the most highly honored, highly awarded uh journalists uh in in America. The guy was was the definition of investigative journalism in the second half of the 20th century.

[00:19:11]And he literally cannot get published anymore. Uh I'm a member of a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. It's a group of of retirees from the CIA, the FBI, NSA, and and the US military. And we give an award every year called the the Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence. We gave the award to Sy in 2017, and he complained then that he was under such pressure from the mainstream media here in the in the United States that the only place he could get his pieces published was in the London Review of Books, which is great. It's highly respected, but nobody reads the London Review of Books. They might have a few thousand subscribers.

[00:19:53]Now, here we are 5 years later, and he can't even get himself published in the London Review of Books.

[00:19:59]And so he's had to take to Substack to publish himself and to get the truth out there. That's how bad things have gotten here in the United States.

[00:20:08]Yeah, if there was ever a perfect example, it's that. I mean, again, look at what he did with My Lai Massacre. I mean, this is a guy >> Exactly. I mean, this is a guy who had you know, he's shown that he has a commitment to like to journalism and to integrity enough to where, you know, he was hated and vilified by the military, but he brings that same ethics to what he's doing today, and now that these same publications won't touch him. And it's like he Sy hasn't changed.

[00:20:37]The media has, right? Oh, you're exactly right. Yeah. The media has changed.

[00:20:43]We've changed as Americans.

[00:20:46]Like, can you imagine, for example, the United States ever being able able to point to someone, some media figure, and say, "You know what? He's the new Walter Cronkite."

[00:20:59]Walter Cronkite's dead and gone. There will never be another Walter Cronkite.

[00:21:03]There will There will never be another media figure that a majority of Americans has respect for to the point where every four years people say, "You know what would be really great is if Walter Cronkite would run for president." That will never ever happen again. Never.

[00:21:22]Wow, cuz there's nobody with that type of integrity in that space anymore.

[00:21:27]Yeah. That person doesn't exist.

[00:21:29]It's It's It's It's a brand new world. I guess at least we could see it happening, you know, with people like Sy, and I know he's had some success on on Substack, which is great, and I always love talking to him. He's He's my only guest that that rocks in a rocking chair while he talks, and and it doesn't matter because everyone watches him. So, yeah, look, that's great to see. Just to finish, how do you think this plays out with Russia? Like, how What do you What do you think happens, especially if you take it all the way up to the election?

[00:21:58]At the CIA, in our analysis, we used to use this term all the time, muddling through.

[00:22:03]Um you know, is so many so many people just naturally their brain defaults to an either or uh choice when they when they try to prognosticate. And oftentimes, what was true was that the parties in the conflict just sort of muddled through, and things just didn't change over the medium term. And I think that that's what we're looking at here. The Russians aren't going to aren't going to use nuclear weapons. I don't think they'll even use tactical nuclear weapons, because they'll lose the propaganda advantage of saying, "Look, the only country in the history of the planet that's ever used nuclear weapons is the United States, and they did it twice."

[00:22:43]Right? They don't want to be lumped in with that. They want to be able to continue to point at the United States like they've done since 1945.

[00:22:50]Um they don't need to use nuclear weapons, even tactical ones. Uh now they have a virtually unlimited supply of of suicide drones that they're getting from both the Chinese and the Iranians, and are attempting to purchase from the from the Indians. And so, what's better than a small payload on a on a drone that costs you $14,000 rather than the, you know, 100,000 or 200,000 that American missiles cost. And you can just lob them into buildings or into military bases or onto airfields.

[00:23:23]I think that they're just going to continue to do that. I think we'll see a slight upgrade in the level of uh of Russian technology that they're able to either develop or to purchase on the open market. I think that here in the United States, we'll continue to arm and and to train the Ukrainians in basically whatever they want up to and including the F-16.

[00:23:51]And then, I think as we approach the American elections, the Republicans are going to have a real campaigning issue uh going home and saying, "Why should we be paying for all this?

[00:24:07]We have bridges falling into the rivers below them.

[00:24:11]We have international airports that are international embarrassments for anybody who's ever traveled around the world. We have an an interstate highway system that would take a trillion dollars to repair.

[00:24:26]And we want to move the world's microchip manufacturing out of out of Taiwan and Singapore and into Ohio and and Arizona.

[00:24:38]With what money?

[00:24:40]With the money that we're sending to to Ukraine?

[00:24:44]This has to come to a stop.

[00:24:46]And God knows already our our NATO allies don't want to pay for it. Their their uh their national debts as a as a function of GDP are worse than ours.

[00:24:59]They want us to pay for it.

[00:25:01]And so I think we'll we'll muddle through the short term and maybe the medium term and then it's going to become a political issue here in the United States where where American voters just say, "Look, enough. Enough with this. We don't want to pay for it anymore. This has to be settled."

[00:25:18]And I think eventually it will be. You know, we a lot of us said this at the very beginning, too, and I I should repeat this.

[00:25:24]Um I think in the end the Russians are going to keep uh Donetsk and Luhansk.

[00:25:31]They're going to keep the Crimea.

[00:25:34]There will be a promise that Ukraine will not join NATO.

[00:25:37]But the United States will declare Ukraine a major non-NATO ally like Israel or Japan or Bahrain or Saudi Arabia.

[00:25:46]And uh Ukraine will be fast-tracked for membership in the European Union. I think that's how this ends.

[00:25:52]Hm.

[00:25:53]Hm.

[00:25:54]And do you think this could lose the uh Biden the re-election? Or do you think with all the propaganda going on, it will not be a major enough issue for people to say enough is enough?

[00:26:05]I don't think it'll be enough of an issue. I think it's going to drag on longer than that. I think it's going to drag on through the election. Now, if Joe Biden were able to run for for election again in 2028, which of course he's not even if he were to be alive in 2028.

[00:26:23]Um I think by 2028 everybody's going to be sick of this. But I think 2024 is practically upon us. And you know, look look around. I I'm I'm looking over for example, uh right now as we speak McPherson uh not McPherson Square, but uh but Farragut Square. I'm one block from the White House and we're not seeing people in the streets. We're not seeing people marching with signs and placards saying, you know, end the war. We're not. People are just going about their normal business, like they generally don't care because it doesn't affect them directly.

[00:26:59]But when we have to keep raising taxes uh to pay for these weapon systems, and all this money goes to US defense contractors, and they get rich while you and I get poor, and we continue to neglect our infrastructure, then finally, I think people are going to get sick of this. Well, let's talk about that, John, because this is this is kind of IP that's unique to you, because I've heard you say the following, that if we were not at war or producing weapons for war, we would immediately go into a recession.

[00:27:37]And you've argued that's the case for the past couple decades.

[00:27:40]Um can you explain that position, because a lot of people would be surprised to hear that?

[00:27:46]Yeah, I've been saying this for a little while now. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, uh we transitioned into what has become a a permanent wartime economy.

[00:27:59]Pre-9/11, the wealthiest place in America was Silicon Valley. It had the most millionaires per capita of anywhere in the United States. That is no longer true.

[00:28:10]Now, Washington, D.C. is the wealthiest place in America. And it's because of the trillions, with a T, trillions of dollars that we have spent on the military-industrial complex.

[00:28:24]There are literally thousands of Beltway Bandits. These are military and intelligence community contractors that ring the Capital Beltway that surrounds uh Washington, D.C. And now there are more millionaires per capita in Washington, D.C. than there are anywhere else in America. It's because of 9/11, and it's because of our government's commitment to spend literally unlimited amounts of money on what is deemed to be national defense.

[00:28:56]Well, we've gotten so used to, you know, sucking the the teat, so to speak, of the American taxpayer that we now can't shut off that flow of money to these these beltway bandits, these defense contractors, without pushing the country into recession.

[00:29:16]That's how much money we're spending.

[00:29:19]We can't we can't move that money. We can't move those appropriations to something else like uh uh transportation, for example, or infrastructure, or education, or the environment, including environmental cleanup. We just can't. They can't absorb those those gigantic amounts of money. It took us 20 years to get where we are with defense. You know, I I'll add another thing and I I promise not to throw too many uh uh statistics at you, but our defense budget is now bigger than the next nine largest countries combined.

[00:30:07]Right? You take China, Germany, the UK, France, Japan, the next nine largest countries combined, and we still spend more.

[00:30:20]Why?

[00:30:22]To prepare for what?

[00:30:25]To give free money to the Ukrainians?

[00:30:28]Or money to uh these countries of the Sahel? Now, this is all supposed to be a big secret, but we're pumping billions of dollars into Niger and Mali and Burkina Faso and Guinea-Conakry and Guinea-Bissau. For what reason?

[00:30:48]That's a French problem. Why aren't the French pumping their money into those countries? Why does it always have to be us? And why is it a secret?

[00:30:57]Don't the American taxpayers have the right to know where their money's going and to decide if that's an appropriate expenditure? I would say yes.

[00:31:07]So, there's no reason for us to be spending this kind of money. I'll tell you something else, too. A couple of weeks ago, a policeman was shot in Paris.

[00:31:15]Shot and severely wounded.

[00:31:17]And the gun, the rifle that he was shot with was uh was confiscated by the police.

[00:31:23]And the serial number on this rifle, was an assault rifle. The serial number matched the serial number from uh a shipment of assault rifles that we had sent to Ukraine about 6 months earlier. How in the world did that assault rifle come into the possession of a criminal in Paris?

[00:31:43]I'll tell you, because it had been sold on the black market.

[00:31:47]So, where's the oversight for these billions and billions of dollars that we're turning over to the Ukrainians?

[00:31:54]Now, we're not just writing a check and sending cash. We've learned our lesson to not do that.

[00:31:59]>> Iraq. Iraq, right?

[00:32:00]>> did it in Iraq.

[00:32:01]>> Right.

[00:32:02]So, we're we're we're writing these checks to the defense contractors. And the defense contractors then send the equipment to Ukraine.

[00:32:12]Well, the equipment's then for sale on the black market for pennies on the dollar.

[00:32:17]Why? Why do we permit that? Where is the congressional oversight?

[00:32:21]And even not even congressional oversight, where are the inspectors general at DOD and CIA and these other organizations that are active on the ground there? This is really a a great, vast disservice to the American people.

[00:32:35]Wow. So, if enough people's paychecks depend on it, these beltway bandits, then it's just going to happen. Cuz you can't shut down all of their livelihood, so they're going to find a way to make it happen. It's like a weird kind of a shadow government, a bit of momentum there, and they'll use whatever it takes to get there. And I guess selling more or selling defense is it maybe an easy thing to do for humans, cuz you can introduce fear or uncertainty, and also I don't know how many guns it takes to fight that scary thing over there, right?

[00:33:08]>> Yeah. And so, it's a maybe the perfect business model.

[00:33:13]Oh my god, yes. You're exactly right.

[00:33:16]It's the perfect business model. And you look at some of these appropriations votes, I don't mean to smile. I mean, I'm smiling I guess ironically. You look at these appropriations votes, and you have some of the most conservative Bible-beating members of Congress joining hands with the most liberal Democratic Socialist members of Congress and voting yes on these budgets, because they represent this area and the exurbs of Washington, D.C. And that's what makes Washington recession-proof.

[00:33:53]Right? There will never be a recession in Washington, because the the business of Washington is government. But it's not just government. It's government, and it's what my former CIA colleague Ray McGovern calls the Mickey Mac. I I say the military-industrial complex. He says the military-industrial-congressional I forget whatever else. It's a whole list of things complex that makes this city run. It's it's the lobbyists, and it's the defense contractors, and it's the consultants, and it's the lobbyists in addition to uh to Congress. And he's absolutely right.

[00:34:35]Nobody is going to allow you to take this away from them, not after 20 years of getting rich.

[00:34:41]It's It's no wonder now that this is one of the most expensive real estate markets in America now. You know, we used to laugh about markets like San Francisco and Honolulu and and Manhattan say, "My God, I I'm glad I don't live there. Who could afford to live there?" Well, now that's what our prices are like in real estate.

[00:35:02]And it's because there are so many people who are rich that they can afford to buy houses at these inflated prices because they're the ones making this government money.

[00:35:13]Wow.

[00:35:15]Wow. And also, I'm guessing if you're a member of Congress or the Senate, your local constituency, wherever it is, has a big chunk of their revenue probably coming in from some type of defense contracts. And so, if you want to get reelected, first of all, you want to be supported by the lobbyists, and then you also want to make sure jobs aren't lost.

[00:35:33]And so, it just becomes this flywheel and everybody just lets it go.

[00:35:38]Oh, yeah, you've you've hit that nail right on the head. Uh and that's what happens even by members of Congress who vote against these appropriations. Sure, they'll vote against the appropriation when they know that their no vote's not going to kill the bill, right? And then they'll go back home and say, "For every dollar that we send to the federal government in our taxes, I bring in a dollar 17 in uh in federal aid or in contracting from these uh these defense contractors." And people say, "Wow, that's great. That's what congressional representation's all about."

[00:36:18]It's It's like the perfect handshake arrangement. Everybody's happy, everybody makes money, and then the rest of us, when we realize what's been happening right under our noses, and it's too late to do anything about it.

[00:36:32]So, how does this end, John? Or does it?

[00:36:35]>> Yeah.

[00:36:37]You know, I I'm not sure how it ends short of the most devastating recession or depression in American history that forces us to reassess our priorities.

[00:36:50]You know, there is no reason none whatsoever why our military budget should be should be greater than the next nine largest countries in the world combined.

[00:37:01]Why do the Chinese, for example, go all around the world buying ports and airports and factories and building roads in exchange for bonds and and becoming the go-to superpower in places like like Africa, for example, or all across Asia. Why is that? An African diplomat told me just recently, he was here with with his president for this White House summit. He said, "You know, the thing about you Americans is you always offer us democracy and military aid. And the Chinese offer us food and new roads.

[00:37:43]So, they go with the Chinese.

[00:37:45]They don't want democracy. They can't make democracy function anyway.

[00:37:49]And military aid, we're going to give that to them anyway because, you know, terrorism. Got to stop terrorism.

[00:37:57]And so, the Chinese go in and say, "Well, listen, we'll pave that road that you've been wanting to to build from your capital city out to the hinterland.

[00:38:06]And all we ask in exchange is you give us the international airport, and then you give us $5 million that you repay over 30 years using treasury bonds." And they say, "Hey, that sounds like a pretty darn good deal."

[00:38:21]And the next thing you know, the Chinese have bases all over Africa and in Washington here at the State Department, they ask themselves, "Well, how did that happen?

[00:38:30]>> [snorts] >> We didn't see that coming."

[00:38:34]Yeah. Yeah, it's What do they say? You you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, that's the expression, right? Well, there's the expression about the two bulls on the ridge, the papa bull and the the young bull, and the young bull says to the papa bull, "Let's run down and [ __ ] one of those cows." And the papa bull says, "No, let's walk down and [ __ ] them all."

[00:38:56]And so, it's America America America is right? So, is that America? America is this new country, you know, we we we were aggressors. Maybe America is an aggressive nation anyways, and so we we we do business one way, and then the Chinese are meanwhile thinking maybe a thousand years out and saying, "Guess what? We're going to go in, we're going to give them all everything they want, and then later maybe they can pay us in yuan. Later maybe they'll take our 5G monitoring systems, and then later maybe they'll join our currency, and they win."

[00:39:30]To continue watching the rest of the episode for free, visit our website londonreal.tv or click the link in the description below.

[00:39:56]>> [music] >> So, Jim Rickards has just recorded a video that's not available to anyone in the public, and he's going to be talking about how this [music] upcoming recession is going to be fast, it's going to be bloody, it's going to be nasty, but at the same time he's going to show you how you can position yourself >> [music] >> to profit from all of this chaos. Now, we've made this video only available to our viewers. Go to londonreal.tv/jim, [music] watch that immediately. I can't say enough good things about Jim Rickards.

[00:40:30]He understands [music] the global economic system better than any guest I've ever had on London Real.

[00:40:35]His predictions [music] are almost uncannily true, and you can learn how to profit from his vision, from his expertise, and his understanding of [music] economics. So, go to londonreal.tv/jim or click the link below. It's an excellent, [music] excellent look on what's going to happen in the future and how you can position yourself to profit from [music] that.

[00:40:55]Jim is one of the best in the business, one of my favorite guests on London Real, and he's very, very good at predicting the future and showing us [music] all to profit from it. So, click the link, and I hope you enjoy.

[00:41:08]Hey, it's Brian Rose, founder of the DeFi Academy. I've told you my four-week crypto boot camp is amazing. But, don't take my word for it. This is what my students are saying.

[00:41:18]>> The DeFi Academy was an amazing experience for me. [music] It took me totally out of my comfort zone.

[00:41:23]>> In this course, I was challenged, I was held accountable, [music] and pushed to do things that, honestly, weren't always easy.

[00:41:29]>> phenomenal, and I can't believe uh we're already up on our four weeks.

[00:41:34]It [music] has flown by. Going through this DeFi Accelerator, by far, was one of the best courses [music] I've taken.

[00:41:42]>> You do this course, you really get into the nitty-gritty of the activities that will make you comfortable [music] with decentralized finance. Thank you so much to Brian and everyone at London Real and [music] the DeFi Academy for even putting together an amazing course like this.

[00:41:59]>> Anybody else that wants to do it, please sign up. It is well worth the money.