US foreign policy is fundamentally driven by corporate and military-industrial interests rather than public political discourse, with the primary strategic objective being the containment and confrontation of China through a global network of military alliances and forward bases. This strategy involves deliberately provoking conflicts in regions like Ukraine and Iran to isolate China, while simultaneously building up military presence in the Asia-Pacific region through alliances with Japan, South Korea, and other nations. The US maintains control over these allied nations through political capture mechanisms, forcing them to serve American strategic interests at their own expense. The policy is sustained by a military-industrial complex that benefits from continuous warfare and arms production, creating a self-reinforcing system where American global dominance is maintained through perpetual military engagement and strategic encirclement of China.
DEEP DIVE: US Senate Hearing Reveals US Foreign Policy, Continued Confrontation with ChinaAdded:
Today I have a special treat or perhaps a un unpleasant torment to offer my audience. I am going to go over a US Senate hearing and this one in particular from the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services uh the posture of United States Indoacific Command and the United States Forces Korea and review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2027 and the future year's defense program. This was April 21st, 2026, so fairly recently. And as you can see, it's uh two hour over two hours long. And the witnesses are Admiral Samuel Paparro, US Navy Commander, United States Indo-Pacific Command, and General Xavier Brunson, US Army Commander, United Nations Command, Combined Forces Commands, United States Forces Korea. Isn't that nice how the US has commands for every every part of the inhabited planet Earth? Isn't that nice? Isn't that telling? And why am I going to go over this extremely long Senate hearing? I have asked and pleaded with people, not just my general audience, but specifically other analysts out there, to please read the policy papers coming from the think tanks. That is what is actually driving US foreign and domestic policy.
And if you can't watch the Senate and House hearings because they are simply repeating what the think tanks have decided upon and are telling Washington you are going to rubber stamp and execute this plan. This is your policy now and this is what you're going to sell to the public and this is what you're going to sign off on. And that is what they discuss in these hearings. And I ask people to please read the policy papers from the think tanks or at least listen to the Senate and House hearings because they are telling you in a relatively unfiltered way what the US is really doing and why. And this is in comparison to the daily statements and headlines you see from US European US proxy politicians behind podiums who are often distracting you away from what they are actually doing and why and also from daily headlines which is literally just propaganda to again distract you away from what is really happening and why and to create the illusion something else entirely is happening.
Well, we're in we're involved in the war with Russia and Ukraine because Russia is evil and they invaded Ukraine. That's that's what you would see reading dead daily headlines or listening to politicians in the West speak. But of course, we know that's not true because we have policy papers like this from the Rand Corporation Extending Russia. They have a table of contents, provide lethal aid to Ukraine. If you read this this part of the policy paper, they literally admit that if we do this, it'll provoke a war with Russia, a war that Ukraine is probably going to lose. And there's a reason why they wanted to provoke a war.
And I will get into that a little bit later, but let's watch the hearing and I'm going to start and stop it. And I may or may not edit hu cut huge chunks of it out. whatever whenever they start rambling about something irrelevant, I'll probably cut it out to try to make this manageable. And for people that don't have the time to watch a a very long video like this, I do plan possibly on cutting this video down into much smaller, more manageable uh pieces for I understand that there's people out there that simply don't have the time to sit through a whole video like this. So, there will be smaller, more manageable videos out there covering this topic. So let's go to this. This is from defense now. They republished the whole conversation. They cut out the the beginning which was just empty air. Like it's like this first uh almost half hour is just waiting for it to start cuz it was live. And they gave it a more punchy title to US Indo Indopaccom Commander exposes China and Russia's due war strategy.
So let's let's listen to the hearing.
>> We held a hearing on the posture of the US Indo-Pacific Command and US Forces Korea. At the outset, I would like to thank Admiral Paparo and General Brunson for their distinguished service to our country. This committee appreciates their service and we're grateful for the ethos ethos that has long been the defining characteristic of America's general and flag officers. Thank you, gentlemen. Um, we speak today and we meet today at a time of global turmoil.
>> Okay, let me stop him right there. A time of global turmoil. Who created this turmoil? Look at his jacket. US flag.
Ukrainian flag. So, the US provoked a war with Russia in Ukraine. I just showed you the Rand Corporation paper, laying it all out and then it being executed exactly as it was laid out in that 2019 paper leading up to the 2022 Russian invasion into Ukraine. He's got the little pin on his jacket and he fully supports this US war against Russia in Ukraine. Who started the war in the Middle East with Iran? It was utterly and completely the United States. It was another absolutely unprovoked war of aggression launched against Iran and done deliberately knowing that it would destroy the entire Middle East energy production, energy exports and also almost certainly closed the straight of Hormuz. When Iran regulated traffic through the straight of Hormuz, US imposed its own blockade to make sure whatever was getting filtered through the US would have the opportunity to filter it down even further. And who is provoking rising tensions with China and the Asia-Pacific? Again, it is the United States. The US war against Russia and the US war against Iran are both being pursued specifically to isolate, encircle, contain, and eventually confront China. So, it is the United States that has created global turmoil.
Keep that in mind as you listen to Mr. Wicker, the chairman of this hearing.
Despite the doubts of our own intelligence community and many others, Ukraine continues to outperform conventional wisdom.
Now in the fifth year of Putin's illegal war of choice in the Middle East, President Trump's taken decisive action to end 47 years of aggression by the Ayatollas.
But amid those wars, we must remember this. China is the leader of the axis of aggressors. So, it's not Brian Berlettic saying this. It is Mr. Wicker, the chairman of this hearing, saying this also. It's not just Russia. It's not just Iran. These countries we started on provoked wars with, it's it's all China.
They're the ultimate target of US aggression around the globe. Everything we do everywhere else is connected to China. But the way he's trying to flip it around is China's creating these threats that the US has no choice but to respond to. Let's continue.
>> The People's Republic of China intends to and is capable of preventing an Americanled 21st century.
>> Why should there be an Americanled 21st century? The United States is a tiny tiny percentage of the total global population. China alone has a population four times larger than the US, maybe even larger. Has a much larger industrial base. in many ways a larger economy than the US already uh more infrastructure.
So why shouldn't it have more say in what's going on around the globe? Why does the US get to lead the 21st century when by every single metric the US is a power in decline and a a power in decline that invaded, massmurdered, occupied, coerced its way to global leadership uh versus China who has reached superpower status this 21st century without firing a single shot or invading a single country. They have done this in the 21st century and throughout the 21st century, China started a conflict with absolutely no one versus the US who has been at constant war with everyone. Not just all throughout the 21st century, but all throughout the previous century as well.
Let's continue listening.
>> We cannot ignore the implications of Xihinping's aggression. The Chinese >> what what aggression is he even going to qualify that? Let's see. Let's find out.
>> Communist Party and its people liberation army have spent decades studying the American way of war. This has informed their massive >> because the America has been waging constant war. So, China observing and studying America's way of war as it invades one country after the other all around the globe. Uh that is is that Chinese aggression >> military modernization effort? The PLA now feels the world's largest navy. Its nuclear triad is growing at a breathtaking pace and it possesses an increasingly capable air force armed with worldclass munitions.
China's military strategy has transitioned. It has moved from a mostly asymmetric competitive approach to a more comprehensive strategy. Their goal is to achieve decisive advantage over the US and our allies in the Indo-Pacific.
>> Now, China is actually load located in Asia-Pacific, which he will continuously and everyone else will continuously refer to as the Indo-Pacific region. A China is actually located in Asia. Do you know who uh they'll be talking about throughout this hearing? who who is not at all in any shape, form or way actually located in in Asia in terms of their actual territory as a nation. The United States, the United States is not located in the Asia-Pacific region. It is located if you look at a globe, you you have to spin the globe all the way to the other side of the planet to see where the US is in relationship to China. So, he's talking about China building up its military and threatening the United States in the Asia-Pacific region, a region the US really shouldn't be in in the first place anyway. So, again, keep it in mind. He's trying to establish a a matter of fact that the US is in Asia. It controls Asia. It's its right to do so. And somehow China which is located in Asia rejecting American primacy over it inside its own borders somehow that is aggression. And you will hear them using these Orwellian terms deterrence. When they talk about deterrence, they're talking about preventing China from defending itself from US encroachment, encirclement, the occupation of internationally recognized Chinese territory because there are US troops on the island province of Taiwan and even according to the US state department itself under its one China policy, Taiwan is part of China. And so in in reality, the US is encroaching upon China and then they use this Orwellian language to twist it around as if China defending itself against this encroachment is somehow the aggressor even though they're doing it within their own borders along their own shores against tens of thousands of US troops that have had to travel across the the planet to the other side of the planet to do this in the first place. And they will talk during this Senate hearing about just how far away China is from the US and how problematic that is in sustaining any sort of war that breaks out between the US and China. Let's continue listening.
>> We also recognize the danger posed by a nuclear armed North Korea.
>> Okay, I'm going to stop it there because again, I've already seen this hearing.
And what he's going to do is create a pretext justifying the presence of US troops on the Korean Peninsula in South Korea. And they're going to say, uh, North Korea's this big threat. They have nuclear weapons. North Korea's never used its nuclear weapons on anyone ever.
The United States is the only country that has done that twice. They dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan after Japan was comprehensively defeated at the end of World War II. So he's going to make this case that North Korea is this huge threat. But then later on in the hearing again they will admit that US forces are on this Korean peninsula to encircle contain and threaten China. And we'll get to that.
>> Kim Jong-un is a cruel and ruthless desperate. Worse he possesses nuclear weapons and and he possesses the means to deliver them. He has demonstrated a high tolerance for risk-taking and he is backed by his nuclear armed partners she and Putin. The North Korean army has gained valuable insights on modern warfare from its experience supporting Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
North Korea will remember what it learned from drone and missile use in Ukraine. It continues to learn lessons.
Right now, it is thinking about how to employ these capabilities on the Korean Peninsula. Russia has repaid Kim for supporting its illegal invasion of Ukraine by providing North Korea with advanced military technology and financial relief. While Vladimir Putin creates mayhem in Europe, it is not lost on this committee that he also actively works to undermine the existing order in the Indo-Pacific.
Putin has revitalized his partnership with the Kim regime and he has deepened Russia's comprehensive strategic partnership with she and >> okay so again it is the US Senate connecting all of these wars the US itself provoked and is engineering and attempting to provoke in terms of of China and North Korea the Asia- Pacific region they're the ones connecting all of these wars together they're the ones doing that. I'm not the one doing that.
So when I I warn people that the US is not at war with Iran because Israel twisted their arm to go to war. It's connected directly to this global strategy the US is pursuing. They're saying that themselves. Now I'm going to say this at the very beginning of this Senate hearing before it even really kicks off.
for a US government that I am told by many is completely controlled by Israel that has a Jewish Israeli Zionist handler hiding under every desk in Washington DC. This is a 2hour plus hearing where they never mention Israel once. They don't talk about anything to do with Israeli interests at all. And if anything, they're complaining that the war against Iran in the Middle East is a distraction away from the desperate desire of the US to encircle, contain, and ultimately strangle China. But again, of course, the war against Iran is a prerequisite. And as the admiral and general uh in this hearing will say they are managing the the flow of resources from the Asia-Pacific region to the Middle East. They are handling that and it is not impeding their continued campaign to again encroach upon China within its own borders in the Asia-Pacific region >> and the Chinese Communist Party.
The growing alignment of our adversaries throws into sharp relief the enduring importance of America's allies and the way they help protect our strategic interests.
>> Okay. So when your allies are being used to protect your strategic interest, they're not actually allies. They are proxies and they are working on your behalf for your interests often entirely at the cost of their own. And Europe is a perfect example of this. Europe has been tasked under the Division of Labor announced by US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegath in February of 2025. They've been tasked with confronting Russia.
They have been tasked with being the next one to step into the breach. As Ukraine begins to crumble, they are going to increasingly step into the breach. And this will be entirely at their own cost. And again, if you go to the ex the extending Russia policy paper and you look at the table of contents, they talk about the economic measures hinder petroleum exports, reduce natural gas exports, and hinder pipeline ex expansions. They're talking about hindering Russian exports and pipeline expansions to Europe. They were specifically mentioning the Nordstream pipelines all throughout this paper. And they said, "The way you do this is by expanding US LG exports to Europe." But when this paper was written, that made literally no sense. It was completely insane because Europe was still getting energy, cheap, plentiful, reliable energy from Russia. Energy at prices the US and its LG exported across the ocean would never ever ever be able to compete against. And so how could you achieve that? I will tell you how to achieve that because right here they even admit the likelihood of success reducing European peacetime consumption of Russian gas has a medium to low likelihood of success. So how can you make it high a high likelihood of success? Well, you change peace time to wartime. And that's exactly why they had these geopolitical measures, provide lethal aid to Ukraine, which they did, and you provoke a war.
And within the context of that war, you can then cut your up off completely from Russian energy because you can do it through sanctions and you can just literally blow up the Nordstream pipeline, which is what the US and its proxies did. They literally blew up the pipeline. They put sanctions on Russia and people continuously say the US can't beat Russia in Ukraine. They don't care.
That's not really what they're trying to do. They're trying to raise the cost as high as possible for Russia. And they were trying to decouple Europe from Russia from cheap Russian energy and get Europe under energy dependence on the United States which they have successfully done and the only other shoe left to fall was Middle Eastern energy which Europe still had access to and of course Asia primarily depended on. And now they are doing the literally the exact same thing to decouple Asia from energy in the Middle East. So, I want you to keep this all in mind as you listen to this hearing and as they themselves connect all of these conflicts together themselves.
>> For decades, our alliance bonds, including NATO, have provided a comparative anti advantage over authoritarian states like China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran.
These alliances continue to pay dividends for the United States.
People need to stop saying otherwise.
It is not helpful when American leaders speak of our alliances with derision.
But we must be clear about the numerous political, strategic, and moral benefits that our country receives from its alliances.
Some have suggested that our allies have become little more than dependence on the United States. These skeptics argue that the United States must shift the burden.
And that word shift is what I have a problem with. They argue that we must shift the burden of defense and deterrence from the United States and onto our allies in Europe and Asia. I do not agree with these skeptics. Of course, I'm glad to see America's allies stepping up as they are doing all over the world, but there's a >> this is this is just a little quibble and this is kind of the the political theater creeping into the hearing. The United States isn't shifting anything onto Europe. They've always they've always used their proxies at their proxy's own expense and for America's own benefit. And as American power declines around the globe, as it is challenged by multipolarism, it's going to consume its own proxies, its own so-called allies to a greater degree because they absolutely have to. They they need their proxies to absorb more cost at their on their behalf than would normally have been required say 10, 20, 30 years ago. And so that this is what they're quibbling about the the language of are we shifting? Should we be sharing the burden? The US is still utterly and absolutely completely involved in the US war on Russia in Ukraine. It is an American war. They're simply leaning on Europe more because they also need to wage this war against Iran and destroy the Middle East and decouple Asia from Middle Eastern energy. And ultimately they still need to encircle, contain, and confront China. And that is exactly why there is this division of labor. You can call it shifting or sharing the burden. But that is ultimately what is happening and why >> there's a difference between burden shifting and burden sharing.
The president has called for increased burden sharing and I support that. But the way we execute that vision matters.
We Americans have a massive stake in maintaining a favorable balance of power in both Asia and Europe.
It remains a vital interest of the United States and cannot yet be delegated to others, not even to our closest allies.
>> And so, and so what he's worried about, and this is a completely unfounded and again part of the political theater, he's worried that the US will not ultimately have control over Europe.
He's he's pretending that he's worried that somehow Europe is going to somehow assume authority over Europe's security.
Uh when in reality that that will never happen. Not not until Europe is able to break free from US domination, which will never happen. Not in the near or even intermediate future. And so this is a completely unfounded fear that he's discussing. And what he's actually arguing is that the US should maintain domination over both Europe and Asia, but also the Middle East. Some people will argue it's it's West Asia. And I can see that argument.
And in reality, the US is intends to maintain domination over all of these regions. They just simply demand that their proxies pay a higher cost as they do so. and their proxies will because they're politically captured and completely subservient to the US. And so that is going to happen. And the whole burden shifting narrative is only being made. And the whole EU US split, all of this is just political theater to explain to say the European people why they have to make steeper and steeper uh sacrifices for this war against Russia. that is ultimately a US war uh against Russia fought first through Ukraine and now increasingly through the rest of Europe.
So please again keep keep the m this all in mind and understand there is a certain degree of coded language when you're listening to any politician speaking regardless of the format.
Burden shifting suggests that the United States has a limited stake in conflicts that erupt or could erupt in these key regions. Burden shifting implies abdication rather than collective responsibility.
Upholding our interest in the Indo-Pacific requires the cultivation of a ro a robust alliance network, what we call burden sharing, which I agree with. The Western Pacific is far from the American homeland, and that distance has long placed a premium on strong and persistent forward presence in the region.
>> Okay. Okay. So, what he's basically saying is China's on the other side of the planet and our our desire to encircle, contain, and confront China is at a high high cost because it's literally on the other side of the planet. That's what he's admitting when he's talking about a forward presence and power projection. These are all just eupheisms for the threat of US aggression and then the the actual use of US military aggression against another country in another region of the planet. So when they talk about power projection into the Asia- Pacific or Indo Pacific, whatever they want to call it, they're actually just talking about America's ability to launch a war of aggression or just aggression in general against another country in another part of the planet. That's what power projection means. These are all eupheisms. Ally is a eupheanism. An alliance is a eupheanism. Burden sharing or shifting, these are all eupheisms.
It's all about the US system of control over its proxies and their use of these these proxies against targeted nations like Russia in Europe, like Iran in the Middle East, like China in the Asia-Pacific region.
>> This presence allows us to defend our interest in the Indo-Pacific and to project power from there into other regions of the world. It's worth noting that America's alliance network is comprised of likeminded democracies and free market economies.
The importance of this fact cannot be overstated. Unlike our unlike um um a authoritarian countries, the foundation of the US alliance network is built upon the explicit support of >> I mean this is we're only 6 minutes in and this guy is already struggling to stay awake. That's not a good sign. Now, he's talking about how America's alliances are all built on freedom and democracy and and we're all open and he he will get into more of that later about how it's all open and democratic and it's all free people consenting to all of this. But then if when you listen to the the vast majority of this hearing, all they're complaining about is Taiwan should be spending more on US weapons. Why aren't they? They're facing this big existential threat we've lied to the whole world about that they face from the rest of China because again Taiwan's part of China.
South Korea wants operational control over their own military forces during the time of war. No. No. We don't really think that they're ready for that. The US is going to command Korean troops during any particular conflict. And they will also complain about how uh basing agreements with all of its proxies, especially in the Asia-Pacific region, how uh why is the US demanding more that it be allowed to do more? And then the generals and the the admiral, they will sit there and they will explain, well, there's things we want to do that because of local sentiment, we're not allowed to do. The the government will obviously agree because they're our our shoe shiners. They'll do whatever we tell them to do, but they have to deal with public sentiment. So, we have to find a way to balance and manipulate that very carefully. You will hear them talk about all of this. This is the exact opposite of freedom, democracy, and and the consent of free people. They are basically talking about how they need to coers and deceive everyone in the so-called alliance to coersse them into doing what the US wants for US interests at their own expense. That's what the whole hearing is about. That is what all US foreign policy regarding its so-called allies, whether they're in Asia, Europe, or anywhere else. That's what all of this has been all about for decades and decades of its respective electors. Our alliances depend on each nation's internal domestic political support. Again, this is crucial. Every military alliance requires negotiation and compromise.
Every military alliance requires negotiation and compromise.
Alliances, by definition, are a two-way street. They require patience and appreciation for the political drivers of the parties and a willingness to undertake political, military, and economic risk on behalf of one another.
Popular support from free people gives legitimacy to those necessary compromises.
>> All right. to just keep that in mind what he's pretending he cares about and then the whole nature of the conversation that takes shape after he's done with this preamble.
We must continue to modernize our alliances to match today's threats and capabilities. But any reform should make us stronger and safer. They should not detract from the strategic imperative of deterring aggression and coercion by China, North Korea, and Russia. I look forward to hearing how our witnesses are working with our Japanese, South Korean, Filipino, Australian, and Taiwanese allies among others to >> and and they're going to complain about how each and every one of these proxies uh are complaining or have to wrestle with public sentiment or refuse to spend more on military spending Because essentially in in reality, Taiwan does not actually face any real existential threat from the rest of China. Is part of China. It's internationally recognized as Chinese territory. And the only reason why there's any tension over Taiwan at all in the first place is because the United States politically captured the administration in Taiwan. The local political administration there has placed its troops on Taiwan and it refuse refuses to allow the process the full process of reunification to run its course. They refuse to allow that to happen contra to their own agreements with China and contra to international law. And again every single conflict that they are talking about is the result of US foreign policy itself. It is not the result of say Chinese aggression or Russian aggression or Iranian aggression. The this these are all conflicts the US itself has provoked. So the we're at a time of global turmoil because we created it deliberately >> strengthen our strategic position in the Indo Pacific.
With that I thank our witnesses for being here and I turn to my colleague ranking member Reid. Senator Reid. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Admiral ParrO. General Brunson, welcome and thank you for your distinguished service.
>> Here's another guy with a US Ukrainian flag on his lapel. So, you know, again, people have to understand that all of these conflicts are linked and all of these conflicts have the full support of both Republican and Democratic senators, representatives in the House, and regardless of whoever is the president at the time, it is continuity of agenda. service u over a lifetime of dedication to the country and to >> oh and and by the way notice that it's not a USIsraeli flag. So all again all these people obsessed with Israel have to understand Israel is just one proxy out of many many proxies that the US is using using as a proxy to fight a war against a targeted country as an excuse as a as a scapegoat. And again, all of these countries are 100% guilty of everything they're aiding and abetting. Israel, Ukraine, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Australia, everything that they're doing to provoke the wars in their region that they have been tasked to to provoke or are already fighting.
They are 100% guilty of all of that. But they are doing it ultimately on behalf of US interests. And by the way, we will get into who the actual interests, the special interests are that all of these senators are answering to, serving, and pushing this policy for on behalf of the men and women that you lead. Please convey our appreciation and support for these extraordinary Americans that you command and lead. President Trump's war of choice in Iran has resulted in significant >> Now that's interesting because it's a President Putin's war of choice against Ukraine, President Trump's war of choice against Iran. Again, here is political theater creeping into the hearing. So, just be aware of it. You have to you have to be aware of it and you have to have your own filter to filter it out because none of these people ultimately are going to contest anything the US is doing anywhere in the globe. They're just quibbling for the for the sake of appearance.
They fully understand how this is all 100% connected because they they will complain about some of them cuz they're Democratic senators and they have to complain about President Trump cuz he's a Republican. They're going to sit there and quibble about the war the US war of aggression against Iran. But then they will talk about how, hey, we need to send US LNG to Asia uh because of contested waterways. Well, where's the where's the US contesting waterways more than anywhere else right now? The straight of Hormuz, they have their own blockade. They attacked Iran knowing that they would impose a at least a partial blockade or at least control over the straight of Hormuz. And they also attacked Iran knowing that eventually uh energy production and export facilities across the entire region not just in Iran would be targeted, attacked, destroyed, taken offline and reduce the flow of energy out of the region toward the rest of Asia. And I just want to show you this one article before we get into this. How about this from the Wall Street Journal?
US energy exports hit records as world adjusts to closed Persian Gulf. Oil gas shipments have soared but US will face obstacles turning wartime demand into a permanent boost. Well, just like with the extending Russia and the problem with peaceime consumption of Russian gas by Europe, the way you solve that is by ensuring there is no peace that it just remains constant war and that is exactly what the US is doing. And as the hearing will make clear, uh the US will only create more instability around the world, not less. had no genuine interest in peace anywhere with anyone.
>> Military posture changes in the Indo-Pacific region and on the Korean Peninsula. Over the past two months, President Trump has transferred major military capabilities out of your theaters to Central Command, including a carrier strike group, an amphibious ready group, various missile defense capabilities, and other munitions.
>> All right. And this question will be asked multiple times by multiple senators. And the the general and the admiral present during this hearing are going to make it very clear that yes, they took a carrier group and an amphibious uh the marine expeditionary unit that I told people was being sent there specifically to impose a blockade and it is now imposing that blockade.
And the another meu uh headed by the USS Boxer is on its way to augment that that blockade. Uh, so that has happened and the admiral and the general said yes, they sent they sent THAAD munitions to the Middle East. They did not actually take THAD systems out. That's what at least the the general is saying. And these naval strike groups, they were taken out of the Indo-Pacific command region, but they're accounted for and they have the ability to move other assets around to take over what whatever it was that they were doing.
And the whole point of especially a marine expeditionary unit is to move it around wherever you need it anywhere in the world and then you always have the option to just move it back to say the Asia-Pacific region if it is needed there more than somewhere else. So just keep that in mind. That's the ultimate answer. It takes a few rounds of asking the exact same question for them to spit out this this final answer. Admiral Paparo and General Brunson, um I would like to understand your assessment of the effect of these transfers on your capabilities. Long range strike weapons and missile interceptors are not quickly replaced. At current production rates, reconstituting what we have expended could take years. The decisions President Trump has made in Iran will impact your readiness in the Indo Pacific for a long time to come.
>> This is absolutely true. This is something I've talked about for years and years. The US does not make nearly enough munitions of all kinds, enough weapons of all kinds to fight all of these wars the way the US would like to fight all of these wars.
But I need to warn people, the US is pursuing full spectrum dominance and it does it through multi-dommain warfare.
It is not just trying to take over the world militarily. It is also doing it through energy dominance. There's literally a National Energy Dominance Council, just FYI, so you know. And for years and years, I've talked about the US super weapon, its ability to politically capture and control a targeted nation without using any military force at all through the National Endowment for Democracy.
Uh it's sometimes referred to as elite capture. You create an opposition. You put them into power. And they serve your interests at the expense of their own country, their own people because you control them. They're your proxies.
They're your political proxies. And they work for you and they are dependent on you for their position of power in that country, which is why they will always serve your interests, even if it's at the expense of their own country's interests. It's very rare for these people to flip and serve their own nation's interests at the expense of US interests because it'll also be at the expense of US against them personally.
And so this is what the US is doing.
Yes, their munitions are short. This does not mean that they can't still attempt to pursue full spectrum dominance using multi-dommain warfare, using other areas they are stronger in.
if not munition production, they can still use their super weapon, I would say, of political capture, their ability to reach into countries all around the globe and complete almost completely control their information space. I'm here in Southeast Asia. The US controls the information space of virtually every country in this region. Almost every single country uh depends entirely on US-based social media platforms and the algorithm and the content that the US itself decides to promote over the interests of the countries actually hosting these USbased social media platforms. So keep all of that in mind when they're talking about munitions shortages. That is a definite problem.
It definitely limits what the United States can do, but it doesn't tie its hands altogether. Not even close.
Unfortunately, >> I'm also deeply concerned about what our adversaries are learning. China and North Korea have watched the United States engage in sustained highintensity warfare requiring massive expenditures of the exact munitions that munitions that are most critical for deterrence in the Indoacific. I would like >> again deterrence means preventing China from defending itself against US encroachment and ultimately US military your tand assessments of what lessons the Beijing and Pongyang are drawing from this conflict and how those lessons may affect their long-term planning.
Relatedly, Admiral Paparo, on December 8th, the president announced that he would allow the sale of advanced H200 semiconductor chips to China, a category of chip previously prohibited because of its ability to accelerate Chinese military capabilities, including artificial intelligence. This committee has long agreed on a bipartisan basis that our national defense is predicated on maintaining a qualitative technological edge over China. I want to know whether Indopaccom was consulted before this decision was made and whether you believe selling advanced semiconductor chips to China is consistent with maintaining a favorable balance of military power in the Indoacific.
Okay, so he's complaining about President Donald Trump offering to sell advanced US chips to China. The reason the US is doing this is to try to deter China from developing their own chips that the US has no control over at all whatsoever. No back doors into and then chips that will eventually surpass the capabilities of US chips of whatever kind, even the ones that they decide they're not ever going to sell to China.
So that's the reason why the US was doing it. It wasn't because they were making some sort of concession to China.
They're just trying to sabotage the process of development inside China of these chips for China by China itself. And this is a this is a theme that you will see when you watch these hearings over many many years.
When President Biden was in in office, you would have the exact same people saying, "Why are we making all these concessions to to China?" And they even called President Biden Beijing Biden.
Well, now you have uh others here today, I guess it would be Tianaan Trump or something like that and where they're trying to imply that oh the president now he's betraying us to these these Chinese and we got to stop this and we need to have a harder line on China on everything. And so it is again more political theory that seeps through in these hearings and it just depends on who is president at the time whether it's the Republican senators or the Democratic senators uh bringing this up and calling the president Beijing Biden or Tanaman Trump at the time.
>> General Brunson, there are also persistent and troubling reports that the administration is considering significant reductions to US force posture in South Korea. Last year, you testified that America's forward presence in Korea provides, in your words, unmatched access, unmatched deterrence at minimal cost. You also made clear that the US force presence in Korea is not solely about North Korea.
Our president creates dilemmas for China in the Yellow Sea and imposes cost on Russia in the East Sea.
>> Okay. So, it was it's never about North Korea. It has always been about both China and containing Russia all the way to uh its easternmost reaches. That's what it was always about. This is what I've always warned people it was about. And again, the the political theater, oh, North Korea and they've got nuclear weapons and they're this huge threat. If the US left South Korea today, I would say very soon there would be agreements between North and South Korea and they would start living side by side, coexisting, very constructively without the United States there at all. And the US being there is what creates the tension in the first place deliberately and attempts to manipulate and use that tension again to enhance America's own military position there.
And he's telling you himself, Mr. Reed himself is telling you this is all about access to China, threatening, creating dilemmas for China. What if China was in Mexico or Canada creating dilemmas for the United States? How would that go down in the US? Just think about that.
If you if you're listening to me and you're saying, "I'm pro-Chinese." Just just flip the script in your own head and just think if it was China doing this to us, how would we feel? How would we react? And would we be warranted in doing so? And then wouldn't China be warranted? And what's the difference then if we are warranted when it's the script is flipped against us, but somehow we're entitled when it's flipped against the Chinese? What is the difference? Is it is there a difference?
I would say there isn't a difference. I think the people who think there is some sort of distance should just think about maybe the fact that they're racist and they just don't think a non-white country should be allowed to rise, match, and even exceed white western civilization. That shouldn't be allowed. That is the fear that is burning in the minds and in the hearts of virtually every one of these people in this room. And you you can hear it from time to time just explode out of them too when when China is making gains. How the the the outright animosity that just bursts out and how aggressive they are against not even a a threat from China, but just China being able to compete or even outright out compete the United States. As a matter of fact, there is a senator from Michigan and again, this is how you know who who who they really serve. they're not serving Israel and Israeli interests. She's from Michigan and she serves among other special interests the auto industry, the US car monopolies.
And she starts screaming about uh Chinese cars and how they're a huge threat to American national security and how they should be outright banned from ever being sold anywhere at any time inside the United States. She wasn't even really asked. I mean, she technically she asked the question because she has to, but the whole her whole rant and raving was about just banning Chinese cars. And it's cuz she's from Michigan and among the special interests she represents, she represents the car monopolies. And again, if you have Chinese cars in the United States that are cheaper, better than American cars, forces American car companies to compete on equal grounds instead of price gouging the American people, it gives Americans more variety to choose from. China doesn't ban American cars from being sold in China.
China welcomes them.
China has a Tesla factory inside China making electric cars, but Chinese cars are better and they're confident that they're better and they're out competing Tesla. BYD sells more cars than Tesla does. They sell more cars than Ford does. That's why the senator from Michigan wants China out. And that's that's at the root of all of this. They cannot accept China competing with them and especially outco competing them even though it makes absolutely no sense except if you have a superiority complex. If you believe you're exceptional and you are inherently better than China, that's the only reason why you wouldn't be able to accept a country that is bigger, more industrialized, better infrastructure out competing you in industry. Why would you be upset about that unless you had some sort of superiority complex at play internally? And of course we know that's what America has always been since its inception has seen itself as exceptional as superior to others. Others who are in their way whose whose land we want are inferior. This is how we justify taking the land from them and the resources out from under their feet and even just annihilating them. The native population of North America, for example, essentially eliminated this. How we justified taking over Hawaii. Hawaii was a a kingdom. US invaded and took over Hawaii. And they did that all the way across the ocean to Asia itself. And they're still doing it to this day.
Anyway, that's a a a tangent, but it's it's related and it'll make sense the longer this continues. I would ask for your assessment of what troop reductions would mean for deterrence across those threat vectors. I would also note that this committee voted to include a provision in the fiscal year 2026 NDAA to prohibit any reduction of troops and career without a full assessment of the risk involved and certification to Congress. Admiral Paparo, General Brunson, you lead our forces in the most strategically consequential theater in the world, pared against the most capable potent capable potential adversaries the United States faces. The decisions being made in the White House right now on its wars of choice, amunitions, on semiconductor sales, on America's alliances will determine whether deterrence holds. I thank you for your leadership at this critical time and I look forward to your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Sure.
>> I understand each of you has um opening statements. Who'd like to go first?
Admiral Paparo, you are recognized, sir.
>> Chairman, rank and member, members of the committee. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you uh today. Uh first, I'll call attention to Sergeant Major Eric Cook, United States Marine Corps, right behind me. And his charge is the fighting forces morale.
That combination of physical, mental, and spiritual readiness that is the key factor in combat. This is the essence of readiness and the ability to prevail.
This morale that Sergeant Major Cook leads uh and our enlisted force led by our highly professional NCO corps are the backbone, the body, and the soul of the joint force. And I'd like to acknowledge uh Sergeant Major Cook uh and all that he represents. As discussed, the Indo-Pacific is the defining strategic theater of the 21st century where all four lines of effort in the national defense strategy converge. That is safeguarding the United States homeland uh especially including those elements that are in the Indo-Pacific uh deterring China, deepening burden sharing with our allies and partners and supercharging the defense industrial base. Okay. So, all all of these are things that I've warned about that the US was was doing and all of it is aimed at confronting China and it and it remains the top priority of the United States. And here is Admiral Paparo telling you himself that that's the top priority of the US. And at the beginning of the hearing, they told you that that is ultimately what the target is. It's China. Yes, we're at war with Russia.
Yes, we're at war with Iran. But ultimately, this is all about China. And here's the admiral also saying it's all about China. And if you look carefully at all these other conflicts US is fighting around around the globe, they all directly and almost entirely affect China but also the region of Asia in in in in a in a wider more general sense.
So just again keep that in mind. people saying that the US is at war everywhere else on Earth and they just went to war with Iran because Israel said so and it's just a coincidence that it's cutting off all the energy to Asia and allowing the US to put Asia at least proxies like Japan, South Korea, uh the Philippines, the island province of Taiwan under US energy dependence just like Europe has been put under US energy dependence after starting war to cut off Russian energy. They are doing the same thing to cut off Middle East energy to Asia to do this and it's also hurting China in the process. So, please just keep all of that in mind. Indo-Pacific Command puts those priorities into action every single day. The sea has long been a highway for trade and a vector for power projection and it's also becoming increasingly an end unto itself.
>> Okay. And so it's important for trade.
Whose trade? Whose trade primarily is going through these these waterways he's referring to both in the Asia-Pacific region, but also in the Middle East or anywhere else? It's China's trade. It's China's trade. It's its exports to the rest of the world and the imports of the the raw materials and energy it needs to produce all of those exports. And so what he's admitting is that yeah, we're we need to control these waterways because that's ultimately how you cut off China and control China itself.
This he's not talking about protecting American trade >> as a source of food, energy, minerals, and strategic leverage. China's force design since 20 >> strategic leverage. So he's just outright saying it. We need to control the waterways for strategic leverage so that you you clo you're closing straits.
And they've talked about US policy papers for years talking about closing the straight of Malaa, other straits in the Asia-Pacific region. And now we can see exactly how they're they're using the closure or the disruption of traffic through the straight of Hormus, however you want to define that. They're doing that for exactly this purpose, strategic leverage, and it is work. Unfortunately, it is working.
>> 2009 reflects that reality. Since 2024, China has delivered 12 submarines, including nuclear attack submarines and nuclear ballistic missile submarines, an aircraft carrier, two cruisers, 10 destroyers, seven frigots, as well as amphibious and combat logistics force.
That scale is for the projection of power coercion, and to enforce the rules in every relationship.
>> Okay, so that's just him saying that.
There's literally no evidence at all that that's what China is doing. As a matter of fact, it's projection. It's what the US uses its military assets around the world to do. And he's literally heading the US forces that are closer to China than they are to America's own shores. And he's sitting there saying, "China's building, we're right on China's shores, closer to China than we are to the actual United States that that we're supposedly protecting.
And China's building up this huge military power to project power and coersse people around the globe. Isn't it much more obvious that they're they're building up this military force to counter the equally massive US military presence right on their shores right inside their own territory counting Taiwan again you know and and and it's this flagrant and effortless dishonesty that permeates every part of the American machine whether it's politicians or the head of of the indoaccom This is how effortless and flagrant the dishonesty is.
>> North Korea continues to threaten the US homeland and our allies with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. And Russia has increased its force posture of air missile maritime in the Indo-Pacific and the increasing strategic part uh cooperation among them all is deeply concerning. Our strategy is clear.
It's deeply concerning that the nations were threatening are working together to defend themselves against us to deny China from achieving its objectives through military aggression to deter it.
Deterrence is our highest duty. We deter with dynamic combat power conducting operation every day with allies and partners and across domains. Our allies and partners increase our combat capability and capacity. expand our maneuver space and extend operational reach and strengthen deterrence.
Yesterday, we began the largest ever exercise Balakatan in the Republic of the Philippines. This exercise demonstrates a significant leap in allied firepower, integrating US land-based Tomahawks with Philippine Bramos missiles and Japanese anti-ship missiles. Our alliances are rapidly fielding advanced capabilities. We're adapting to the changing character of warfare and we're driving towards information and decision superiority.
We're accelerating decisionmaking through our AI enabled headquarters and our AI enabled commands, strengthening our posture, improving integrated air and missile defenses, hardening key infrastructure, and increasing munitions throughput. Congress and the department have provided the resources. Now, industry must deliver.
>> Okay, so he's he's complaining that there aren't enough munitions, and there aren't enough munitions, and there never will be because industry is never going to answer the call because that would require making investments that you will get a return on in terms of purpose, but not in terms of profit. So, they'll never they'll never make that investment. They will just keep waiting and dragging their feet until the US essentially just robs the the American people, robs their allies and forces them to dump this money in terms of profit into the arms industry or have the US invest separately in into the in the factories and then allow them to uh take advantage of all the profits and they are never going to invest in manufacturing unless they get an immediate profit. profit out of it and this is what has caused the problem in the first place and this is versus Russia and China that have stateowned enterprises who are making weapons for a specific purpose and profit comes second and they do make profits just not as much as the US does but they do make profits but the first and and and foremost they're working on a purpose to make enough arms munitions weapons for whatever the state actually needs and that's what they do and this is what the US is incapable of doing because the corporations run the state instead of the state using industry for its needs.
>> With your continued support, we'll preserve peace through strength and defend a free and open Indo-Pacific. I now defer to General Brunson.
>> Okay. So, peace through strength doesn't work when you're at at war all around the globe. and fixing to go to war wherever it is that you just so happen not to be at war at yet >> and most especially your questions.
>> General Brunson, you're recognized, sir.
>> Thank you, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reid, distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today alongside Admiral Paparo regarding the security environment in the Republic of Korea and Northeast Asia. I would like to first thank those who sit behind me who got me here to this hearing today have helped me to prepare and represent the members of our force forward in the United States forces Korea. I'd also extend my gratitude to the 17 other United Nations member states, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. But I especially thank the Korean people for their continued partnership, hospitality, and commitment to our alliance. The Kore >> All right. And and just keep in mind I don't remember which which one was talking about it whether it was Admiral Paparro or General Brunson here who was talking about how it's probably General Brunson talking about how public sentiment in in Korea is not so great and that there's there's going to be a time of crisis or or time of there there will be a moment of challenge and you know the the the government's going to have to make the decision because people aren't going to like what's going on.
And of course, what are they talking about? They're talking about exactly what's going on in Ukraine right now where the government feeds the whole population into the wood chipper of US proxy war against the targeted country in that case Russia and the people are completely against it but the state is going to force them to do it because they serve US interests at the expense of their own country's interests. That is exactly what they have planned for South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Australia, and any other proxy that they managed to pick up along the way uh on this road toward war with China. And they will talk about that and you will hear it and it will be in stark contrast to this. Oh, we thank you for the support from the Korean people. Do the Korean people support them? Do they even really know why the US is there and what the ultimate goal of all of this really is? And then this goes back to the conversation about how great American alliances are because they're built on free people and democracy.
There is no democracy. There is no freedom. There is no choice if people aren't properly informed in the first place. You you might think that this is your best interest, but you could be objectively wrong about that simply because you weren't given enough information to make that decision properly. And that is what the media exists to do. That's what the political system exists to do. Democracy itself as it exists is a system of control, not a system of self-determination. And just look at the outcome in places like Ukraine or the rest of Europe and tell me tell me that that is that that that democracy represents anything else other than a system of control.
>> Korean peninsula is key strategic terrain vital to defending the American homeland and advancing American interest in the region. Okay. So, it has nothing to do with defending the American homeland because it's nowhere near the American homeland. But it does help US interests in the region, which is primacy over the region, controlling Asia, containing China. That's exactly why they're there. And they have to always throw in it's to protect the homeland. But of course, it has nothing to do with protecting the homeland.
Nobody is threatening the American homeland. The US has two vast oceans on either side of its coasts. Nobody is crossing them to threaten the United States. And they know that and they take advantage of that. And they still are shameless enough to say that we're in Asia on the other side of the globe to protect America on the other side of the planet. Our forces in Korea are modernizing to address rapidly evolving strategic dilemmas. That's why my focus remains strictly on capabilities over numbers. While our presence is a baseline, it's imperative that we maintain focus on the precise capabilities that must be resident on the peninsula. To truly understand this shift from capacity to capability, I encourage the committee to observe the tri command firsthand. Should you visit us, you will see, as Senator Shaheen has, the readiness exemplified by our service members, civil servants, allies, and inter agency partners who defend the homelands across the peninsula. Our war fighters build readiness. Some examples include ETH army's continued work along with our rotational force and which has led them to exceed 90% on most of their readiness metrics. The continued integration of seventh air force, Marine Corps forces Korea, naval forces Korea, special operations command Korea and Space Forces Korea. Those components into Indoaccom exercises demonstrate the potential to project power from Korea in support of deterrence across the greater Indo.
>> They're talking about using Korea as a base of operations to wage war against China, which was the whole point. That was the point all along. You know what?
I'm going to prove it to you by reading this draft memorandum from 1965. The subject is courses of action in Vietnam.
And they talk about uh the February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of phase 1 deployments makes sense only if they're in support of the long run United States policy to contain communist China. They're saying the war against Vietnam only makes sense if it's part of containing China. And what were the fronts that they were using back then in the 1960s to contain China? Three fronts. There are three fronts to a longun effort to contain China. So back in the 1960s, it was already a longrun effort to contain China. So do you think anything has changed since then? Uh so Japan and Korea. So even back then it was it was acknowledged US is in Japan and Korea to contain China. India and Pakistan. US is only involved in India and Pakistan to contain China and and in case of India and Pakistan they don't want them to rise as independent powers and of course Southeast Asia and I've I I got into geopolitics specifically covering US interference here in Southeast Asia its attempt to overthrow governments here in the region including here in Thailand where I am based and transform these countries into battering rams to use against China in the same way the US has used Ukraine, other countries in Eastern Europe, and now across the rest of Europe against Russia. Let's continue the hearing.
Pacific. A key component of readiness is our facilities. We are improving our infrastructure to synchronize US space forces and other components while seizing theater opportunities to conduct integrated sustainment and forward repair with our allies, partners in the joint force.
And across the information domain, we not only communicate the centrality of the region to American interest, but actively maneuver to neutralize misinformation and disinformation.
Controlling information space, which isn't just something the US Army does.
It's something the US primarily does through US-based social media platforms that virtually control the information space of almost every country in Asia except for maybe China, North Korea and maybe partial exceptions elsewhere.
The Tri Command, United Nations Command, Combined Forces Command, and US Forces Korea stand ready and capable capable to support a favorable balance of power across the region that deters a >> What does that mean? Favorable balance of power, favorable to the US and its interests, which is primacy over the region. So, it's not about a an actual balance of power. It's about creating a balance of power that's favorable for US primacy in the region. Whereas China and the whole concept of multipolarism is to create a balance of power between nations rather than any one single nation dominating over all the others.
And so this is what unipolarism and multipolarism are all about. This is what makes them different.
Aggression supports a free and open Indo-Pacific. Our presence in the region is a driving force that has evolved our alliances over decades from dependencies to true partnerships. while our cooperation and commitment to the region has maintained the armistice and deterred.
>> Okay. So any relationship that you have with a country that was completely dependent on you, say Japan after World War II or South Korea after the Korean War or the Philippines because it was literally a US colony and the US completely controls it uh politically its information space economically which is why it's one of the poorest countries in Southeast Asia despite having a massive population, huge amounts of natural resources. Uh the reason you have dependencies is because you have politically captured them. And those dependencies don't evolve into some sort of real partnership. But you have to pretend that it has. That's why he's saying it cuz he's pretending that it has.
>> Large-scale conflict. Our forces must remain vigilant. Together with the department, our inter agency teams, the United States Congress, and our multi multinational allies and partners, we will continue to demonstrate American strength in the region so that a favor favorable peace prevails.
>> Again, not peace, favorable peace, peace that is favorable to US interests, which are primacy over Asia and the world. So, you got to pick up on these extra words that they throw in and what why why are they throwing those words in? That's why they're throwing them in because they're not talking about peace. Talking about favorable peace, which means we'll do all the war we want and then when we get peace, it'll be peace that suits us and practically no one else.
>> Under one flag, we go together. Kachi, >> you may have to help the transcriber on that last sentence. General, uh, you you um gave us a a number of countries. Why did you list them specifically, sir?
>> Chairman, what I hope to do is to thank them for their continued contribution to the core of the United Nations Command.
each of those companies that I'm >> okay so the United Nations Command this was something put put in place almost certainly because of the the Korean War again the US on the other side of the planet waging a war to contain China and to contain North Korea and this is one of the pretexts the US uses to maintain its military presence on the Korean peninsula but of course they've repeatedly told you already we're like we're I talking a lot but we're only 20 minutes into this hearing and it's a 2-hour hearing and they've already repeatedly told you we're in Korea to contain China. We're not we're not actually worried about North Korea. This is all about projecting power into the region to deter China from defending itself against our encroachment on China.
Countries that I mentioned has over the year and a half or so that I've been in command had uh officers and soldiers within our headquarters in United Nations command. Sir, >> okay. Thank you very much for that. Um, Admiral, I I want to ask about our overseas military bases. Of course, we we know they're not sovereign US territory. The territory belongs to the various countries who host us. Um, all allies and partners require some form of prior consultation before allowing US forces to operate from their sovereign territory. That is a correct statement is it not admiral?
>> Yes chairman >> and u as it previewed in it.
>> Okay. So here we go with we we need more we need more authority over our forces in other people's countries whether or not the local government agrees to that additional authority. So here we go. And I used to be a US Marine and I was stationed almost my entire time in Japan. And I watched firsthand how the US uh was restricted by the Japanese government, but how the US government very spitefully would look for every opportunity to remind Japan that they're not in charge of anything. So the Japanese government would say, "You're at the base of Mount Fuji, Camp Fuji.
You're doing livefire exercises. We have schools in the the town below." and this is their schedule. Can you please coordinate your firing exercises around this schedule? And I remember officers looking at their watch, waiting, telling telling the Marines, "Keep firing for another 10 minutes cuz we're going to deliberately go over their time 10 minutes just to stick it to them." I watched spiteful toxic behavior like that my entire time in Japan. That's part of the reason that that woke me up and sickened me about what I was a part of and forced me uh to get out and leave and never look back.
So, let's just let's just listen. Has there been any improvement in this me mindset and mentality over the last hey, it's been over almost 26 years since I was in the Marines. 20 24 26 years, something like that. National Defense Strategy and the AUS Review, DoD is now pressing allies to provide uncaveed uncaved and unimpeded access from bases located in their country. Uh, is this realistic? And I have three questions which I'll just ask all at once. So I I keep interrupting, but what he's trying to explain is there there are these agreements in place, but now the US wants unfettered access. They don't want any obstacle at all to access the military bases in these other countries the US has placed its troops. That's what he's asking.
>> Um overseas bases provide enormous benefit. Um, is it uh realistic to seek uncatted and unconstrained access to these bases?
Is there anything you want to do now that you cannot do under existing basing arrangements? And is it realistic to expect our allies, even our closest ones, to provide unfettered access, basing, and overflight with no operational restrictions?
>> Chairman, I I think that it's sensible uh to gain asurances that in the unforgiving hour, we'll be >> okay. The unforgiving hour, what is the unforgiving hour? the unforgiving hours when the US puts its allies into the wood chipper of proxy war against China. That's what he's talking about. And he knows public sentiment will be against them. There will be huge amounts of public pressure on the local government hosting US troops. And they need to make sure before that happens that they have full and complete access to absolutely everything and they don't have to ask for permission from the local government so that it just simply isn't an issue.
That's what he's telling you. That's what he's telling you. That's what they're preparing to do. So all of these people hallucinating that the US is backing off and they have no intention of of pursuing conflict with China.
Please wake up. They are going full speed. It's all they think about. It's all they talk about. It's what they are preparing for every single day, every hour of every single day.
>> Be able to employ those bases for our own planning. And I think it's pragmatic to understand that each of our allies and partners will experience various uh civil pressures within those that they that they govern. And I think >> so we we're all about freedom, democracy, and free people making free decisions. Except when we need to feed that country into a proxy war against their will, we need to make sure we have the authority to do that. We don't even have to ask for permission. This is what he's saying. This is what he's actually saying. I think uh going a long way to gain assurances from our partners uh is a practical and sensible approach. I think it enhances our plannings but I think it also must be approached with the pragmatism that each government is accountable to their people and will make deeper decisions when the unforgiving hour comes.
Um okay it's is >> again he said unforgiving hour twice and these are all people who have said that there's going to be conflict with China.
They are preparing for war with China and they're preparing their pro proxies to be used as battering ramps against China if and when that war starts. He keep constantly talking about unforgiving hour and how there will be civil pressure which means the free the so-called free people that uh that's what all of this alliance is is meant to defend and protect. He's talking about we we need the ability to trample that civil pressure, bypass it, circumvent it so that we can continue on with our interests at their expense and shut them up. So they have no way of speaking up about it or doing anything to impede us.
This is what is actually going on. So again, what they say during these hearings is so revealing versus the headlines and the rhetoric that they say at the podium. Is the my my second follow-up question was what can we not do now? Is there anything we cannot currently do under existing basing arrangements?
Chairman, there are frequent occasions when we would prefer to execute certain operations or certain live fire operations and our host nations are sensitive for domestic reasons.
>> He's saying first of all, we want to be able to circumvent whatever the local population thinks and whatever the government does in response to that.
He's also talking about the unforgiving hours. He's he's not talking about things we want to do now that we can't.
He's talking about things we're going to need to do when we start the war or proxy war that we're planning for that existing structure is not prepared for.
So, we are preparing for it ahead of this catastrophic conflict. We are preparing to push our allies, our proxies into >> uh instances where there's things that we would like to do uh but we can't do it because uh the host government is sensitive to public opinion. It is in the presence of populations and uh we work through it with good faith.
>> Okay. So again, this is all about freedom, democracy, free people making free decisions, but then there's people that are obviously against this and we don't care what what they think and we're going to go ahead and do this anyway. So again, they're just completely undermining the whole preamble, this hearing, the the polit the little political theater that filtered in at the beginning during the preamble. They've completely undermined that, scooped it up, and swept it right out the door. So now we're we're all clear about what the US is really doing with these countries it calls allies.
>> Um okay. And then in the minute and a half we have um let's talk about um replacing both exquisite traditional munitions and newer lowcost munitions.
Uh we fire a lot of weapons in Operation Epic Fury. Um, Secretary Fineberg has a plan to increase production of um, exquisite munitions such as those made by Lockheed and Rathon.
Um, um, will that take time? And >> again, so here are the special interests creeping in. Lheed and Raot, he he even named them. These are the people really driving US foreign policy and domestic policy. the arms industry. You will hear about big oil. You will hear about big tech. You will even hear about the auto industry. I kind of went into it a little bit earlier, but you will see it in action. And maybe it will shock you if you're not used to seeing them speak this frankly, this openly, and this transparently about why they're actually making the the decisions that they're making, the policies that they're passing. It it might shock you to see just how pliant they are to corporations in the United States and US corporations alone.
And can you give us an idea of how much time and um is it time also to go allin on lowcost munitions including cruise missiles, hypersonics, long range drones and unmanned surface vessels?
>> Senator, yes and yes. and the the traditional defense primes have to innovate to go faster. I think it'll take one to two years for them to scale.
It won't be soon enough. And I think that we really must press the system with non-traditional vendors bringing bringing to bear new lost munitions such as hypersonics, lowcost cruise missiles, and then across a variety of droned and unmanned systems.
tell Boeing and and and that I love them, Senator, because that's what this all is. The senators are all bought off by these corporations and all of these generals and admirals that come and speak at these hearings, they're all looking for a nice cushy retirement package. People like Pete Heget, that's what he's that's what he's doing. He's saying and doing whatever they tell him uh because they know at the very end they will get a nice cushy retirement, a very lucrative uh kickback position somewhere where they don't have to do anything and they just bring in huge amounts of cash for personal wealth for themselves. And so the senators are already dipping their beacon and these generals and admirals are just waiting, chomping at the bit to get their beak wet as well. And that's what this is all about. And that's how the whole system works. That's how it all works. And that's why all of these policies are being driven forward. It's like a It's like a gigantic nationed virus. It's just constantly pursuing profit and power. It needs to constantly expand to keep feeding everybody that is benefiting off of this, everyone that they need to pay off to continue this.
And it just needs to continue to grow in size or it will collapse. And this is their problem with multipolarism. It's displacing the unipolar uh US primacy and the the system that it's built on.
And it's it's existential in that sense, but it's not existential in a way that justifies fighting against multipolarism. It's existential in a way that this should never have existed in the first place. It was never sustainable in the first place. Just like all empire throughout all history, it isn't any more sustainable now than it was 200 years ago, 300 years ago, 3,000 years ago.
>> Is it possible um Thank you for your answer there. Um particularly on the um lowcost munitions, is it possible for us to incentivize the um exquisite manufacturers such as Lockheed, Rathon, and others to go faster?
>> It most certainly is. And I, you know, I think that the department is putting a great deal of accountability and pressure on the primes. Thus far, the progress is good and I'm eager for more.
>> And so are we. Thank you very much, Senator Reid.
>> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and uh General Paparo and General Brunson.
First, let me commend your staff. Uh from my early experience, I know how hard it is to sit at attention. Uh so, thank you. Well done. Well done. Uh Admiral Pabaro uh I'll just follow on uh the chairman's question which is basically we've extended a great deal of ordinance in the uh Iranian combat. Uh it has some effect on you. Uh the question going forward though is is if we resume a rate of fire similar to what we were doing, do you do you have an idea of how long we could fire without creating severe effects on your command?
First I acknowledge your statement rank and member and uh you know I deliver that in a classified setting but there are fine >> because there are definite limits to what the US can do and that that is a a real military limitation on the United States but as I'm trying to point out the US doesn't need to continue firing at this rate against Iran. were in the middle of a so-called ceasefire, but the US is still achieving its its ultimate objective was to cut energy flowing from the region to China specifically, but then also to the rest of Asia because there is this process of decoupling Asia from Middle Eastern energy and replacing it with US exports of gas and oil that are already in the works. They've already proposed projects. They've built projects. They make no economic sense at all whatsoever unless unless uh just miraculously energy from the Middle East was compromised and Asia's only choice left was US energy. It's the only way it becomes viable. Just like the US was doing all of these LG export projects for Europe that made no sense unless the Nordstream pipeline wasn't built. It it was blown up eventually. And as long as war didn't break out between Ukraine and Russia, which it did, and the US ensured that it did, and then they ensure that it continues going, meaning that Europe never gets to get the the the quantities of energy it was getting from Russia, and it's incrementally cutting it off.
And they can't do it overnight. They decouple it over the course of years.
This is what they've been doing with Europe, visian energy. This is what they're now doing with Eur uh Middle East and Asia. And it's not going to happen overnight. And so they don't need to wage constant highintensity warfare against Iran. They just need to compromise the flow of energy out of the region. If people start rebuilding capacity and and energy starts shipping out again, maybe they'll start the conflict again for a couple of weeks, ensure that Iranian energy production is hit, Persian, Gulf, Arab energy production is hit and it all goes back down to to next to nothing again. That's that's their actual ultimate goal. So yes, it is a concern. The munitions are a concern. This is a constraining factor for US foreign policy. But there are so many other aspects of full spectrum dominance through multi-dommain warfare that the US can exercise other than huge amounts of munitions and they are and it is proving a success unfortunately >> finite limits to the magazine and I have all the faith in the world that they're being employed judiciously.
>> Thank you very much. Uh, General Bronson, um, our present military situation in uh, South Korea, I assume, but you could confirm that is creating some significant uh, strategic and operational dilemmas for the Chinese.
Could you indicate and discuss those?
>> It's just outright saying how how's our troops in South Korea creating problems for China because that's why we keep them there. So what what is the return on investment of of this continuous decade spanning strategy? What is it >> a rank ranking member in uh in in open?
What I would say is that we have positional advantage currently >> in in in the open because of course there's all kinds of nasty things we're doing that I can only talk to you in in a closed hearing. That's that's what that meant. I've uh I've written articles that are out there right now that talk about the positional advantage achieved by changing our perspective of looking at a map differently. It places us with interior lines inside the first island chain. And what that allows us to do from that position alone is uh as we operate on OIS given to us by Indoaccom, it allows us to operate from a different aperture if you will to project power into the region and achieve effect significant effect I might add. I also believe that uh the imposition of cost is a thing that happens when we marry capabilities with position on the ground geographically and that I would call or term posture truly is the marrying of the capabilities with the right positioning and then to be able to achieve significant effect.
>> So we're using South Korea as a as a battering ram as a base of operations to wage war against China. How do the people in South Korea feel about that?
If you go to the Harvard uh atlas of economic complexity, they've they've changed it around. I don't know what they've done here and how to get the the view that shows you its export partners, but here the top three export destinations for South Korea is number one, China, 22%. Number two, the United States 16%, number three Vietnam. And then of course, who are they importing goods from? mainly China 25%.
Uh the United States 11 and Japan 8%. So the US is talking about using South Korea as a base of operations and as a battering ram to use against China, South Korea's largest import and export partner. The the main reason why Korea has the economic wealth that it does and the standard of living that the people there enjoy is primarily because of its economic relationship with China. And US is talking about using South Korea as an epicenter as an epicenter as a as a base of operations to wage war against China from. And look at what has happened to the Persian Gulf Arab proxies of the US during the US war of aggression against Iran. how each one of them had a target painted on them and how each one paid a heavy cost for the US war launched against Iran and because they were specifically because they were hosting US troops on their territory just like South Korea is and it's not by their choice they were politically captured and they're being forced to and the client regimes in power serve US interests at the expense of those people. So, it's hard to blame the people when the people running the government don't actually care about the people in that country. They serve Washington's interest. That's why they were put into power there in the first place. Very important to understand all of this, how all of this works.
>> Thank you very much. Uh, in my opening statement, Alaro, I talked about the proposed sale of chips, the H200 chip.
Uh, do you have any concerns that you would like to comment upon?
Ranking member, I want every competitive advantage that the United States of America can have and that includes AI powered warfare. Indopaccom is an AI powered headquarters. The Chinese by their philosophy are fast followers.
They've taken every bit of intellectual property that's ever been tra.
This is a very common racist trope and it's really great to see a white admiral in the US Navy heading Indopekcom facing off against China repeating these racist tropes that the only way China could compete with us is by stealing all of our great ideas.
China must have just physically literally took the technology out of the US because there are things that China has in China that the US doesn't have any any comparable alternative to and that goes for electric cars, mass transportation, trains, weapons. There are weapon systems that China has that the US simply doesn't have. China has hypersonic missiles in in mass production. US is still testing hypersonic missiles. So no, China isn't stealing all the ideas from the US. They are genuinely leading because they are innovative and they are outpacing the US in terms of innovation. They are catching up to the US in the few metrics that they they don't lead in yet. And that's only because the US had decades if not a century or more uh head start over China. And of course, all of the things the US and the European powers did to China during its century of humiliation that ground it down in the first place and forced it to rise like this again in the first place. So, it's really really assuring to hear a white admiral, the US Navy heading Indoaccom, repeating these racist tropes about how China can only compete with us because they stole all of our intellectual property, which is a lie. and uh but he's happy to repeat it >> shared to the trade and technology stack and they've not only implemented it but they've improved upon it.
>> Uh so here he's actually admitting that if they improved upon it means it's our this is this is how they handwave uh why China has things that they don't they stole it from us and then they improved it on their own.
Well, how how is it that they're able to improve on it faster than you can? It means that they have capabilities that you simply don't because you're not as superior as you think you are. Uh but again again he's he's not just fighting for his position as head of Indopaccom.
He's also fighting for that cushy retirement package. So he's he just has to go uh all out on the on the rhetoric.
>> So I have deep concerns with anything that enables them to become a better AI powered headquarters than our headquarters. Well, I share your concerns, Admiral. I think they're legitimate and compelling. Uh, and thank you. Uh, and this is this is just the first of many times where these senators have their own little pet projects that they just want the the this admiral and this general to just rubber stamp publicly their stamp of approval on. And this Tianaan Trump narrative that Mr. Reed is bringing forth. He just wants the the admiral to put his stamp of approval.
And you will see many other senators come along and do this exact same gimmick.
>> Emma, what lessons do you think the Chinese have learned from Operation Epic Fury?
>> Rank member, I I think that number one, I think they're impressed by the operational acumen that's been demonstrated uh by the United States and our partners. Uh number two, I think they see the power of uh small lowcost munitions on the ability to hold key geography at risk and so have we >> and and we is he talking about Iran because Iran was the one doing that not the United States. I think that might be what he meant.
>> See that and who implements that the fastest is absolutely the best uh is going to be the best here in the 21st century. Uh and um I think the key is is that uh our force has learned a lot including a lot of combat experience. We have to continue to accelerate uh that learning and bring that to bear. That's a key advantage that the Indoacific forces that have uh engaged in combat uh in this operation that our wouldbe adversaries have not had and we need to um accept. Now he's just ad he's just admitting if you really think about what he's saying he's saying we're at constant war and that is a huge advantage because we have all of this experience invading countries all around the globe and China doesn't because they're not invading anyone anywhere even though we constantly say that they're this big threat to to the homeland to regional security to global security they have literally not invaded anyone this 21st century they have no experience at all fighting a real war and we have constant experience periods fighting war everywhere and we're fighting so many wars. We're using Indopaccom assets to go fight wars in other parts of the world and then they're able to bring that experience back to the Indopaccom region. Just just think about what that actually means when he's saying that.
Accelerate that. I have quick final question. I have a few seconds remaining.
uh there is roughly uh analogies between the situation in Taiwan and Ukraine.
Asymmetric warfare will be what the Taiwanese practice against the the Chinese. So are we focusing now on the lessons from Ukraine, drone warfare, u all the ingenuity of the Ukrainian? Is that the the approach that we're taking with the Taiwanese?
>> Okay. And what he's what he's saying is we're fighting Russia through Ukraine and we've given Ukraine all of these capabilities. Are we also going to give Taiwan all of these abilities to fight the rest of China? Because it's essentially going to be a US war on China through China's own island province of Taiwan. This is again this is what they are asking when you really think about what they're saying. And and by the way, the people on Taiwan are also Chinese. The official title of the administration on Taiwan is the Republic of China. It's not it's not actually called Taiwan. It is called the Republic of China. And they are Chinese people. So there is no such thing as Taiwanese versus the Chinese. They're all Chinese people. And that's the whole premise of the one China policy that every country that does trade with China, including the US, right now they have a one China policy.
and everyone on both sides of the street are considered Chinese. The territory is all Chinese. And the only quibble, and it's a technicality, is which government actually is the central government of all of China? Is it the People's Republic of China and Beijing, or is it the Republic of China based on Taiwan?
And common sense tells you it's obviously Beijing. Nobody recognizes the the government, the administration in Taipei as the sole government of all of China. That's just it's just utterly absurd. But again, these are the the clownish games that the US plays. These are the pretexts it uses to push all of this this conflict and instability along. This is how they create these tensions in the first place.
>> Sir, that's a you know that's a a key emphasis. You're quite well aware of the hellscape strategy. The fact that lowcost munitions, drone war makes assault much much more costly to assaulting forces. Bringing those lessons to bear to the max extent possible is an imperative.
>> Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. He's talking about the hellscape strategy and this is where the US thinks they're going to somehow mass massroduce drones of all kinds. aerial drones, maritime drones, submersible drones, and they'll just overwhelm China with all of these drones. When when China is the undisputed mass producer of every conceivable kind of drone. And if there was a war, they would obviously be producing many times more drones than the US ever could. Even on the best day of the US, they would never be able to to match the production. But again, the goal really isn't to overwhelm and defeat China. is just to create problems for China to destabilize things for China in its own region of the world while the US with two oceans on either side of it enjoys relative comp. This is the whole point of all of this.
>> Senator Fischer, >> thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank uh both of you gentlemen and the the members of our military that you serve with for the important work you do every single day. Thank you, Admiral. the current program of record for at least 100 B-21 bombers.
That's not sufficient.
>> Okay. So, can you guess which special interest she answers to? It's not Israel. It's not Israel. It's who's ever making these bombers, right? It's the It's big arms. It's the arms industry.
When accounting for both nuclear and conventional bomber requirements, would you agree that we need to procure at least 145 B-21s?
>> Northrup Grman is very, very happy to hear this. It's almost as if it's you could hear Northrup Grman themselves speaking. It's almost as if, right?
>> And shouldn't we be seriously considering at least 200?
>> Yes, definitely. 200 is definitely better than however many they're they're they're only making now, especially if you're Northre Grumman, right, >> Senator Fischer, good morning. I would favor 200 B1 or uh B-21 bombers uh not just for the nuclear deterrence mission, but for penetrating strike capabilities.
Uh and I couldn't be a stronger advocate.
>> Tell North Grumming, I love them, Senator. Thank you. I'm I'm open to any and all offers that they may have upon my retirement. Thank you, Senator.
>> Thank you. We need to consider both Stratcom's requirements and yours and Indopaccom as well. Correct, >> Senator. I would say that and and Stratcom is, you know, absolutely among my strongest partners. We are in lock step on this and uh we don't view a separateness of our individual requirement. Uh we view ourselves as teammates side by side on the journey.
Thank you. Uh also while the nuclear threats are often often considered stratcom the more numerous and capable or they obviously have a serious implications in Indoacon and your mission. Can you describe your view of China's nuclear expansion and the impact that more numerous and capable Chinese nuclear forces in the region have from your perspective as a geographic combatant commander?
>> Okay, let me preamble this by saying the United States is the only country that has ever dropped nuclear weapons on any other country. They did it twice again when Japan was completely already defeated. They didn't even have any ships left. They had no capacity to threaten anyone at the end of World War II before the atomic bombs were dropped.
Senator Fiser here is saying, "Well, look at China expanding their nuclear arsenal. Why why might they be expanding their nuclear arsenal? You just we're talking about how South Korea is the perfect position to attack China from and all of these these nuclear capable bombers that are going to do penetrating attacks.
Why wouldn't China have no other choice but to expand their nuclear arsenal?
It's the only logical decision for China to make. And if you didn't want them to do that, why are you threatening them in the first place? And you are threatening them. Your the US presence all across the Asia-Pacific region is a direct national security threat to China. China has an obligation to meet.
So just again keep all of this in mind.
They act as if China expanding its nuclear arsenal is some sort of out ofthe- blue threat. There's no reason for them to do this and we need to respond to this when it's actually China responding to the threat the US has already posed to China for decades.
Senator, in the next five years, I expect uh China's uh nuclear arsenal to nearly double. And that taken in some with their uh comprehensive strategic partner, their no limits partnership with Russia and with their arsenal. Uh it's a it's a concern. Uh we've got to overmatch that capability. We have to continue to modernize the US nuclear deterrent uh including tactical nuclear forces.
>> Yeah. So tactical nuclear forces aren't a deterrent. It's something you use as an offensive weapon forward far far from your own territory against other other people's territory. Strategic nuclear deterrence is where you have nuclear weapons that you're prepared if someone attacks you, you're prepared to retaliate against them. Tactical nuclear weapons are used to attack another country outside of the the deterrent scenario. Okay, so that that is in case you didn't know. And right here at two hours, I'm going to conclude this as part one. I guess at this point, what I'm going to do is I'm going to do this in parts. So, this will be the end of part one.
Look out for part two. When they are all up on my channel, I will put the links to all the other parts uh in a pinned comment at the top of the comment section and also in the video description beneath the video. If you thought this video was useful, please like and share. Think about subscribing.
It's free to do. It helps the channel grow. Check the video description below for other places you can find and follow my work. Under each video is a video description. You click on more and you will see all the links to to uh links that I've referenced in the video as well as other places you can find and follow my work. I have a website. I'm on Telegram. I'm on X. I'm on Rumble and of course on YouTube. There are also ways to help support my work. I do not monetize any of my social media platforms. If ads pop up, feel free to skip them. I don't monetize them. One of the reasons I don't monetize my work is because I do not want ads popping up in the face of my viewers. If ads pop up, feel free to skip them. They're not helping me out at in any shape, form, or way. If you do want to help support my work, please do so through buy me a coffee and also through Patreon. And again, uh in the video description of each video, there will be the links where you can do that. to everyone who has been helping out, whether it's a onetime donation, donations monthtomonth, or if you have no additional resources to spare, and you're just helping by by taking a second to like, share, subscribe, or even just type a quick kind comment in the comment section. All of that helps.
It it supposedly helps with the algorithm. It helps get that information out to more people, which is ultimately my primary objective.
So for all forms of help, whatever form it takes, I'd greatly appreciate it.
That's what makes this work possible.
Related Videos
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
