All Episodes
Previous Next
July 15, 2022 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
34:23
'What is the Biden Doctrine?' - Daniel McAdams at RPI Houston 2022

RPI Director Daniel McAdams opens the Ron Paul Institute's June 4th Houston conference with a discussion of the Biden foreign policy doctrine.

|

Time Text
Thanking The Host Committee 00:04:15
9-15 on the dot.
How many of y'all saw the Biden speech on inflation yesterday?
Wasn't that something?
That was weird.
Americans are saving more money than ever, and they have the lowest personal debt that they've had in a long time.
We saw there's an article on Zero Hedge where they literally show a chart with the opposite.
Personal debt, savings.
It's amazing.
So we're here for the Biden Doctrine, New World Order, or Nuclear Armageddon.
A couple things to open it up.
This is our second Houston conference, and I'm super excited to say this is three times larger than our first conference.
So that's thanks to all you.
I would like to recognize our event sponsor and our longtime friends, Gary and Nina Turpanjan.
They've been with us from the very beginning, wonderful supporters, wonderful people, and they have definitely helped make this all possible.
So a round of applause for the Trapanchos.
And I also want to thank our host committee.
And if you turn your programs to the back, you will see their names.
These are people who, when we're getting started organizing, and there are a lot of expenses associated with organizing, they come and step up and provide us some of the funds we need to get this thing off the ground.
And that's very important, especially these days, even though we are saving more money and we have lower debt than we've ever had.
In fact, it's almost free to come here in Biden's world.
But nevertheless, in the real world, we thank them very much.
They make this happen.
And some of you may want to be host committee members for future conferences.
They have some perks, like they have reserve seating.
And for the people with the host committee and the gold badges, we will have a reception afterward.
So that's a great chance to mingle.
So there is some information on here if you want to get in touch with me for a future conference.
And we do have two coming up.
We have Washington, D.C. coming up September 3rd.
It's our annual Washington conference in the Dulles area, not in D.C. as per Dr. Paul's orders.
He even said the other day, do we have to call it a DC conference?
And then we have one we're going to go to Lake Jackson.
We're taking over the Mises conference in Lake Jackson in November.
And that'll be the fifth.
And the DC one is, the Dulles one is in the third.
So there's that.
I also want to thank our speakers who are coming here and giving their time freely to us and sharing their wealth and breadth of experience and perspectives, a lifetime of work in this field.
So we are grateful to them.
And I want to give them a round of applause.
I want to thank my wonderful family who now has helped put these things together since 2016.
So we've done about 10 of them, I think, and they know the ropes now.
And I'm deeply, deeply appreciative.
And I'm also grateful for the opportunity to work with my family.
And most of all, what a great audience.
Thank you for coming.
If it wasn't for you, it would be just Dr. Paul and I doing another Liberty Report.
Which is fun, but it's a lot more fun having you here.
So, what are we here for?
The Biden doctrine.
So, I've prepared kind of a tragedy in five acts, I think we'll call it.
First of all, to open it up, I think we are now, and this is not a laughing matter, we're facing the greatest danger of nuclear annihilation that we have ever faced, and that includes the Cuban Missile Crisis.
So, we need to let that sink in and really be sober about this.
That's why we're here.
We are facing the potential of a life-ending nuclear war.
Running High On Their Own Supply 00:16:04
And, unlike in 1962, there are not cooler heads.
Yeah, you had the CIA pushing things, you had all kinds of deep state people pushing things, but you also had people around JFK who were level-headed.
We don't have that now.
There are no breaks, the brakes are off.
The people that are running things are high on their own supply, let's put it that way.
So, we're in a much greater danger, and that's why we wanted to call this meeting now to discuss what we're facing and at least go on record opposing it.
So, how did we get there?
And this will be a quick history of it.
Well, we know now, specifically, that at the end of the Cold War, there were guarantees given to the Soviet Union at the time.
And we know that now because there are some declassified notes from German diplomats at the meeting saying that there was a discussion that NATO would not go one inch further east.
And that, of course, was broken.
And it was broken certainly by the Clinton administration, liberal neocon international interventionists.
They're the ones who broke this deal and started the expansion of NATO.
Interestingly, as an aside, I was living in Hungary at the time, and I remember as soon as this was announced, you wouldn't believe how fast Lockheed got into Hungary and started passing around money like it was going out of style.
Lockheed and Boeing and Raytheon, they were all there spending a ton of money.
The funny thing is, they were spending it all on the post-communist socialist government at the time, thinking they'd never let go of power.
And what happened in 98 is that Fidesz was elected, and they're still in power now.
And they were pretty irritated that the socialist communists were bankrolled by all these big corporations, so they ended up going with Gripen and not buying the Lockheed or the F-18.
So, 2004-2005, we'll skip ahead too because we don't want to go into the history of Ukraine, but there was the Orange Revolution.
We remember that.
That's when the voters of Ukraine went to the polls, and they elected a guy called Yanukovych, right?
Remember him?
And he was elected president, and there were protests in the streets.
It was an unfair election, said Washington, said the NED, said the OSCE.
Unfair election.
People took to the streets, and Yanukovych had to go and run off.
And Yushchenko was put into power.
Remember all the ghastly stories about how his face had been distorted by poisons?
It wasn't quite NovaChalk back then.
That's a new invention.
But how horrible these people were.
So that's where he had.
Elected Yanukovych overthrew Yanukovych.
And then 2013 is an important point when Carl Gershman, who is the founder of the National Endowment for Democracy, he's since given up his seat.
I think they had to pry his cold, dead hands from that.
But as we know, the NED is a regime change organization within the U.S. government.
It's funded by us, but it's not a government agency.
So they get the best of both worlds.
They can do whatever they want, but we still bankroll them.
He was ahead of that.
He's a lifetime Trotskyite member of the Social Democrats USA Party.
So obviously, the idea of a global revolution is something that he quite likes.
He wrote an article, I think it was in the Washington Post and the New York Times, where he made the point: Ukraine is the prize.
2013, Ukraine is the prize.
And that pretty much telegraphed to the entire Washington establishment and the rest of the world, this is the goal.
We've got to capture Ukraine.
And that's obvious why they wanted to do that.
They wanted to put NATO bases on the border with Russia.
It goes back to Brzezinski during the Carter administration, the idea of, hey, that's a good idea.
Let's arm some Mujahideen people.
I mean, what could go wrong?
Let's arm al-Qaeda.
So then the coup in 2014, the U.S.-backed coup in 2014.
You're not allowed to say that.
And in fact, a friend of mine sent me a video of Tom Palmer, who's a great libertarian, talking about, we're not allowed to talk about this coup in 2014.
But we know for a fact because we've heard the tapes, we heard Victoria Newland, who actually got a promotion from this, talking about overthrowing the government of Ukraine and who should be in power.
And who had been elected by the people?
Well, it was poor Olyanukovich again.
He got all the votes.
He was elected.
He was in the middle of negotiating a deal with Russia for free trade, but also maintaining a relationship with the EU.
It looked like a pretty good deal.
And then Newland and her army moved in and overthrew the government.
And that's where we were in 2014.
And it's easy to fast forward to February 24th, which we will when we finish the first act of this tragedy.
But eight years went by in the middle because the people in eastern Ukraine, who by and large are Russian-speaking and Russians, as well as the people in Crimea, they said, hang on a minute, we didn't vote for this guy.
We voted for Riyanukovich.
And so the U.S. meddled in our elections and overthrew the guy who we voted for.
We don't want any part of this.
I mean, this is a social contract.
You overthrew our elections.
This is an illegitimate government.
So that started the uprising in the east in Donbass.
Crimea was taken peacefully because the Russians were already, Russian invasion, though they were already there.
They had a lease on the base in Sevastopol.
They were already there.
There was a referendum and the Russians voted to rejoin Russia.
So in the interim, eight years, as we know, there were bombings continuously using certainly U.S.-provided weapons, U.S. provided training, and an estimated 14,000 people killed in Donbass.
And so you can imagine what that might do.
And interestingly enough, there's a great book, I think it's called 82 Days in Slovyansk.
Maybe some of you have read it, but it details those eight years and what they felt like, the people who lived there.
And they actually felt betrayed by Russia.
They weren't pro-Russian.
They were angry that Russia didn't help liberate them, as they had been part of Russia in Novorossiya for hundreds of years.
So anyway, so here what we have.
The coup.
We have the eight-year interim.
And then we have at the end of 2021, the Russians approaching the U.S. and the EU and NATO saying, we need a new security framework for Europe.
We need to talk about this, guys.
We need to talk about rolling back the aggression, rolling back the NATO expansion.
And we need to talk about, you know, toning this thing down.
And they were laughed offstage by Blinken, by the Biden people, completely and totally ignored by them.
And that's the antecedents to what happened on February 24th.
And here is a great example.
We played it on the show, so if you watch the show, this will be a repeat.
But I just want to read this exchange because this tells you everything you need to know about the mentality of people in Washington and why we're in the mess we're in right now.
And this is an exchange on May 5th.
It's called the Monk Debate held in Toronto.
And the players in this mini play are Stephen Walt, who's one of the leading lights of the realist school, which we have some tactical affection for, but not strategically.
But the realist school, Michael McFaul, who was Obama's ambassador to Russia when the 2014 coup happened, who was run out of town for being a really bad ambassador and a really bad guy.
And Radek Sikorsky, who is a died-in-the-wool neocon.
He was the Polish defense minister and foreign minister.
So the three of these guys are on stage with a couple of other people.
But listen to this, this is great.
Stephen Walt, realist, good guy, smart guy.
He says, in 2021, we kept reiterating that Ukraine was going to join NATO.
We kept saying that over and over again.
So our diplomats are lying?
McFaul, laughing and yelling, yes, yes, that's the real world, guys.
Come on, come on, that's the real world.
And they're all guffawing.
This is hilarious, except for Stephen Walt.
So Walt says, so hang on a minute.
Our diplomats are lying all the time, yet the Russians should trust them when they offer assurances.
Guffaws from McFaul.
No, So here's Walt.
Here's my question.
If NATO membership for Ukraine was really realistically off the table, just not going to happen, nothing for Russia to worry about, why shouldn't NATO take it back?
Why shouldn't they say we've rethought the matter?
We no longer want to consider Ukraine for NATO membership.
End quote.
If it's never going to happen, why not do a very simple thing that might help unwind this?
Sikorsky butts in.
Because that would have been an invitation for Russia to invade.
And Walt says, I think that already happened.
So there you have it.
I mean, that in a nutshell is the mentality of these people we're talking about.
So in February 24th, some of us didn't expect the invasion as it was.
And I admit, I was one that didn't expect it to be as dramatic as it was.
Scott Ritter, who you hear from later, and Colonel McGregor, among others, they did see it coming as big as it was.
But there you have it.
And this is really the culmination of years, maybe decades, of anti-Russia sentiment, certainly drawn together by the four plus years of Russia gate lies, all fulfilled in this invasion.
And what did we see?
We all know we experienced it.
We had already been gaslit by two years of COVID, and now we're gaslit by changing your mask flag to a Ukraine flag, right?
And you're in there.
You're in the battle.
You're in the thick of things, right?
The media cheerleaders were unanimous in this.
And we know this.
You weren't allowed to say anything against it.
You weren't allowed to say, hey, wasn't there a coup in 2014?
You weren't allowed to say, hey, let's hang on a minute.
Is this really worth what we're aiming for?
So, and here's actually an example of the media.
And I know probably a lot of you guys read Moon of Alabama, Bernard in Germany.
He had a great piece, and I won't quote it all, but he has a great piece a couple of days ago.
It says, how Russia and Putin are weaponizing, losing, and running out of everything.
These are just some headlines.
Russia running out of easy oil, November 28th, 2021.
Why Putin is acting like a man who is run out of time, December 2021, Guardian.
Russia warns it's run out of patience, January 14th, Business Insider.
Rubio warns Putin's time is running out on this earth, March 2nd, 2022.
Putin is running out of options, a new statesman, March 3rd.
Russian labs run out of equipment as sanctions begin to bite.
March 7th, science business.
Putin's depleted army is running out of time.
March 25th.
Pentagon claim Russia is running out of ammunition, March 25th.
Is the Russian military running out of soldiers?
March 28th.
Russia may be running out of missiles, March 29th, newsmax.
I mean, I can just go on and on and on.
Is Russia running out of money?
Well, we know that didn't happen because although Biden did promise us that the ruble would be rubble, right, it'll be 200 rubles to the dollar.
Well, that didn't happen either.
It actually is strengthened to be stronger than ever.
And all this is not to say that the Russians were right or that we're admiring what they did.
We're trying to understand it.
And most of all, we're trying to say that the Biden people were wrong.
But you have to create this narrative, and that's what they did.
And they did it amazingly well because they had two years to practice with COVID.
You had to, first of all, get the social media in line.
That was easy.
You're kicked off if you say anything to challenge.
And in fact, it forced me to go on Telegram because everyone, every Russia account was kicked out of Twitter.
So I go on Twitter to watch the Ukraine ones, and I have to go to Telegram to watch the other ones.
And RT is gone and all this.
So you know.
But you have to establish this narrative to get Americans to feel like this is a crusade.
This is a crusade that we can all get behind.
The cost of admission is only a Ukrainian flag on your avatar, and you're in.
You're part of the fight.
The plucky democracy, we're saving.
If we don't save the democracy in Ukraine, never mind that we overthrew it twice.
If we don't save the democracy in Ukraine, we're going to be speaking Russian in Topeka, Kansas.
You know, that's the idea.
And it works.
It still works.
That's the thing that's most amazing.
It worked in Iran.
It worked in Panama.
It worked in Syria.
It worked in Vietnam, et cetera, et cetera, the domino theory.
It still works, and that's what's depressing.
But the plucky democracy in Ukraine, well, the lead opposition party was banned.
That was a few months ago.
All the opposition parties have been banned.
The opposition leader is now in jail.
It's funny because you hear about Navalny in Russia, who gets like 2% of the vote.
There are like five people, including his mother, who vote for him, and yet he's the cause celeb when he's in jail.
But the lead opposition party leader is in jail right now.
All opposition media, all non-pro-Zelensky media has been banned in Ukraine.
If that were Belarus or anywhere else that's in the targets in the crosshairs, we'd be hearing about it.
We don't hear about it now.
So the reality versus the narrative, you have to create the narrative that we are saving a plucky democracy.
And in the meantime, and this, I think, is partly the real issue that's going on.
For two years, the medical industrial complex was cleaning up.
If you own stock in Moderna or Pfizer or Johnson Johnson, through the roof, you were doing great.
But the military industrial complex was getting a little bit jealous.
Hey guys, we need a war here.
You know, these mansions in McLean are not going to build themselves, right?
So what do we get?
$60 billion.
And that's just since February 24th.
$60 billion is half of Ukraine's entire GDP for 2021.
We bought Ukraine, right?
We bought it.
But in fact, that money is not being sent to Ukraine.
And we all know that.
We're all grown-ups in the room.
The money is being sent just across town to Raytheon, to Lockheed Martin, to the military-industrial complex.
That's where the money's going.
And a good chunk of it's going to the NGOs and all these myriads of, you know, they're going to make life better for women in Ukraine and all this sort of thing.
There's a lot of money.
There's a little bit for everyone, right?
There's a little bit for everyone.
$60 billion.
And you'll all remember that when they wanted to do, Biden said, you know what, I need $31 billion to send over Ukraine.
Congress said, hold my beer.
We're going to give you $40.
How's that sound?
Okay, that's just a down payment.
Then a guy from Kentucky stood up and says, you know, maybe we can at least maybe hire an accountant or a bookkeeper to see to see what's happening with his money.
And of course, you would have thought, you know, I don't know what you would have thought.
The ton of bricks came down on Senator Paul for even suggesting.
He didn't say no money.
I know in his heart he was thinking no money, but he was picking at the ripe fruit.
Hey, can we at least get a special inspector general like we had for Afghan Reconstruction, Sopko, who did a great job and who concluded that we flushed billions of dollars down the drain and that the U.S. government encouraged people to lie all the time about the success in Afghanistan.
Biden's $60 Billion Stinger Promise 00:07:54
No, we can't do that.
So what we have is a massive money laundering scheme, and that's exactly what this is.
Let's be frank.
All the East Europeans, and you've got to kind of hand it to them because they played this game under Soviet rule too, in a way.
So they're getting rid of all their junk.
They're sending it to Ukraine.
It's no good.
They're sending tanks from World War II.
I've seen World War I guns over there.
And then they're coming back to Brussels and saying, hey, we got rid of all of our tanks.
Can we get some new German tanks?
You know, the Poles are great at this.
They wanted to send all these junky old MiGs and get F-16s, modified brand new F-16s in return.
So this is a money laundering scheme.
We know about this because we gave them all our stingers.
And Raytheon says, oh man, we ran out of stingers.
We need some money to make some stingers.
So they just got $600 million to make some more stingers.
So it's a great business.
And we talked about on the show the double-digit increase in stock prices for the military-industrial complex.
You had a lot of myths.
Ukraine is winning.
Russia expected a quick victory.
They had to run out of Kiev with their tail between their legs.
Scott will talk later about the fact that this was a feint.
I hope I don't want to preempt, but certainly Colonel McGregor talked about how this is a classic feint trick to keep them tied up around Kiev while the real goal was Donbass.
That's not really for us to discuss here.
So this went, you know, up until just about a few weeks ago.
And then all of a sudden, Dr. Paul was mentioning it to some friends at our table.
All of a sudden, something weird happened this last week.
I'm sure you all noticed it.
The mainstream media started rethinking this thing, right?
Because they're terrible liars.
But when it gets too obvious, well, they want to be the first to turn.
Well, we knew it all along, or the best one.
Well, no one saw that coming, right?
No one saw that coming.
So you saw Washington Post.
There was an amazing piece a few days ago.
The New York Times, economists, they love war.
The Hill even talked about, well, things aren't as amazing as we thought they were.
And I think this is important.
And this is a great piece in the Hill.
And I'm going to read just a couple lines from it.
Foreign wars tend to be most popular at the outset, particularly if they are marketed to the American public effectively in morally unambiguous terms.
But unless they end fairly quickly in decisive victory, achieved that reasonable cost, public support and policy consensus begins to erode.
And that's what we're seeing.
We talked on the show about a major poll for March, and then another one in late May, where you saw the support for the major U.S. roll from mid-60 percentile now to 45 percent.
So people are losing interest because they're seeing that the things that they were told, the lies they were told as we were told about Iraq, et cetera, are coming unraveled.
And this isn't a super easy, low-cost victory for that plucky democracy.
And again, Biden's promise of the ruble being rubble is not the case.
And in fact, we are suffering.
We talked about this, I think, on Thursday on the show: how the Russians have a record current account surplus in their trade.
And ironically, they are actually funding their war by selling super expensive oil.
So, as I joked on this show, I mean, if you had injected agents into the U.S. government, actual Putin agents to engineer this so Russia comes out looking great, they could not have done a better job.
So, there you have it.
And here's another thing I noticed: Yuan, ruble trade volumes have surged 1,067% since the Ukraine war.
You know what, guys, you know what that spells?
The end of the dollar, the end of dollar hegemony.
And that's the real thing.
And I know Tom's going to talk about this later.
The end of dollar hegemony is on the horizon because of this, and it's a self-inflicted wound.
Here's another amazing piece.
And this is just the 2nd of June in the Hill.
And this is an establishment publication.
Andrew Latham, The Unpalatable Truth in Ukraine.
We were not hearing this when they wanted that $60 billion.
He said, and the truth is, he's talking about Sherlock Holmes and Arthur Conan Doyle about how Sherlock Holmes says, you know, when you eliminate the absolute impossible, whatever is left, however improbable is the solution.
And so here's what he says based on that.
And the truth is, once we have eliminated all the impossible scenarios, the least improbable outcome of the war in Russia, in Ukraine, is a Russian victory.
And that's pretty amazing coming from the Hill.
And it's worth reading this article because into the improbable scenarios.
But you see this over and over and over.
You can see it everywhere: how the media is doing a shift.
And so, Act III of our Act IV drama, no, no, Act IV of our five-act drama is the danger.
As this is shifting, we are facing a real danger.
And this goes back to how I started.
This $40 billion was spent.
And now we just hear a couple of days ago that for the first time after resisting, the U.S. has decided to send multiple launch rocket systems to Ukraine.
And this is a game changer in many ways.
They've said, well, we're going to limit the range.
We're not going to let it go, you know, 400 kilometers.
We're only going to maybe go 50 miles.
But this is a big deal if it gets through to the front lines because it's a serious escalation.
These aren't these little howitzers that are being pulled and this and that and the other.
And here's something that from this, from an article, this is Politico on June 2nd.
And oversight concerns are at the forefront as the newly announced $700 million package for the first time includes more advanced precision-guided rocket system that will allow Ukraine to strike targets even further away, potentially in Russia.
This is a big deal.
This is why we're sitting here today because we're facing the potential of nuclear annihilation.
Zelensky spoke, well, Zelensky assured Washington, we're not going to use these on Russia.
Don't worry, no problem.
Just send them over quick.
We're not going to use them.
Well, here's a couple of quotes.
Zelensky's spokesman, responding to a question about whether the restrictions on the use of U.S.-applied rocket systems apply to Crimea, he said, quote, Crimea is ours.
It belongs to Ukraine, and the Russians know it.
Therefore, they will fly to Crimea double time should the need arise.
Okay, well, that lets you know what they're thinking.
Igor Chernev, who's a Ukrainian member of parliament, he echoed that sentiment, and he said that Russian aircraft and military stationed on Russian territory are legitimate targets.
Quote, we have taken on certain obligations, but no one can guarantee where the missile will strike.
Kiev has its own weapons, such as howitzers, self-propelled guns, tactical operational missile complexes, Touchka, which can reach such targets, he told local news.
So essentially, what he's saying is, yeah, we promised that, but we promised a lot of stuff.
You know, we're not serious about this.
I mean, the ghost of Kiev, come on, right?
And so here's where the danger comes in.
Former president and current head of their National Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, he warned on Thursday that if Ukraine uses U.S.-supplied missile systems against Russia, Moscow, quote, will have no choice but to be forced to retaliate against decision-making centers.
And that's a full period there.
He did not say in Ukraine, right?
Career Mediocrities Run Foreign Policy 00:05:49
And then he followed it up with an interesting quote.
He said, One can believe that the horsemen of the apocalypse are already on their way, and all hope is in Almighty God.
If that's not chilling, right?
And as we know, the Russians don't bluff.
Whether you love them or hate them, they have not bluffed.
They don't bluster like Washington blusters.
They said, if you do this, we will do that, and they did that.
And here's another in the danger chapter: cyber hacking.
We admitted on the first, the head of the NSA, General Paul Nakassoni, told Sky News that the U.S. is actively using offensive cyber warfare against Russia.
But they don't believe that that's going to trigger a response.
And I looked back because I was sure this happened.
June 1st, 2011, BBC published headlines: U.S. Pentagon to treat cyber attacks as, quote, acts of war.
So here we are admitting that we're doing offensive cyber attacks, whereas for ourselves, if you do it to us, we consider it an act of war.
So back to the beginning.
This is the final act.
What is the Biden doctrine?
And we won't be able to find a definitive definition, but I would offer this: that the personnel is the policy.
And we knew that from the Trump administration.
Trump talked a pretty good game on foreign policy, and he had some pretty decent things.
But ultimately, the personnel was a policy.
In every significant position, he put in a dopey neocon.
You know, John Bolton, McMaster, all these guys, Pompeo, all these guys.
The only decent foreign policy decision, as far as I can see, in terms of personnel, was literally in the last days of his presidency when he put Colonel McGregor in as the senior advisor to the acting Secretary of Defense with the task of, and McGregor has verified this: hey, get us out of Afghanistan and Syria, okay?
He's got five days to do it.
Okay, I know McGregor's a hardworking guy, but that's kind of a tall task.
But let's look at the personnel in the five minutes we have left.
We talked, this is a great, by the way, a great series.
It's in the Asia Times.
James Cardin, who's another realist, but I think a good writer.
It's a four-part piece worth looking up.
The first part appeared on May 3rd called The Company Men Behind Biden's Foreign Policy Blob.
And I won't go into each person, but I will point out there is one theme that runs through everyone that's working for President Biden, and that is these are people who have spent their entire career inside the beltway.
They started out, most of them, many of them, they started out in the Clinton administration.
And remember how we started.
It was Clinton who decided to expand NATO, despite assurances to the Soviet Union and then Russia about expanding it.
So no wonder these people think it's a great idea for Ukraine to be in NATO because they are the authors of the idea of NATO expansion.
They are the ones that are driven by this sort of messianic zeal of spreading freedom worldwide, and it's also very profitable.
But down to the person, you'll see people who worked for Clinton, people who worked for Obama, Jake Sullivan.
You talk about Victoria Newland.
Her protege was Strobe Talbot, who was the architect of Clinton's expansion of NATO at the time.
These are people, everything that we're seeing happening right now are things that they have put in motion 30 years ago.
And a great point that was made, by the way, by one of the very good guys is Chas Freeman, Ambassador Chas Freeman, who's also a realist leaning in our direction, a sage person.
But he makes this point, and this is something that I'll sort of leave you on.
Outside of Central Intelligence Agency Director William Burns, deep expertise on Russia is thin on the ground in the Biden administration.
And here's Chas Freeman.
He says, it took about eight weeks for the administration, in the person of NSC advisor Jake Sullivan, to enunciate war aims for the proxy war.
And this is why we're in danger.
These people have no experience with Russia.
They're not Russia speakers.
They have no background in it.
And here's Chas Freeman.
At the outset of its response to the Russia invasion, the administration was careful to limit possible provocation of the Russians.
But not having seen direct retaliation from Moscow, it has become progressively less cautious, hence our discussion of MLRS launchers.
This lack of caution, Chas Freeman continues, is aided by the fact that it is Ukrainians, not Americans, who are dying, and by the success of pro-Ukrainian propaganda and the effective Western ban on contradictory information from non-Ukrainian sources.
Freeman concludes: there is a risk that the administration will inhale its own propaganda and underestimate the risks it is taking.
And that's what we're seeing.
That is the danger of having your foreign policy guided by the Wolfowitz doctrine.
And we all know what that is, which is still, it's got a little bit of humanitarianism sprinkled over, but that's essentially what it is.
So our foreign policy is being run right now by career mediocrities who inhale their own propaganda.
We would say high on their own supply.
And they are leading us dangerously, dangerously toward nuclear annihilation.
Export Selection