Ezra Levant examines Naftali Bennett’s claim that Israel brokered a 2022 Ukraine-Russia peace deal—Putin dropping demands for denazification, Zelensky conceding on NATO—blocked by Joe Biden and Western allies. Meanwhile, Gordon G. Chang reveals the Pentagon’s delayed response to China’s surveillance balloon, comparing it to past incidents like 2001’s downed U.S. Navy plane, suggesting systemic failures embolden Beijing. Levant questions whether Biden’s restraint signals a calculated approach or missed opportunities, while Chang frames the balloon as a modern Sputnik, forcing Japan to tighten defenses. The episode hints at deeper tensions: U.S. military posturing vs. peace diplomacy and China’s escalating provocations with little consequence. [Automatically generated summary]
Today, a shocking video by the former Prime Minister of Israel who said he had nearly brokered a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine before Joe Biden told him to stop.
I'll play the video for you.
We'll talk a bit about him.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
You really need it for this one because I'm going to show this video.
The spoken language is in Hebrew, and there's subtitles on the screen in Russian and English.
Now, don't worry, I'll read those subtitles out for you in the main.
But this is one of those videos where you want to see the video, not just hear the audio.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe, eight bucks a month.
What a bargain.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, did Israel broker a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia?
And did Joe Biden nix it?
It's February 7th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
We don't talk that much about the Ukraine war on Rebel News.
Israel's Role in Ukraine?00:09:40
We're against wars.
They are a failure to resolve problems peacefully.
They punish civilians, especially women and children.
They set back entire civilizations.
Now, there are some things worse than war, as in there are some things more valuable than peace.
Being a prisoner could be quite peaceful.
That wouldn't make it good.
You need justice along with your peace.
You need freedom along with your peace.
There's that protest chant, no justice, no peace.
You sometimes hear people say, well, what has war ever accomplished?
Well, I can think of a lot of things, actually.
The independence of many countries, the liberation of many countries.
Even civil wars can have positive outcomes.
The liberation of slaves, for example.
Many veterans hold that the wars they served in were highly moral and deeply patriotic.
I think most people agree with that most of the time, actually.
But this war in Ukraine feels a little bit off.
I've never seen such unanimity in the establishment.
Well, I guess since the pandemic.
It's not just unanimity that Russia ought to be expelled from Ukraine, but that war must be the means, total war, a grinding war to wear down Russia and its military and to invoke regime change to destroy Russian infrastructure, whether it's a bridge to Crimea or the underwater pipeline for natural gas, to destroy the capital ship Moskva.
Destruction of Russia isn't just the means.
It seems like the end.
The ends, that is.
I also find it a little bit odd to see the Ukrainian president so idolized.
I've never seen it before.
And his flaws so overlooked.
His violation of civil liberties at home, banning critical media or opposition parties, even going to war against the church in his own country.
Vladimir Putin does similar things and he's condemned for it.
I think Ukraine and Russia are actually quite similar in their violation of civil liberties.
The corruption, even as $100 billion floods into Ukraine, raises an eyebrow and calls for even harder and harsher wars.
It feels manufactured, this consent.
I say again, I'm against Russia's invasion, and I'm against the war, war that Russia started.
But the weird thing is the Western geopolitical, military, diplomatic establishment seems to actually want the war itself as opposed to wanting the end of the war.
It's almost like they have a whole Cold War of pent-up frustration that they finally have a chance to fight Russia on a battlefield in Europe.
They never got that chance in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, so damn it, they'll take that chance now.
I've never seen such a thing.
But something shocking was revealed the other day by a most unusual source, Naftali Bennett, who until actually just a few weeks ago, a few months ago, when B.B. Netanyahu was re-elected, Naftali Bennett was Israel's prime minister.
So he was PM when Russia invaded Ukraine.
And a week or two after the Russian invasion last year, this Israeli PM, Naftali Bennett, secretly flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin.
Now, remember, Israel is surprisingly close to Russia and Ukraine.
And the reason for that is when the Berlin Wall fell and when Russia and Ukraine were de-Sovietized, a lot of Jews in Russia and Ukraine immigrated to Israel.
Jews had often been dissidents.
They were picked on by the Soviet regime.
A lot of the so-called refusics, a lot of the democracy activists in Russia were actually Jews.
And so once the Berlin Wall came down, about a million Jews and some non-Jews came from Russia and Ukraine to Israel.
In fact, you can hear Russian spoken in the streets of Israel as much as any other language, almost as much as English.
So Israel has a connection, obviously, to the West and obviously to its patron, the United States, but it has an active, real connection to Russia and Ukraine.
So when the war broke out, you'll remember Israel was reluctant to jump on the bandwagon of condemning Putin.
In fact, Israel's PM secretly flew to meet Putin.
And he says, and this is the news, that Vladimir Putin agreed to two of what Bennett calls big concessions.
According to Naftali Bennett, I'm just saying what he said, that Vladimir Putin agreed to abandon his demand for the denazification of Ukraine.
Now, there are some Nazis there, you know, the Azov battalion actually consider themselves Nazis, but that's also a code word for how Russia denounces others in the Kiev regime, as they call it.
So Russia would really drop its demand for regime change of Ukraine, and it would drop the demand for Ukraine to be disarmed.
Naftali Bennett said that these were quite large concessions.
Here, watch this video.
It's in Hebrew, but there's English subtitles.
And I'll play it again a little bit later.
So watch this video.
I think this is huge news.
And I ask you, have you seen this anywhere?
This is not just some guy.
This is not a pundit.
This is someone who was there.
He was the negotiator.
He was a prime minister of a major country.
You take a look, go to Germany, to Germany, because Germany is the competition and the competition is the most important in Europe and to bring an agreement.
Everyone will do things in the protocol of what was and then what are the next steps and what are the next steps and what are the next steps and what are the next steps and what are the next steps from there?
I think that together even, but I'm not sure we have the Americans to the American and Macron.
What is the American?
Is the American or something?
No, the past was a in general mull the Jayke Sullivan in the past in the past in the past Blinken and Blinken are very ahead and Boris Johnson and now you know I knew I was all the way and the direction of Boris was let me let me let's say let's take a look spectrum from the menhiging from the bottom to the the that now should be that Putin because he is That's right.
that now it's going to continue to keep Putin and not to be able to do it.
Even in the U.S., even in the U.S., even in the U.S., even in the U.S., even in the U.S.
So they actually did it?
Yes, they did it.
Yes, they did it.
And at the same time I thought that they were able to do it.
I'm not sure if they were able to do it.
If they were not able to do it.
If they were not able to do it, I'm not sure.
I think that's interesting.
I want to go through that now.
He said Zelensky made concessions too.
By the way, that was obviously an excerpt of a larger video.
Zelensky agreed to renounce Ukraine's membership in NATO, which was a real sticking point for Putin.
Now, Bennett didn't say the deal was a done deal, but he said it looked promising, sort of more than 50-50 chance.
And incredibly, he said he did this in complete coordination with the U.S., Germany, France.
He said he really didn't go there as a party or as an advocate, but rather as a fair dealer, a negotiator, a mediator, as someone trying to facilitate an outcome.
But in the end, as you heard, he was following U.S. guidance.
Again, that's to be expected.
Now, he named names, didn't he?
He said he was in constant touch with State Department officials like Jake Sullivan, Anthony Blinken, and even Joe Biden himself.
But here's the crazy part: Bennett says you saw the translation there, that there was a decision by the West to keep striking Putin, as in the military didn't want to give up the war part of the war.
So the U.S. blocked the deal, Bennett said.
And I thought they were wrong, he said.
Bennett noted the death toll.
He said that it was destroying Ukraine as a country, its infrastructure, that it had international impacts on everything from energy prices, obviously, to food, Ukraine being a breadbasket of food, refugees pouring out of the country.
He said Biden made the decision for other reasons, though.
For U.S. reasons, not Ukrainian reasons.
He said, and you can, you know, we'll have a link to the larger YouTube video.
You can watch more yourself.
President Biden created an alliance vis-à-vis an aggressor in the general perception, and this reflects on other arenas such as Taiwan.
So Biden wanted to make a public statement using Russia in this example.
Here, let's watch that clip again.
You know what?
I'm going to have the link to the full YouTube video because there's other things he gets into.
But just watch it again.
Biden's Public Statement Strategy00:02:19
I just thought it was.
I can't believe it.
You might not recognize Naftali Bennett, but he was the prime minister.
And he says he was in touch with every Western counterpart.
He was not there as a rogue actor.
He was there.
Take a look.
ואת מקרון.
מה זה אמריקאים?
ביידן עצמו או שם?
לא, זה היה בדרך כלל מול היועץ לביטחון לאומי, ג'ייק סליבן, לפעמים מול ביידן, לפעמים מול בלינקן.
הם מאוד הדוקים שם.
כן.
ובוריס ג'ונסון.
עכשיו, אתה יודע, היו כל מנהיג והדרך שלו.
בוריס היה, בוא נגיד, אפשר לחלק ספקטרום של מנהיגים, מיותר נוטה לקו של עכשיו צריך להילחם בפוטין.
כי הוא הרע ואסור לתגמל את החיים.
נכון.
ומי אומר, אבל אז זו ושמלחמה.
מי אומר, אז מלחמה כל המפסידים.
נכון.
ובוא נגיד, בוריס ג'ונסון היה מאוד בקו התקיף.
הייתי אומר שמקרון ושולץ היו בקו היותר פרגמטי, נקרא לזה.
וביידן גם וגם.
נגיד את זה בצורה רחבה, אני חושב שהייתה החלטה של המערב לגיטימית, שכרגע צריך להמשיך להקות בפוטין ולא להגיע.
פרטי פרטים, גם עם ארצות הברית, גם עם גרמניה, גם עם צרפת.
אז הם בעצם חדלו את זה?
בגדול, כן.
בגדול הם חדלו את זה.
ובאותו זמן חשבתי שהם שוגעים.
אני טוען שבסבירות לא רע אפשר היה להגיע.
אם הם לא חודלים את זה?
אם הם לא חודלים, לא בטוח.
אני חושב שרחתם שאלות אם אנחנו יכולים.
The first question is: Is this true?
I think that would be pretty easy to test.
Chinese Surveillance Balloon Incident00:15:32
I mean, he names names: Jake Sullivan, Anthony Blinken, Joe Biden went to France, went to Germany.
Did that really happen?
I think that should be easy to prove.
If it's not true, why would he lie?
I don't understand that.
Like, he was the prime minister of an important country doing an important mission, in touch with an important people.
Why would he lie about that?
What does the United States have to say about the claim that this was scuppered by Joe Biden because Joe Biden wants to set an example of military strength?
What is the end game if that's the case?
Because you push too hard against another country and it crumbles.
You push too hard against Russia.
While before they finally crumble, don't they push the nuclear button?
Isn't that what they say about Putin?
What again is the U.S. interest in Ukraine, or is it just to pummel Russia, to get that out of the system of generals who are in their 60s and 70s and didn't get a chance to pummel Russia during the Cold War?
I don't know what is the U.S. interest.
Is it to project strength and to say to China, look how rough we are with Russia, we'll be this rough with you?
Is that the interest I'd like to hear articulated?
And I'd like to hear what the Canadian interest is, because I don't think anyone's expecting our aircraft carriers to save Taiwan from China.
We don't have any aircraft carriers.
So, what exactly is the Canadian interest?
If the American interest, according to Naftali Bennett, is to carry a big stick and be fearsome, okay?
You can accept that or reject that on its own terms, but that clearly cannot be Canada's interest.
We're sending, what was it, one single tank, as far as I could tell.
And then there's a larger question, and I think Henry Kissinger himself asked this.
Henry Kissinger has proposed a settlement not dissimilar from the one Naftali Bennett talked about.
Kissinger said, although Russia is a rival and perhaps even an enemy of the West, is it a good idea to destroy it, to destroy its military, to destroy the country, to have regime change?
Would it be a good thing to have that vacuum?
Would it really just be filled with China?
Hey, is anyone open to a diplomatic solution here?
Like anyone.
I mean, Naftali Bennett obviously believed in it.
And for a moment, it looked like Zelensky and Putin were.
I wonder if anyone still is.
And I was thinking more about China and its hot air balloon.
We'll talk a little bit more about that with our next guest.
But it made me think $100 billion worth of U.S. money and material is being sent to Ukraine, not just by the United States, but by other countries.
Canada sent one tank, but the UK and other European countries.
I saw a headline the other day that if the UK were to do what its former Prime Minister Boris Johnson wants it to do, it would run out of ammunition in a week, just run out.
And of course, America is shipping its frontline tanks and other vehicles to Ukraine right now.
I don't know how long America can use its weapons without replenishing them.
And when all these weapons are deployed in the Ukrainian front, well, is the West able to fight a two-front world war against China?
Is that, in fact, what we're headed towards?
I'm just asking questions, but can you even ask these questions?
Can you even show this video of Naftali Bennett without being called a pro-Putin agent?
Is the war that important?
Stay with us for more with Gordon Chang.
Well, expect the unexpected.
It was not an ICBM, an intercontinental ballistic missile.
It was not a high-tech drone or even a cyber attack.
It was a balloon, a stratospheric balloon.
In a way, it was very low-tech, though it carried a high-tech platform and payload, a balloon from China.
They claim it was a weather balloon they protested when the United States finally shot it down.
But what was it?
And was its main effect to show just the indecision and, I don't know, lack of self-respect by the U.S. administration?
I just want to show you again Anthony Blinken's total response to the balloon over U.S. airspace was that everything's fine.
He's just going to postpone his trip to Beijing.
Hey, take a look at that.
I'd just like to briefly address the presence of the Chinese surveillance balloon in U.S. airspace.
I spoke this morning with Director of the CCP Central Foreign Affairs Office, Wang Yi, to convey that in light of China's unacceptable action, I am postponing my planned travel this weekend to China.
As you know, President Biden and President Xi agreed during their meetings in Bali in November that I would travel to Beijing to follow up on their discussions.
We've been working across the U.S. government to prepare for a substantive set of discussions on issues that matter to the American people and to people around the world.
And we've been engaging for some time with our counterparts in Beijing to prepare for these meetings.
Yesterday, the Department of Defense announced that we had detected and were tracking a high-altitude surveillance balloon that remains over the continental United States.
We continue to track and monitor the balloon closely.
We're confident this is a Chinese surveillance balloon.
Once we detected the balloon, the U.S. government acted immediately to protect against the collection of sensitive information.
We communicated with the PRC government directly through multiple channels about this issue.
Members of my team consulted with our partners and other agencies and in Congress.
We also engaged our close allies and partners to inform them of the presence of the surveillance balloon in our airspace.
We concluded that conditions were not conducive for a constructive visit at this time.
In my call today with Director Wang Yi, I made clear that the presence of this surveillance balloon in U.S. airspace is a clear violation of U.S. sovereignty and international law, that it's an irresponsible act, and that the PRC's decision to take this action on the eve of my planned visit is detrimental to the substantive discussions that we were prepared to have.
I told Director Wong that the United States remains committed to diplomatic engagement with China and that I plan to visit Beijing when conditions allow.
If that was the sole response, the sum of the response by the United States, no diplomats ejected, no sanctions, no tit-for-tat, just simply a diplomat delaying a visit.
Well, maybe the balloon test run was a success, Astrolog.
Joining us now to give an expert opinion on this subject, not my layman's musings, is our favorite expert on China matters.
You know who I'm talking about.
You should be following him if you're not already on Twitter at Gordon G. Chang.
And he joins us now via Scott.
Gordon, great to see you again.
So much is going on.
I focused on the diplomatic response from the U.S. State Department, but you tell me what was the most interesting or important angle of the balloon flight?
What caught your attention about it?
Two things.
First of all, I couldn't believe it when I heard that China sailed a balloon into the United States.
I mean, I think the Chinese leaders are bold and aggressive, but I didn't think that they would do something like this.
The second thing, though, and this is disturbing, is that President Biden was not informed about this until the fourth day that the balloon had intruded into the U.S.
It entered U.S. airspace at the Aleutians, traveled through Alaska, then down through your country through the western Canada, and then it entered the U.S.
And about the time that it entered the U.S. in Idaho is when Biden was informed about this.
By then, it was really too late to shoot it down without causing possibility of personal and property damage.
So basically, the United States allowed this balloon to survey some of its most sensitive military sites.
I think that the Secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should have notified Biden as soon as this got anywhere close to U.S. airspace, because they could track this thing as it was coming towards the Aleutians.
And that shows a fundamental failure in the Pentagon.
Yeah, I think you're right.
I refreshed my knowledge about what used to be called the Dew Line, the distant early warning line.
It's basically the north perimeter of North America, but also the West Coast, Alaska, Yukon, Canada's British Columbia.
It is full of high-tech radar.
And I mean, this thing was not going very fast.
It was apparently visible to the naked eye.
It must have been detected.
Like, it actually flew all along the radar lines.
What's your working theory for why this was apparently not told to Biden?
I'm sure Justin Trudeau was not advised of it.
And certainly the public was not advised.
What's the thinking there?
What do you think went on?
Why did that happen?
You know, I cannot think of a good reason why the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief, was not informed.
And that means I think that there needs to be a serious investigation of this done on an urgent basis because there is no reason not to tell the commander-in-chief about this.
I have an alternative theory.
And again, this is pure speculation.
I have no basis for it.
But I'm trying to think of a plausible explanation.
And let me try this out.
That in fact, the White House, if not the president himself, was alerted, but there was a decision made not to make a fuss, not to make an international incident.
And maybe this thing, I don't know, it sounds ridiculous given that it was visible to the naked eye, but maybe everyone thought, well, this will just pass and we don't need a challenge with China right now.
We don't need, you know, to have an incident.
Let's just pretend this isn't happening.
Because I tell you, presidents, both Democrat and Republican, have turned a blind eye to Chinese aggression in the past.
I think of, I think it was under George W. Bush when a U.S. Navy intelligence aircraft was forcibly landed, stripped of its high-tech equipment before being returned to the U.S. I'm sure you know the case I'm talking about.
And it sure felt like the U.S. side was trying to pretend nothing bad was happening because they didn't want to be moved off their diplomatic track.
I don't know.
That's just a speculative theory on my part.
Well, we know that the Biden administration tried to hide this from the American public, and then it couldn't because people on the ground actually saw this thing and it was reported.
I should have said if Biden was telling the truth, that he was not briefed before Tuesday.
But I assumed that he was telling the truth.
But you know, you're obviously right.
We go back to April 1st, 2001, when a Chinese fighter clipped the wing of the U.S. Navy unarmed reconnaissance plane, the EP-3.
The plane had to land in a Chinese air base in Hainan Island.
Our crew was detained, basically held for ransom, and the Chinese stripped the plane.
And the administration of George W. Bush just sort of let this pass.
And that set a precedent.
And that taught the Chinese that they could be aggressive.
And we have paid for that ever since.
And I think that when we look at the history of Chinese intercepts, we have to be concerned that it is the United States that opened the door to this belligerent conduct.
Yeah, I mentioned the Hainan plane downing because it shows this is a bipartisan thing.
I mean, I'm quite critical of the Democrats, but it was George W. Bush who, as you say, opened the door.
Now, let me ask you about the balloon itself.
In a way, it's laughably low-tech.
I mean, I was trying to get an estimate of the price of this balloon, and I couldn't get a good one, but you can buy stratospheric weather balloons very similar to this for under $1,000.
Now, I'm not saying this may have been fancy and extra, and I'm sure the payload was expensive, but like, talk about a low-tech device.
And part of me thought, well, is it necessary?
Because surely the Chinese government has satellites, they have on-the-ground intelligence, they have electronic intelligence.
I mean, you know, who knows if there's apps on cell phones of people in army bases?
Like I was trying to think to myself, is there anything in the United States that the Chinese government doesn't know, even through, if you know the company DJI, they're one of the world's leading manufacturers of recreational drones, toy drones that the kids fly.
All the drone footage that people use around America through DJI goes through China.
It's stored on servers in China.
I personally believe that the Chinese government has mapped every square inch of North America through DJI, this toy drone company that just happens to feed all your video through China.
So I was thinking, what did they learn from a balloon that they didn't learn from satellites, drones, electronic information gathering, or even spies?
Why a balloon?
Well, a couple of reasons.
First of all, a balloon can hover and a satellite cannot.
That balloon was at 60,000 feet and a satellite is in low Earth orbit, much higher up.
So they could learn a lot from this balloon.
And the reason why they have them is because there are things that they can't obtain otherwise.
But the most important thing is they learned about America's reactions.
They saw how we reacted or didn't react to the intrusion.
And that told them a lot, which they could never get any other way.
Yeah, I found that reaction frustrating.
And I take your point about you don't want to shoot down something when there's people below.
But, you know, I know Alaska a little bit, and I certainly know northern Canada.
It is so barren.
It is so sparse.
Like in the Northwest Territories of Canada, it's 0.08 people per square mile.
I mean, it's almost deserted up there.
That's where they should have taken it down, in my layman's opinion.
But let's go to an expression.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Trump's Strategic Challenge00:07:39
That's the reason why the failure to notify Biden before Tuesday, if he's telling the truth, is so consequential, because they could have brought it down over Alaska or Canada, and they wouldn't even hit the bears because the bears were hibernating.
It really is the case up there.
It's almost uninhabited, a very sparse population.
I'm a layman, and I'm filling the air time here with my guesses because I find it so curious.
But there's an expert named General Mike Minahan, who is apparently an Air Force general.
And his opinion was leaked.
And he says that the U.S. should be preparing for war with China in 2025.
Now, that may sound futuristic, but that's just two years away.
I think he's stating the obvious.
I mean, I think certainly China is preparing for war right now.
Do you think this was leaked to wake up the political class?
I don't think that Joe Biden regards China as an enemy or even a rival.
I think he regards them as a strategic partner, maybe a challenge.
But I don't think that Joe Biden is even thinking in those terms.
Am I wrong?
You're not wrong about that because he has never called China an adversary, much less an enemy.
They're an enemy.
He just calls them a competitor.
And on Monday, Biden told reporters that the spy balloon incident would not weaken U.S.-China relations.
That's like the most incredible thing that I've ever heard an American president say.
So you can see that he's just teaching the Chinese, you know, provocative behavior will result in no cost.
Yeah.
I think one of the aesthetic criticisms of Donald Trump as president was his unpredictableness, his chaotic sense, and that he would blurt things out on Twitter.
Now, I think there was a method to the madness.
But certainly people like Kim Jong-un of North Korea did not know what Donald Trump would do.
Vladimir Putin didn't know what Donald Trump would do.
Perhaps it's not a cause and effect, but it is hard not to notice that Russia invaded Ukraine under Barack Obama and Joe Biden, but not under Trump in the middle.
And I just can't believe for a second that Xi Jinping would have risked this move had Donald Trump been present.
I don't know what Trump would have done, but I don't think he would have been tested with this challenge because I can't imagine that the Chinese government would have rolled the dice on this if Trump was in office.
And this is not my affection for Trump, although I am affectionate towards him.
This is me saying he scared the bad guys because he sort of came across as a bad guy in some ways himself.
You know, don't mess with him.
But Biden was so they got his number.
They knew he would be submissive and obedient.
What do you think of all that?
Yeah, I agree.
I agree with that.
Now, last couple of days, the Defense Department said that there were three balloon incursions during the Trump era, but they were pretty minor.
And matter of fact, the Defense Department didn't even know about them because they were so well disguised.
This was very different.
This was in your face.
You can't avoid what they did.
But I agree with you.
It was Trump's unpredictability that really got the Chinese and the Russians and the North Koreans and the Iranians and just about everybody else.
They behaved during those four years.
You know, the aesthetics were awful, you could argue, but he got the job done.
Yeah.
Last question.
I mean, we're thinking about this in North America, and we're pretty far away from the action.
But if I was in Taiwan, if I was in Japan, if I was in the region within reach of the People's Liberation Army, I would be a little bit nervous about the U.S. response.
Have you seen any commentary from Taiwan or Japan or South Korea on this matter, or have they been pretty tight-lipped about it?
They've been tight-lipped, but Japan is now talking about changing their laws about balloon incursions.
And, you know, China is, I mean, in Japan, it's pretty legalistic.
But they are going to, I think, have a more robust measures against balloons because they have seen these balloon incursions in the past.
There have been a lot of them in Asia, as you can imagine.
So this has been a wake-up call for everyone.
This could very well be like Sputnik in October 1957.
It just wakes everybody up.
Very interesting.
Well, what a pleasure to catch up with you.
You taught us things as you always do.
And you're right.
A balloon is much lower than a satellite.
And its slow pace is actually a benefit, not a flaw.
The fact that it just goes slow and hovers, you're right.
And especially as it went over those ICBM fields in Montana, very interesting.
Well, listen, thanks for fitting us in your schedule.
I know you're in such high demand for your commentary.
That's why I tell people to follow you on Twitter at GordonG. Chang so they can get your updates around the clock.
And I follow you very closely.
Thank you, my friend.
And keep up the fight for freedom.
You're one of our favorite guests and a real fan favorite, too.
Oh, well, thank you so much, Ezra.
I really appreciate the opportunity.
And at this very dangerous moment, stay safe.
All right, we'll do.
There you have it, Gordon G. Chang.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hello, my Rebels.
David McGennady says that balloon could easily have been carrying biological weapons.
Anyone remember COVID?
Yeah, I mean, as Gordon Ji Chang said, you know, it could have electronic intelligence gathering equipment in there because it's much lower than satellites, which are many miles high.
60,000 feet is a lot lower than 100,000 feet or 200,000 feet.
Sheephunter 7 says, apparently, Ezra's not actually researched this topic from beyond what the mainstream media said about it.
Just putting his own spin on it does not make it credible.
Perhaps reading a little from a few East Asian news and research sites, including ECNS, would help Ezra on this one.
Well, I have no idea what ECNS is.
I think I showed you some of my sources, but I really don't know the answer to the question.
China has acknowledged that it is their device, but they claim it's an innocuous weather device.
They've also condemned the West for shooting it down.
America is being laughably weak.
They apparently recovered the fallen parts, but I don't think they've revealed what they are yet.
So I don't know.
I mean, I don't think I said that my comments were much more than speculation.
Pike says this new Vancouver mayor is the most woke joke we've seen yet.
Who voted in this guy?
Well, that's what was so sad when our friend Aaron told us about the reaction to criticism of the downtown Eastside that the mayor was going woke.
It made me sad because I know this mayor was supposed to replace the previous woke mayor who used to be an NDP MP.