All Episodes
Previous Next
June 11, 2024 - Jim Fetzer
57:57
Truth vs. NEW$, Inc Part 1 (10 June 2024) with Don Grahn and Brian Davidson
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Three, two, one.
And welcome, folks!
This is Truth vs. News Incorporated on June the 10th.
Actually, I think the proper name right now should not be Truth vs. News, it should be Truth vs. Propaganda, because it's all propaganda.
It's so bad in your face, you can tell it's not news.
And I will say that we have Jim Fetzer here and Brian Davidson, and I will say that we're missing Scott Bennett today, but I will say that this week, I got a surprise, surprise in the mail.
He sent me, well, he sent me his cup.
You know, I got a copy of his cup here.
And here, he sent me a hardbound copy of his great book, Field Game.
It's all hardbound, and it's a fantastic book.
I've read most of it before, but this tells it like it is here.
And also, he gave me a book here on And in addition to that, he also sent me this.
The 2020 Presidential Election Slide.
Oops, where'd it go?
Anyway, it's really good.
And it's by him.
And it says, there's evidence of treason there.
And he also, by the way, in addition to that, he sent me this one here.
And you see this, Terrorist Threat Financed Counterintelligence Training.
And it's quite an interesting book that he wrote here.
Oh, look right here!
He also included this!
WikiLeaks Cables, Analysis of Swiss Banking Connection to Terrorist Financing.
And this is something else here, too.
So this is this great book that he put out personally from his own work and everything else, and it's very detailed and excellent.
Oh, wait, oh, and then, oh, he also sent me this book here in the same package, 9-11 Truth, and that's Quite a formal book, written by many authors, and fantastic.
This is one you should have.
You should want to get all these books.
I'll get you the reading conditions.
He also sent me this one.
This is from his father, Kurt Helborn, A Meditation to Recruit Marine Corps Fighter.
Oh, and this one is special, because it's his thoughts, his memories, Oh, look at this.
I'm not done yet.
He also sent this book here, The Art of Truth, here.
And this has been written by his father as well.
And this is outstanding.
Where are you going to get this kind of material except from a gentleman and a scholar and an all-star guy like Scott Bennett who, Hey, he sent me this one, too.
How about this?
The Secret Ops and Al-Qaeda.
And this one's got all kinds of stuff on it.
And this little synopsis book here.
And it's very simple to read, but outstanding by Scott.
Oh, then he has a whole bunch of exhibits.
He sent this as well.
Maybe this package is getting heavy by now.
So he's got All kinds of things in this big book here, all by him.
Oh, and then he sent me these books by his father.
The Conspiracy, Torture, and Betrayal at the Central Command.
And here we go, this is one that Scott wrote himself, I'm sorry.
This one here is about Mastering Man, and it's quite interesting and quite detailed.
on the mind of man and a thesis in college, I think.
Oh, look at here.
I'm his father.
He sent the thrillers.
God don't fly airplanes.
That's quite a good book.
Oh, and here we go.
Pale Moon Rising, Marine in Vietnam.
I can't get this to kill.
But anyway, this is it.
And we have this one here, John's Moon.
Oops.
And then you have also here, Harvest Moon, Coming Home.
It's a trilogy of books by his father, Curtis Bennett.
And then we have this couple of items.
This is all in one package, folks.
Twenty-five pounds.
There it is, The Wake Up Call, Return from a War, again by his father.
A very nice, thin book, but it's really got some heavy, heavy stuff in there.
And now this one here is a different one.
To a college class, The Story of War, or Vietnam War, 68, again by his father.
And it gives insights, and it's very compact and good.
That's it, folks, except for one thing, and right away we'll just get back to our show.
This is Truth vs. News, and our first story is about a guy named Putin.
And Scott did an analysis of Putin's segment, and that's exactly what Scott is right now.
He's in Russia.
He can't be with us for another week or so, but he's doing some wonderful ambassadorial work to keep things That was wonderful, Don.
That was just wonderful.
Yes.
That was wonderful, Don.
That was just wonderful.
Oh, I was just brought to tears by it.
I was so blessed.
And you would be blessed, too, folks, if you want to get some of these books, and I'll get you the ordering form in a text on the show.
Booth gave a masterful three-hour speech at the opening of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.
I have it from a caller to my RBN show who knows Russia and whose husband is Russian, who is in Russia today, that during his speech, Putin talked about targets in the West if Russia is forced Putin talked about targets in the West if Russia is forced to strike, including Raytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics, the City of London, NATO headquarters,
She said he even provided maps.
I'm hoping she can provide those to me.
She's going to make the effort.
Meanwhile, Putin warns Russia could give long-range weapons to others to strike the West.
He warns Germany the use of its weapon to hit inside Russia would mark a dangerous step.
Such action by the West would further undermine international security.
That would mark their direct involvement in the war against the Russian Federation, and we reserve the right to act the same way, meaning by striking back.
Because using Western weapons for striking Russia involved military personnel of the respective countries controlling those missiles and selecting those targets.
Moscow could take asymmetrical steps, including giving such weapons to others to target facilities of respective countries elsewhere in the world.
Meanwhile, he's also raised the specter of the equivalent of a Cuban Missile Crisis.
Russian President Putin is aiming to invoke the memory of the Cuban Missile Crisis by moving nuclear-capable warships into the waters of the Caribbean.
Earlier in the week, it was revealed Moscow would be sending several Russian ships and support vessels into the Caribbean for a military exercise.
The Admiral Gorshkov frigate, the Kazan nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine, the academic Passion Replacement Oiler and the Nikolai Chekhar Rescue Tub are the four vessels scheduled to arrive in Cuba early this week.
The ships are expected to make a port of call in Havana between June 12th and 17th before heading south to Venezuela.
The U.S.
think tank, Institute for the Study of War, quoted the Russian Ministry of Defense, stating the objective of the exercise is to ensure a Russian naval presence in operationally important areas of the Far Ocean.
Thursday, Putin spoke at the Economic Forum And made a point to mention Russia's nuclear doctrine, saying, we have a nuclear doctrine.
Look what it says.
If someone's action threatens our sovereignty and territorial integrity, we consider it possible to use all means at our disposal.
This should not be taken lightly or superficially.
The assessment noted Russia's decision to visit countries with historically strained U.S.
relations, such as Cuba and Venezuela, is aimed to persuade the U.S.
to self-detour and not enact policies that offer further support for Ukraine.
Monday, it was reported Ukraine had used U.S.
weapons and strike targets inside Russia, which senior officials claim was only for the purpose of defending Kharkov.
Meanwhile, Scott Ritter, who was not allowed to attend, Gave an interview shortly before that I believe is the explanation for his non-presence there.
Listen to his opening remarks.
How are you tonight, Scott?
Are you raring to go or are you tired?
What's the condition over there at Shea Ritter?
Oh, no.
We've made all the preparations.
I mean, this trip... I'm excited about it, but I'm also...
A little nervous.
Not because of the trip we're getting ready to take, but because of the situation we find ourselves in in the world today.
I don't know how many historians are watching tonight, but if you are a historian, understand that we're in a situation today that's Orders of magnitude more dangerous than the Cuban Missiles Crisis at its height.
We are on the cusp of nuclear war.
It could happen right now during this program.
That's how stupid this entire thing is.
It could happen while we're flying over to Russia.
It could happen while we're in Russia.
And some people would say then, why the hell are you going on the trip?
And to be honest, I asked myself that same question.
Why not just stay home, hang out with my family, and wait for it all to end?
Because If I were a betting man, I could go and find different odds and make money off of this, because this is a wager that I would take, that there would be a nuclear war by the middle of June.
It doesn't mean it's 100%, it doesn't mean it's 90%, but it ain't zero.
It ain't even close to zero percent.
It's over 50% right now.
There's over 50% chance there will be a nuclear war by mid-June.
Because you factor in the stupidity of the Western leadership.
You got Joe Biden green-lighting the use of American weapons to strike Russia when Russia says that's an act of war.
You have President Macron doing the same thing.
Schroeder doing the same thing.
All of Europe doing the same thing.
As if it's no big deal to attack Russia.
It's a huge deal to attack Russia.
It's as big as it gets.
And then NATO says, well, it's these are sovereign decisions made by sovereign nations.
It's not a NATO decision.
Oh, really?
So when Russia strikes these sovereign nations, as Russia will, is NATO going to make a move on Article 5?
Big question, because I think Dmitry Medvedev, who's a former president, who sits at the right hand of Putin on the National Security Council, said clearly, if you implement Article 5, we're going to assume that you're going to attack us, and then we're going to nuke you.
Boom.
Bam.
Bang.
Gone.
Finished.
We have senior, you know, Russian policy makers, influencers, who are saying that Russia should do an actual nuclear explosion.
Have the cameras out there and just blow one up above ground and show the whole world and tell NATO, that's you.
That would be the nice thing for Russia to do.
And in fact, I would encourage Russia to do that.
Screw the test ban treaties.
What good are treaties?
The West doesn't respect them.
The West doesn't care.
The West thinks Russia's bluffing.
So people say, well then why go?
Well, let me tell you why.
Because we're going to Russia to have a conversation with the Russian people.
And that conversation is going to be about the very things we're talking about here and about the prospects for peace.
And there's a chance that the conversations we're going to have will be heard by senior members of the Russian government.
And I want to make sure, I want to make sure that before the Russians make the decision to use nuclear weapons, That maybe they heard Scott Ritter have a conversation with some Russian people about the prospect for peace.
About giving the American people a chance.
About one, by exhausting every option short of war before going to war.
That you don't want to write America off yet.
That there are people in America whose lives are worth living, are worth saving.
Just like there are people in Russia whose lives are worth living and saving.
And maybe, just maybe, Instead of rushing to do that which you would have every right to do.
Take a pause for the cause.
Take a deep breath.
Wait till tomorrow.
Then we saved it.
We saved the world by one day.
And then if we can do it again the next day.
And the next day.
And the next day.
Just keep having these conversations.
Hoping that the Russian leadership is tuning in and listening.
And maybe, just maybe, collectively, we can buy enough time for sanity to prevail in the West and they back down on this.
You know, in the middle of June, Zelensky is going to have this peace conference in Switzerland.
It's going to fail.
It's already going to fail.
But you see, one of the reasons why the West is doing what it's doing right now Is there's a perception that's fueled by all our great friends and Applebaum and all those Russian experts who say Russia's bluffing.
That Russia is desperately looking for an off ramp.
Why would they say that?
I don't know because Vladimir Putin's government said We're open to negotiations.
They just have to be realistic.
Well, Zelensky is not about realistic negotiations.
Zelensky is about imposing this fantasy outcome on Russia.
Which he can't do through use of force.
He needs the West to engage, to intervene.
And so this is the last gambit between now and the Swiss Summit.
Zelensky is going to be pushing every button possible and all of his little pathetic Chihuahua nations in the Baltics and Poland and elsewhere are going to be barking to his tune.
How are you tonight?
Let me just add one key point.
When Putin enumerated that list of targets, the military-industrial complex in the City of London, he said, we don't need nukes to do it.
We can do it with non-nuclear weapons.
And I believe he can.
Brian, your thoughts?
Well, I've been hoping to see Putin get a little bit mad dog-ish, and it sounds like that's the direction that he's going.
You know, the problem that you've got here is that we all talk about nuclear weapons as a deterrent, okay?
So, if I want to prevent somebody from attacking me, then either I've got to be stronger than them and show them that I'm either stronger or crazier.
Or I've got to try to negotiate my way out of the situation.
Well, when propaganda is flooding the airwaves and nobody's having real conversations, except for guys like Ritter and Bennett with the people in Russia.
Well, what the West does is that we've got guys like Will, I believe his name is Will Robinson or Will Smith.
He publishes, he's published over 15,000 articles, supposedly lives in Russia.
There's no pictures of him on the Internet whatsoever.
He never goes to any foreign.
It's always the same recipe in the propaganda in these 15,000 articles.
It's a sensational headline followed by a manipulative and crafty story with a couple of quotes from senior insiders, but yet nobody's ever seen his face, 15,000 articles.
15,000 articles in The Sun, The Daily Mirror, The Mirror, you know all these UK westernized propaganda machines.
Well, the Putins begin realizing that You can't win them with words.
And ever since the Minsk agreements, we've shown that Western words are worth just about nothing in terms of what they're worth.
So now maybe Putin's deciding that the crazy deterrent, which is, go ahead and attack me.
You'll see how crazy I am.
I might pull a gun on you.
It might be the one deterrent that can keep the West from from continuing to push these Russian buttons.
Everything's going bad over in Ukraine right now.
And of course, everybody, all the The government puppeteers want us to look someplace else other than the 490 million that was just found missing that went to Ukraine to rebuild its defenses.
That, you know, it has been spent other places.
The fact that the war is going nowhere.
Nobody's publishing the right or even proper death numbers in terms of what's happening in Ukraine versus what's happening in Russia.
And the whole Western thing is beginning to fall.
And so I think Putin right now is using his Cold War methodology or I I'm crazier than you and you better believe me as a deterrent to keep the West from Continuing to confront them and push their buttons.
And so what has he done?
He's he's listed a bunch of places that he might hit using whatever types of weapons He's saying the weapons could be launched from any place anywhere anytime and so But what does that really do, if you think about the context of things?
It just gave the Western media and the warmongers an excuse to launch a false flag, no matter where it happens in the world, blame it on Russia, and then launch their fake propaganda machine to, you know, start pumping out all the articles that are supposed to convince the general public that Russia really did it.
No, I don't think this is just a response.
I suspect there's no photograph of the guy because there is no such guy.
This is a group operation.
This is an organization operation.
Putting out these propaganda articles, Brian, that would be my suggestion.
There's no Tyler Durden, for example, at Zero Heads.
That's a figure from a book and he just represents a group, a team.
That number of articles without identifying the author?
No, that can't be the case.
His name is Will Stewart.
He supposedly lived in Russia since 1993.
He's got a portfolio that boasts 15,000 articles and 40 publications.
Most of them are about Russia.
And again, the style is always the same.
The scandalous headline, manipulating the events.
A few quotes from controversial experts.
But 15,000.
You can't find a photo of him.
You can't find him shaking hands at any events.
How does he know all the insiders?
I mean, it's obvious.
I'm a prolific author.
I have published thousands of blogs.
I have 40 books.
And I'm telling you, this guy didn't publish 15,000 articles.
He didn't.
This is a group op.
He may be the pivotal figure, but I'm telling you, Brian, this is a propaganda machine you're talking about, an organization set up under his name to promote the desired outcome in terms of PR.
I mean, you got the right idea, without any doubt.
Yeah, well, that's what Putin's up against.
How are you going to fight that?
I mean, pretty soon you've got to become a mad dog.
I'm not doing a deaf job of pulling the carpet out from under the warmongers by knowing it would be them.
I mean, if general dynamics of Boeing and Raytheon know they're going to be the targets, not LA, not Chicago, not Los Angeles, I think that's going to cause them to be very sober.
And, of course, the city of London.
There could be no more desirable target.
Remember, Muammar Gaddafi saying, if you want to end terrorism in the world, just lob a cruise missile into the city of London.
Don, I know you want to add something here.
Well, yeah, I do.
And it's from a guy named Scott Bennett, who wrote this book about Putin, and he has on the back page a little thing that I think is appropriate about Putin and about the world as we He's saying that if heroes love peace, then the wicked love war.
And as God says, all who hate me out of death, today one man and one man alone stands for the Nobel Peace Prize this year.
Stands to win, excuse me, stands to win the Nobel Peace Prize this year or next.
And perhaps the man of the century award.
Because if the Nobel Prize, the Scandinavian idealism truly stands as a bright beacon guiding all humanity in the direction of virtue, honor, sacrifice, courage, and love for peace.
But who is this man?
Well, since the modern world has become tragically surreal, and figurative symbolism translates it better, let me explain him in a more poetic language.
The man has for decades stood unmoored, stone cold, and fearless upon the cliff of oblivion.
Very timely, very appropriate.
He is deserving.
The one true statesman astride the world stage.
race hatred religious fallis and economic rape that man is vladimir putin that's very timely very appropriate he is deserving the one true statesman has tried the world stage meanwhile who is that we wouldn't need nukes to defeat defenseless europe
President Putin, after months of dropping veiled threats about nukes, after he ordered his full-scale invasion of Ukraine—really, it was a defensive operation to protect the population of the Donbass from slaughter by the forces of Kiev—now says Europe is defenseless and that Russia wouldn't need nukes to defeat Ukraine or its allies.
During a panel discussion at the St.
Petersburg International Economic Forum, he said Russia has more tactical nukes than there are on the European continent, even if the U.S.
brings theirs over.
He further told Russian foreign policy expert Sergei Karganov, who was questioning him, does not have a developed early warning system in this sense.
They are more or less defenseless.
Meanwhile, Putin said he's not ruling out changes to the Russian nuclear doctrine.
The doctrine's a living tool.
We're carefully watching what's happening in the world around us.
Do not exclude making changes to this document.
It's also related to the testing of nuclear weapons.
The St.
Petersburg Forum, often referred to as the Russian Divos, has widely been seen as a sign the country is still open to cooperation.
Russia remains under heavy worldwide sanctions because of the war, however, and tensions remain high.
Earlier this week, meeting with international news agency leaders in St.
Petersburg, Putin said Russia could supply conventional long-range missiles to countries for use in striking Western targets.
His threat comes after NATO allies have given Ukraine Western-supplied weapons it targets inside Russia.
We're not supplying those weapons yet, he said, doubling down, but we reserve the right to do so to states or legal entities under pressure, including military, from countries that supply weapons to Ukraine and encourage their use on Russian territory.
Russian state TV host Vladimir Solyov told Rosenberg the Russians would base the weapons wherever we think necessary.
And, as President Putin made clear, we'll investigate the question if you're trying to harm us.
You have to be pretty sure we have enough opportunities and chances to harm you.
He also rejected the argument that such saber-rattling is a bluff.
It's always a bluff until a time it's not.
You can keep thinking Russia is bluffing and then one day there's no more Great Britain to laugh at.
Don't you ever try to push a Russian bear thinking, oh, it's only a kitten.
We can play with it.
Meanwhile, the head of NATO, Stoltenberg, declares Russia has exceeded NATO's expectations.
Speaking of Sky News, Jen Stoltenberg was asked to comment on a study released by the consulting firm Bain & Company, revealing that Moscow was generating artillery shells at more than three times the rate of all NATO members combined.
It's correct.
Russia has been able to build up its defense industry faster than we expected.
It's correct.
NATO allies have spent more time than they should in ramping up our production.
The reason Western nations are lagging behind is after the Cold War, we actually built down our defense industry.
However, according to Stoltenberg, the situation is now improving.
With all the NATO allies increasing the capacity to produce ammunition and weapons.
There were delays and gaps in delivery to Kiev, but this is really changing.
The flow of ammunition into Ukraine has increased over the last weeks.
Russia's advances in Kharkov and recent week demonstrate the need for us to step up our support for Kiev.
This support will continue even if former President Trump wins the election in November.
Because it's in the interest of both Europe and the U.S., Goldenberg insisted.
Trump has expressed skepticism on donating arms to Ukraine, arguing the U.S.
should stop giving foreign aid unless it's structured as a loan, insisting the bulk of the support should come from Europe.
Russian victory over Ukraine will make the world more dangerous for us and us more vulnerable.
The paper by Bain & Company said Russian factories are projected to make or refurbish approximately 4.5 million artillery rounds this year, compared to the West's combined output of 1.3 million.
The figures suggest that, too, the average production of 152mm shells from Moscow costs around $1,000 American, while the price of the 155 rounds used by NATO is up to $4,000 American.
In late May, Russian President Putin said domestic ammo output had increased by a factor of 14, drone manufacturing a four-fold surge, the assembly of tanks and armored vehicles risen by a factor of 3.5 since the outbreak of the conflict in February of 2022.
Here is questioning Colonel McGregor about whether the U.S.
could compete in a war with Russia.
Could the United States Army be destined for a war against Russia?
It's hard to even imagine, I'm saying that, and it's not just some hyperbole or some just crazy statement, but it's becoming more and more Real, something that has to be given a legitimate shot.
It shouldn't happen this way.
There should be even no consideration of this, but the facts on the ground are requiring it.
Earlier today, there was an article in The Telegraph, which was titled, NATO Land Corridor Could Rush U.S.
Troops to Frontline in Event of European War with Russia.
Now listen, that is just a crazy thing to think of that the U.S.
military, U.S.
Army in particular, could fight the Russian Army in this current environment here.
Now, of course, the bigger threat is, and the more troubling threat, is if there was a nuclear confrontation between the two sides.
But let's look at the situation, what might happen if what's depicted in this Telegraph article were to come into vogue and to happen, and the U.S.
Army would go in there.
Now, I've fought in several deployments in my time to include large-scale tank-on-tank warfare in the past.
And one of my commanders at that time, was then Major Doug McGregor, who's now a retired colonel.
Of course, you know him very well.
He's been on our show many times.
That guy literally wrote the book on how to do future war, how the modern wars can fight based on things that had happened in the past and the capabilities.
How to project these things out.
So I wanted to bring him in to talk about this because there's nobody better.
I promise you.
And he was not available today to come on camera, but he was able to come on the telephone.
So I had him on earlier today on a recording so that we can bring it to you live right now.
And I'm telling you, this is something you need to pay a lot of attention to.
I always want to bring you quality programming here.
But this thing here with Doug is he brings up some incredibly salient points.
And the bottom line that you're about to hear is that the United States Army is nowhere near as capable as to what people think it is.
And our policy makers, especially the president in Washington, needs to pay a lot of attention to this because if he even has any fantasies about engaging in land warfare against Russia, he needs to rethink.
And here's the reason why.
I'm going to talk specifically about some things.
And Doug, actually, I'm going to read a part here from your book, Margin of Victory, because I think that it's very, very much appropriate for what we're going to discuss today.
And if I can just bring this up, there it is right here.
You wrote that each chapter of this book is going to be a clearing call to recognize that wars are decided in the decades before they begin, not by the sudden appearance of a new technological silver bullet or presence of a few strong personalities in the senior ranks during a senior battle.
How effectively national, political, and military leaders adjust the framework of organization, technology, and human capital to relentless change in society, technology, and world affairs determines whether the nation-state prevails Or perishes in defeat.
So if that be true, if basically what you were doing in the decade before the battle is what's going to determine how you do in the battle, the question is going to be, what is the United States Army going to do if it goes into a full-scale war with Russia right now?
And just to kind of set the stage, there's news out That NATO was looking at how it would rush large numbers of American troops if we got into a ground war with Russia.
And for the purpose of this conversation, we're going to say that it doesn't go nuclear.
If it just stays conventional, I want to look at what might happen with that.
Nukes is a very possibility and that can go elsewhere.
But I want to discuss first of all, what could the U.S.
Army do?
And first of all, I want to ask you, over the past decade, let's just look at the premise of your book.
If we look back the past decade, going back to 2014, the U.S.
military primarily has had experience in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya, in Somalia, several places like that.
All small-scale stuff.
So if that's what we have prepared up to this point, what kind of army do we have right now if we had to fight a large-scale army?
Well, first we have a very small army.
We're down to less than about 450,000.
We're in no position to fight a land war in Eastern Europe, which has a front of hundreds of miles and a depth of a thousand miles at least.
The infrastructure in the theater is not developed beyond Germany.
There's surprisingly little in Poland.
So the point is, I can't imagine the use of the United States Army to do much more than potentially defend.
And you're talking about offensive operations because you have to move into Eastern Europe.
Now, having said that, remember that the vast majority of the equipment that the Army is using and the organization that we see on the battlefield today was developed in the 70s and the 80s for use in the 90s.
And we're now in the year 2024.
We're talking about a very different mix of technologies, different organizational constructs.
The Russians have adapted.
They've had to adapt because they were thrust into a war for which they too were really not prepared.
You'll recall when the Russians first went into Ukraine, their force was too small.
Was it really organized to deal with the robust Ukrainian army?
All of that has changed.
So on the tactical level, we're in anachronism.
We're not really prepared.
We don't have sufficient air defense and missile defense capabilities, which would mean that we're naked in the face of of the enemy.
In other words, the Russians.
Now, having said that, The RUSI in London just published a report saying that the combined air defenses in Western Europe could protect at most 5% of the infrastructure.
Yeah, yeah, I just saw that actually.
Which puts us in a very difficult position.
Now, let's start at the top.
Strategically, we're operating on the opponent's doorstep, where the opponent has every advantage logistically, in terms of range, weapons, ammunition, resupply, and so forth.
We're at the end right now in Poland on the border with Ukraine of our logistical support structure.
Now you want to move this Lilliputian force, frankly, into an area where it'll face Probably 800,000 Russian troops.
You have the same thing with the Europeans.
The worst part is that our force has very little unity of command, which means no unity of effort.
Why?
Because we're dealing with multiple foreign contingents.
The Russians have one language of command, Russian.
They have one uniform command and control structure.
And they have both operational as well as strategic ISR.
Our strategic ISR in space is very formidable.
We do have operational ISR from the fleet as well as the shore, but it's very vulnerable to attack.
The one area where we do have an advantage is air power.
We outnumber the numbers of Russian aircraft that could be hurled against us by five, six, seven times.
However, we would have to fight our way through integrated air defenses.
That would involve some losses.
We have to fly from vulnerable airfields that are relatively close to the battlefront because they're short-range fighters.
And Doug, let me just, as you're talking right now, I have a map on the screen that shows from the telegraph, which was talking about there would be five different locations From Norway, Germany, Italy, Turkey, and I'm sorry, the Netherlands and Italy down in the south actually, where they would come into.
It shows relatively limited or narrow constrained areas here.
And in that same article, because I think this is related to exactly what you're talking about, Lieutenant General Solfrank, who's the NATO Logistics Chief, makes the point here, and this is something you've been really talking about for decades, frankly, is that the vulnerability of these large logistics bases and these large concentrations of troops and equipment, etc., that we did like in Desert Storm, we had these huge bases Well, you look at the distances that are on the map, you're talking about hundreds of kilometers.
Now, that's a thing of the past.
But here's the big problem.
All we've ever done is practice with these large scale movements.
What kind of difficulties would we have moving in these five directions, even try to get to the battlefront?
Well, you look at the distances that are on the map, you're talking about hundreds of kilometers.
In other words, 150, 200, 300 miles trying to operate in areas where you don't have nearly enough prepositioned ammunition supplies.
And yet we haven't even talked about medical evacuation.
All of those things are a nightmare.
We're simply not prepared to launch offensive operations into Eastern Europe.
If you go back to 1941, very rapidly the Germans discovered they were on a front of 1,100 miles with about anywhere from 600 to 1,000 miles deep.
We're not prepared for that.
We don't have the numbers.
We don't have the logistical infrastructure.
And as you point out, the air power has to be positioned forward.
If it's forward, it's going to be vulnerable.
We haven't even discussed something else, which has to be mentioned.
And if we've listened to the Russians over the last several weeks, repeatedly, they've said, look, if you attack us, attack us on our soil, if you launch strikes against us, We reserve the right to return the favor with tactical nuclear weapons.
Now, very specifically, we're very reliant on F-15s.
The F-15 is a brilliant aircraft, fighter, bomber, and the Russians know that it is capable of carrying and launching nuclear weapons.
This is the same thing with B-52s.
If the Russians see large numbers of F-15s headed in their direction, And they, we would use large numbers of aircraft because we're not going to allow our forces to go forward into Ukraine without air cover.
Then the Russians would feel probably compelled to immediately attack all of those airfields and airports with tactical nuclear weapons.
Why bother with conventional weapons?
One or two tactical nuclear weapons of five kiloton or less will annihilate the airfields in the space of an hour.
Why would you wait around for us to attack and destroy them?
So, I think it's not just conventional.
They definitely have the edge in conventional military power.
But why risk the arrival of F-15s with nuclear weapons over your soil?
I don't think the Russians would do that.
I think the Russians are telling us they're ready.
And remember, the Russians have a battle-hardened force.
They've been fighting for several years.
They've eliminated a lot of weak officers, weak commanders at every level.
We have no such experience.
If you go, as you mentioned earlier, Dan, if you go back over the last 30 years, when have we relieved anyone in the field for failure to perform?
Well, if you're performing against opponents that have no armies, no air forces, no naval forces, the general officer is really never tested.
I think that's exactly right.
Brian, your thoughts?
on firepower as opposed to maneuver.
There's no agility in terms of thinking and behavior.
There's no experience to base anything on.
So the Russians have a decided advantage strategically, operationally, and tactically.
I don't think we can overcome those.
Doug?
I think that's exactly right.
We can't overcome those.
Brian, your thoughts.
I think McGregor lays it all out with such clarity and breadth and depth that his argument is conclusive.
in my opinion.
Your thoughts?
Well, I agree with the argument, but you've got to remember what we're fighting for.
What is it that we're fighting for, okay?
Face the Nation on CBS, Sunday morning, Lindsey Graham comes on, and he tells the world that Washington cannot afford—cannot!
Afford to lose Ukraine to Russia and he calls Huton, sorry, Huton, a megalomaniac and he says that that neighbor over there is sitting on a
Okay, so think of this as the Wild Wild West and Ukraine's right in the middle and they're the little corrupt landowner that owns a gold mine that's filled with 10 to 12 trillion dollars of critical minerals and some of the best farming land in the entire world.
Your neighbor gets them, which would be Putin, and in turn, China.
Or America and the West gets a hold of these resources, so it's a very big deal.
This is what they're fighting over.
Literally, Ukraine, one of the most corrupt nations in the world, is sitting on $12 trillion worth of minerals and some of the finest land left in the world.
And it's a question of who's going to gain control, because whoever ends up gaining control wins.
That said...
Is that something that's worth mutually assured destruction?
Are they really going to release nuclear bombs on that gold mine so that nobody can work it successfully?
How are they going to do it?
Oh, they're going to send in American lives and NATO lives versus Russian lives all over a gold mine in a corrupt country called Ukraine.
And by the way, Ukrainian officials just got busted stealing $490 million of U.S. aid that was supposed to be meant for building up their defenses.
They just got caught stealing it.
And of course, since there's no proper government in place and Zelensky's a dictator now, it's, oh, I'm going to take care of the problem.
Like he wasn't involved in it from the very beginning.
Yeah, yeah, whatever.
Meanwhile, Russia's saying Zelensky is not even in control of it.
He's just a Western puppet.
They name the other people that are there.
But just understanding the big context of, okay, we're seeing all these troops and all this money being spent, everything coming from everywhere.
Well, Lindsey Graham said it on Face the Nation.
It's because we've discovered a gold mine, and it's in a place where That's so corrupt that America, the Bidens, anybody else could go in and get a piece of the action simply by some bribe and some graft.
Oh, but Russia's also interested in that gold mine because they want those resources to be able to continue to expand their military.
Team up and make buddies with China and India and other nations to weaken us.
Meanwhile, Russia is out there putting out the BRICS currency.
And what are they developing now?
What's their new platform?
Oh, international and multiple national different currencies.
So they want the CBDC that's going to be issued through BRICS to be something that's used to control using national currencies instead of issuing their own.
So that's a very interesting development.
Wow.
Well, that doesn't gainsay that the West cannot defeat Russia militarily, and all of the greed of Lindsey Graham, which oozes from every pore, isn't going to make any difference on the ground whatsoever.
Yeah, but the whole point of the conversation, and I agree, who's going to win?
How's it all going to play out?
You know, I'm not a military design guy, but then again, we're missing a very critical piece of information, aren't we?
And McGregor said it.
We're still using technology from the 70s and 80s.
Nobody's brought out the big guns yet.
I have no idea what the new technology really looks like and what it's really capable of.
So who could possibly make that analysis without understanding?
Because the new tech hasn't been deployed.
They're still using freaking TNT and gunpowder versus, you know, whatever we've got now today.
Very nice.
Very nice, Brian.
Meanwhile, We have reports of the damage to the USS Eisenhower, asserted by the Houthis but denied by the West.
Fresh footage of damage to the Eisenhower after a missile attack.
You can see the deck here appears to be substantially damaged.
Here's the Eisenhower, severely hit by multiple Houthi missiles, judging by the extent of tip city on the flight deck.
Unless it's unlikely the Eisenhower will return to service in the foreseeable future.
Here we have alleged conflict where the Eisenhower is taking multiple hits.
Here you see the exchange.
Wow.
Thank you.
Well, in the midst of the dials... Wait a second.
Hold on a second, Jim.
Watch that one again.
Pay attention to how fast the sound travels and ask yourself if it's realistic.
Let me see here.
You want me to play this again?
- Yeah, I guess it is.
Never mind.
I thought I picked it up.
That one didn't seem right, though.
Right.
Well, listen, I'm going to add, I mean, this could be propaganda, but the Houthis have a reputation for speaking the true and the West, the U.S., for speaking the false.
Here we have the latest development.
Four Hasidim freed, but at the expense of 274 Palestinians dead.
If you have to kill 274 people to free four others being held Hasidim, is that a successful military operation?
According to Israeli and U.S.
governments, it is.
Israel, apparently with some help, attacked the Nisaret camp in Gaza and freed four hostages seized by Hamas.
In doing so, they killed and wounded hundreds of unarmed men, women, and children.
It's a brutal calculus that these Palestinians have been in the way and essentially worthless and therefore expendable.
Put differently, Israel sees all Palestinians as guilty, as terrorists, and therefore there are no innocent Palestinians.
Israel can kill as many as they need, without guilt or remorse, to achieve a desired end.
Coverage by the mainstream in the West generally had been glowing, praising Israel for rescuing the four, downplaying the Palestinian dead as collateral that's hardly worth noticing.
Here's an example from the BBC.
Four hostages seized at Nova Festival Street in Gaza raid.
Hamas claimed more than 200 Palestinians were killed in the densely populated area where the raid took place.
You see a happy young woman freed by Israeli forces.
You don't see any images of the more than 200 Palestinians killed by Israel in this special military operation.
Note how the Palestinian dead are consigned to a subheading in a smaller font.
Yes, it's good to see poor hostages free.
But if hundreds of innocent people must die or suffer grievous wounds in the process, that's not a successful operation.
It's a massacre.
Meanwhile, Macron dissolved Parliament after a humiliating defeat by the French right.
Fascinating.
French President Macron has dissolved the French National Assembly, called a snap election, in response to his humiliating defeat in the European election.
This decision is a significant gamble that could backfire spectacularly for him.
In a preliminary result, Le Pen's National Rally won 30 seats with 31.5% of the vote, a stunning victory for the French right.
By contrast, Macron's Renaissance Party managed to secure just 15.2% of the vote.
Macron addressed the French people directly.
I've decided to give you back the choice of our parliamentary future through the vote.
I am dissolving the National Assembly this evening.
In other words, having lost, he's calling for national elections in the hope that he might fare better the second time around.
The first round of elections set for June 30th is 2nd July 7th.
Macron referred to his decision as serious and weighty, but it's before all an act of confidence he had had.
The result in Macron's announcement of a snap election was greeted with jubilation by Marine Le Pen and her supporters.
We're ready for power.
If French people put their trust in us, Levin said, her party had won because it best represents France and the concerns of ordinary French citizens, which are immigration, inflation, the cost of living, and crime.
When the people vote, the people win.
Her party's victory is expected to be a prelude to an even greater victory in the national election.
The party is already the largest opposition in Parliament, with 88 members.
It's going to be very hard to stop us now, said a National Rally senator.
We're everywhere now.
There's no more fortress impossible for us to take.
We have voters in every section of life, every profession.
If Macron is roundly defeated in the national election, his legislative agenda will be stymied for the final two years of his term.
He'll not be able to run for re-election in 2027 either due to term limits.
Brian, your thoughts.
Well, let's just deal with the obvious hostage rescue elephant in the room for just a few minutes, okay?
I can't tell you how many times I've seen your foolhouse shooting heroes get rolled out in front of anti-gun conferences and security spending conferences and whatever late after the fact because they're still on contract to continue lobbying and they still get paid to play a piece of the action.
Now, it's simple.
There were no hostages, just like there were no kids killed at Sandy Hook or any of these other school shootings.
They're people that are hired to play a simple game, and they've decided that the simple game is up let's roll out the hostage rescue.
Let's say that we, let's make our people happy like our big bad military went in and killed 234 of these Palestinian hostages, so that we can, we can say that we had to do what we had to do well in the meantime that.
The machine is continuing to run over in Gaza doing the demolition, starving those people out and driving them dead.
That's why you're not going to see any pictures of what's going on there.
This is just another example of more crisis actors continuing to get rolled out.
Oh look, we have one of the hostages that's now back alive and she's going to tell her miraculous story on the mainstream media tonight, watch on the Late Show, and you'll be able to see it.
Okay, as for Macron, hey, look, I'm hoping that's the end of this guy.
I'm hoping it's the end of all these guys that are part of this global world economic forum.
I'm happy to see that there's a strong right wing influence that seems to be polling well in France.
But again, the question is, is it more of an example of the uniparty?
Or is it truly a grassroots development?
Because Because as far as I can tell with Le Pen, she's been hanging around for a long time.
This isn't grassroots.
And so I would, I would generally guess that it's more of Oh look, Macron, his popularity is waning.
Let's go ahead and replace him with another controlled faction of the far right, just like they're going to continue to allow the same thing, same play to be happening here in America.
Give me something that's truly grassroots, something truly authentic, a candidate that's truly somebody that we can get behind and somebody that's not controlled.
That being said, here in America, I would highly suggest you go watch Tucker Carlson's Latest interview with Thomas Massey.
Two hours, I watched every minute of it.
I loved it.
The guy is just sort of home-cooked, uncontrolled, and talked in general about how he wouldn't allow the American-Israeli Political Action Committee, Political Action Conference, control him.
And I thought it was incredibly refreshing to hear his perspective on it.
So on that story, it's a question of what's real, what's fake, what's uniparty, what's right-wing, what's grassroots, what's not.
And the simple fact is, I think they're just replacing one puppet with the next puppet.
Fascinating.
Brian, take us out to haunt.
Oh, okay.
I'm not prepared for this.
This has been one heck of an hour here with everything from Scott Bennett's books to Russia and Putin and Biden and Israel and all the things that are happening that are very serious and could get even worse than we can expect here for this hot June.
▲
Export Selection