Elon Musk's Ukraine Peace Proposal Slammed By Ukraine Officials
Tesla and Space-X chief Elon Musk got a taste of the vitriol delved out to anyone who challenges the Ukraine narrative, as his Tweeted proposal to begin discussions on ending the Russia-Ukraine war was incinerated by pro-Ukraine Twitter users. Ukraine's president himself got into the act, slamming the very person who provided Ukraine with Starlink technology to save Ukraine's Internet. Also today, former Pentagon senior official Col. Doug Macgregor on who might be responsible for Nordstream sabotage.
Watch the Liberty Report LIVE Every weekday at 12pm EST on Rumble!
https://rumble.com/RonPaulLibertyReport
Join us on Locals:
https://ronpaul.locals.com
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Doing well.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
I want to start off today talking about a very, very famous person.
Very, very successful, I think.
At least he has a lot of money, if that's your measurement of success.
But he, I give him credit for that because he probably is.
He builds cars, but I'm not sure I even like the cars, so I don't know what's going on there.
But that's Elon Musk.
But right now, he is stepping out into the world.
Maybe he wants to be president.
Who knows?
But he made some suggestions this weekend about what they should do in Ukraine.
Because he said a lot of things.
Quite frankly, I have said before, why don't they just quit killing each other and talk to each other and even poke fun in the campaign that we have a lot of diplomats?
Why don't we use them?
He wants to be a diplomat, and he came out.
He has one shortcoming, though, I think, in this is everything he said recently, Nile, about diplomacy doesn't always fit into his positions in the past.
But that's, I think, secondary to what happened.
Because give him the benefit of the doubt, which very well could be true, that he truly is a man of peace, and he sees something happen.
He made a statement.
You know, this is the way it's going to end anyway.
Most wars end this way.
And just have an agreement.
Quit shooting each other and make a deal and do some compromising on both sides.
Everybody else stay out and made these suggestions.
And I was glad that he was saying a little bit of talking before you should start talking about is a lot better than talking about nuclear weapons, you know.
So this I thought was good, but it didn't work well with some of the people who think they are the professional diplomats.
And so they came down very hard on him.
But he didn't back away.
He still believes, and he talked about how many people have to die.
And I remember when they were working up to the war in Ukraine or in Iraq, we had somebody visiting on the screen.
I can't remember his name, but he was very important about getting us into this war.
And he was gun-ho.
The question I asked him is, how many Americans have to be killed before you'll change your tune?
Because we were just still talking about Vietnam.
And of course, he wouldn't answer that, but that's in a way what Musk is doing.
Americans are going to die.
Others are going to die.
And it's going to end in a mess.
How many have to die before you change?
It's too bad that guy I was interviewing didn't answer the question or move in that direction.
And the same way whether it's Iraq or Syria or Afghanistan, how many people have to die before that?
So that's an important question that he asked, but all he got was flack.
Yeah.
I think that was Richard Pearl if I was.
Pearl, that's it.
I remember that.
He testified on video.
Yeah.
He was so arrogant, he refused to even lower himself to address me.
Yeah, the same neocons are in charge now.
Well, let's take a look because this was a firestorm and it happened last night when Elon Musk, who's a gadfly, no question about it, put out a seemingly innocent tweet.
He said, Ukraine-Russia peace.
And there are several components.
One, redo the elections of annexed regions under UN supervision.
Russia leaves if that's the will of the people.
Two, Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 until Khrushchev's mistake.
Three, water supply to Crimea assured.
Four, Ukraine remains neutral.
And then he clarified this tweet, if we can do the next one, by simply pointing out, this is highly likely to be the outcome in the end.
It's just a question of how many die before then, as you said, Dr. Paul.
And then he said, it's also worth noting that a possible, albeit unlikely, outcome from this conflict is nuclear war.
To this proposal, the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany replied, put this next one on if you can, please.
And I blanked out part of this word because this is a family program.
But this is an ambassador.
Put up that next one if you can, please.
This is an ambassador, Ukrainian ambassador to Germany.
Blank off is my very diplomatic reply to you, Elon Musk.
So that is interesting that that was the reply.
This guy gets into a lot of trouble, but that's the reaction.
Anyone who goes against this narrative gets this kind of result.
And Musk, not directly back to the ambassador, but back to Gary Kasparov, who's a Russian dissident, who also complained very bitterly about this, about this proposal, accusing Elon of being pro-Russia.
And Elon responded with this.
If we can put the next one up, please.
He said, hey, we gave Starlink to Ukraine and lost $80 million in doing so while putting SpaceX and myself at serious risk of Russian cyber attack.
So this is the thing that Elon has been known, in fact, criticized, as being pro-Ukrainian on this.
He gave him the Starlinks, which enables them to communicate and really coordinate their military response.
That's pretty important.
But he gets no credit for giving them all this equipment and technology because simply suggesting a starting point where peace negotiations can begin is enough to have diplomats from Ukraine telling him to blank off.
You know, during the debates when this subject came up and I had a suggestion, I had a response to there were a few booze in the audience from an audience I didn't expect it from.
You know, it was a Christian audience and just the suggestion of peace would stir them up.
There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with me and pointing out why they think I'm wrong on it.
But to be so annoyed, I sort of wonder why that stirs them up.
It must be a little bit of guilt involved because basically somebody that's doing a proposal in a way on this proposal, he's trying to prevent needless deaths and moving on toward nuclear war and then he gets all this grief.
But when you think about the people who are the noisiest, you know, they're the ones who are saying the most about it.
But you know, and this has not been well received, that whole mess there, it's not even well received by the Russians.
Soldiers, they're not anxious to continue with this.
They might say, you know, let's have diplomacy.
And I often wondered about that in the debates.
Why should this be so unpopular?
And then be accused of, you don't care about the troops.
But the whole thing is, the troops care about themselves.
And maybe not having diplomacy is not very healthy for our troops.
And that's exactly what he's pointing out here.
This is not a healthy thing not to talk about it.
And if Khrushchev and Kennedy could talk, I would think anybody could talk.
Yeah.
Well, breaking down the proposal that Elon Musk had, and Jordan Schachtel does a great job.
He just has a new piece on his substack.
The three most important ones, and he goes into some detail.
First of all, the Crimean issue.
Crimea is extremely unlikely to go back to Ukraine.
They did have a vote.
Even U.S. government polls showed U.S. Agency for Global Media, they showed that the pro-Russia side in Crimea was overwhelming.
It was 97% voted in favor of returning.
That is a moot point.
Ukraine is not going to get Crimea back.
So that's off the table.
The second point, which is to redo the referendum with the UN involved.
Now, Jordan makes the point that this will irritate both sides.
This isn't a gimme to Russia because Russia believes they already had a decent referendum.
Why should we have another one?
The people have spoken.
They want to join.
Why would we redo it?
So that's not really something that would automatically benefit Russia.
It would just bring in the UN.
And you and I, of course, believe that that gives it less legitimacy, partially because these groups are so infiltrated with U.S. intelligence.
But the other contentious one is proposing that Ukraine remain neutral, not join a Russian military bloc or a NATO military bloc, which is already going to happen anyway.
It's not going to join the Russian bloc.
Ukraine is not.
And it's not going to get into NATO.
Right when they were signing the accession of those four provinces into Russia, Zelensky wrote his own little memorandum saying, we want to have an application to get in NATO right away, please.
And both Stoltenberg, the NATO chief, and Sullivan, the U.S. national security advisor, said, no, we're not going to do that.
So it's not going to happen.
So when you really break this down to its components, there's nothing that far out of what's inevitable, as he said himself.
But the response in the thousands says a lot about anyone who dares break any part of the narrative.
Yes, and you know, this idea of the United Nations, part of the reasons, or a major reason why the mess is there is because of those people fighting for global control, globalism.
And we're doing pretty well in that ever since World War II.
But we're running into some problems.
And, you know, NATO is not exactly completely separate from the United Nations.
It's a globalist approach.
So that's why I can't get excited, even though I'm always looking for an opening for some negotiations.
And maybe that would be slightly better than something else, because we've sort of supported treaties once they've been established to not get rid of them for various reasons.
But if the real problem is too much globalism, it's hard for me to believe that all of a sudden the United Nations are going to gain great wisdom.
And already, both sides were, I think you mentioned that both sides disagreed with that.
Yeah, they neither of them did.
Unless they have the control of it.
So unfortunately, his fatalism about this is, you know, it's going to end up that way.
You know, he's suggesting, why don't you do it just now and not wait to kill all these people?
Well, the interesting thing is after this brouha ha came, Zelensky himself, the president of Ukraine, who one would think is a little bit busy managing a war, he got onto Twitter and he had his own response.
And we can put this up.
He put up a poll.
This is absurd.
Vladimir Zelensky put up a poll.
Which Elon Musk do you like more?
The one who supports Ukraine or one who supports Russia?
To which Musk replied, very truthfully, if we can put this next one up.
He said, I still very much support Ukraine, but I'm convinced that massive escalation of the war will cause great harm to Ukraine and possibly the world.
So what happens?
The presidential advisor, top advisor to President Zelensky, tweets out this next picture, if we can put it up.
Arestovich.
He said, we work promptly.
They did a Photoshop and grafted Elon Musk's head onto a former captured political leader in Ukraine who the Ukrainians arrested and tortured.
So this is literally a threat to Musk.
It said, we work promptly, meaning, obviously, that you're going to be arrested by Ukraine for daring to say that.
And I think a lot of people have tweeted, this may be a wake-up call to idealists like Musk who believe that they're on the side, the good side here.
And here's another, I think, punctuation mark.
And I saw this on anti-war.
We didn't talk about it before the show, but I just wanted to put it up really quickly because this also shows the unbelievable arrogance.
And this is why I think, Dr. Paul, that the American public is starting to sour.
Ukraine tells EU that delays in delivering billions in aid are not acceptable.
This is anti-war.com.
Ukraine told the European Union on Monday that the EU needs to increase the pace at which it provides billions of euros in promised aid.
Kiev has become incredibly reliant on Western aid to fund its government, but Ukrainian officials seem to have little patience when it comes to the timeline of deliveries.
A Ukrainian official told Political that delays were, quote, not acceptable.
You know, it still bothers me a whole lot because there's so much politicking going on and propagandizing.
There's nationalism goes on and patriotism enters into it.
But when it boils down, and I mentioned a minute ago, that now even the Russian troops, you know, when they drafted 87,000 more people and putting more people in there, they're not exactly happy with that.
And even though, you know, you hear from Zelensky representing the people, I just think there's a lot of people who, if they weren't so frightened about it all, could speak out because they have to agree with a lot of what he said and that their lives are at risk.
And I don't know whether they've really, see that there's a propaganda war going on.
A little victory here, a little victory here, but big announcements here.
And is this a true reversal?
Will the Russian troops be leaving Ukraine and go on home because of the victory that they are talking about?
You know, I just think that it's a shame that they get the upper hand on the propaganda.
Agreeing With Propaganda00:05:00
And if peace broke out, I know there'd be some unhappy people.
Just remember, yesterday we did a program about whose opportunity was all this about?
Yeah, yeah.
Well, the most disgusting part, Dr. Paul, is this all could have stopped in April.
You remember the Ankara talks?
They were going to get the Ukrainian side and the Russian side together.
They were going to make a deal.
It probably was going to result in more autonomy or even independence for the Donbass region, but it would have ended the war right there.
And the Ukrainian side, according to reports, were ready to talk about this.
And what happens?
Boris Johnson flies in and tells Zelensky, if you dare even talk about a deal, we're going to cut off every penny of your aid.
So that's how we got down this road.
So at every step, the U.S. and its little poodle, the U.K., have wanted to escalate because the real goal of this whole operation is regime change for Russia.
We've known it for years and years back before 2014.
They can't let go of this idea even if they kill the last Ukrainian.
So, well, let's move on because we want to just quickly talk about this interesting point.
This is former Pentagon advisor says U.S. likely attacked Nord Stream pipelines to isolate Germany.
And we're talking about Colonel Doug McGregor, who just spoke at our RPI conference in Washington, D.C.
He was a senior advisor to the acting Secretary of Defense under Trump in Trump's last few days.
And he's been very vocal about this.
He obviously has a lot of military experience.
And here's what he says.
You have to look at who are the state actors that have the capability to do this.
And that means the U.K.'s Royal Navy and the United States Navy.
I think that's pretty clear.
So he makes a strong point that Russia wouldn't have done it because they rely on these pipelines for a huge part of their GDP.
So the idea that they would blow them up makes no sense.
And it's just a very, very strong, determined point.
Somebody did this, and the fingers are pointing in one direction.
Well, Doug also mentioned that one of the goals was to keep Germany in the fight, you know, and not disassociating with them.
And somebody, they had to hate somebody and get them back involved.
But right now, it is a major event.
The other day when this first broke, both you and I talked about the great danger that exists.
So far there's been talk, but you just wonder how long, it's hard for me to believe that it will go unpunished, you know, this bombing, and that there will be a retaliation, which would be equivalent to an escalation.
Whether that happens or not, I sort of hope it doesn't because for TAB just doesn't solve any problem at all.
But that's usually the way it works.
Somebody has to get punished.
I keep thinking about how we punished everybody after 9-11.
The wrong people.
The wrong people.
It killed a lot of them, too.
Yeah.
Well, you're right, and that's an important point.
Why would they do this?
Why would the U.S. and U.K.
And he also mentioned that the Poles seemed very enthusiastic about blowing up this pipeline as well.
And it is, according to his analysis to McGregor's analysis, it is to prevent Germany from getting cold feet.
And he says this, I'm hesitant to say we know it must have been Washington.
I can't say that because we just don't know.
But it's very clear that we have foreclosed Berlin's options.
Berlin was drifting away from this alliance.
And this is important, I think.
Chancellor Olaf Schulz says, I'm not sending any more equipment.
I won't send any tanks.
Now he's in a bind because the U.S. has simply robbed him of the options of bailing out.
Who's going to supply him coal and gas and oil and everything else if he bails out?
Where does he turn?
And remember, the Germans who are facing terrible consequences at home refused to restart nuclear power plants.
So there is an indication that the Germans were starting to talk with Russia a little bit about how, let's find a way out of this because they see what they're facing.
And now there's no possibility.
It's blown up.
You know, when McGregor mentioned that the two countries that most likely are capable of doing it or are capable of doing it and most likely did it, and that's the U.S. and U.K. because of the technology that they have.
And I got to thinking, you know what that reminds me of?
It's 1953.
Remember, it was the British and Americans that did the coup against Iran.
Look how long that process lasted, mainly because the mess up even in recent years where this on-again, off-again diplomacy, you know, exists, but it never goes very far.
And then there's the struggle between the bigger forces like Russia and the United States gets involved too.
Racism and Special Interests00:09:18
Well, let's switch gears a little bit, Dr. Paul, to our last segment.
And this is talking about racism, which is a bad thing, we agree.
But this is the San Francisco Department of Public Health's tweet.
As part of our efforts to make the monkeypox vaccine available to those who need it, the San Francisco Health Department will be partnering with the San Francisco Leather District, I don't know what that is, to give monkeypox vaccines to eligible attendees today.
See about the eligibility details below.
And if we go to that next one, these are the details, Dr. Paul.
The people, the only people who are eligible to get these vaccines, according to the San Francisco Department of Public Health, are black, Latin, Indigenous, person of color, gay, bisexual, transgender, or current sex worker, all genders and orientations of those types are allowed.
So the only people that can get these shots are people that fall into certain categories, including color of skin.
They don't mention white, but they didn't make the list, you know, that sort of thing.
And there's somebody who was posing this question.
Hypothetically, if a 70-year-old straight male white man with a pre-existing health condition were to show up at the South, you know, at the market clinic, according to the department, what would happen?
He would be turned away.
This is on the monkeypox vaccine that they're talking about.
And you take something that would be non-existence in the news and make a big deal of this.
It's almost like they're going out of their way to restore hatred by racism.
And this is, again, totally useless to use racism to fight racism.
It makes no sense to continue to do the same thing over and over again.
Somebody one time said that's the definition of insanity.
And sometimes our policies do look a bit insane, whether they're economic policies or foreign policy.
But this can't go.
This just can't exist.
This can't be followed through.
Or we're much further along than I ever dreamed we were.
But because even a progressive who has lost his or her way still would have to say, yeah, this is over the top.
This is so blatant because I say, you know what?
We better be a little careful.
There might be more white people than black people, this sort of thing.
And it just builds it.
But they don't see things.
They talk about diversity and all these things.
And they don't realize that the libertarian position, whether it's racism or equity or whatever, the only way you do that is think of individualism.
That's how you want diverse people.
You don't get a collection of people here, here, here.
I'm always annoyed, even though I understand the politics of it.
And they'll take a blog of people and there'll be election night.
Well, how did the Hispanics vote?
How did the Mexican?
How did the white people vote?
And really, this day, because there's more integration, just how do they know how they vote?
Because, you know, it's a secret ballot, don't we?
It should be, yeah.
So it's a shame.
Well, it's also, you know, the Kamala Harris, our illustrious vice president, gun to Dr. Trubble for suggesting that hurricane relief should be doled out according to equity.
Those people that are in ethnic minorities should get it first, and she had to backtrack that.
So I guess we're about done, Dr. Paul.
If we close it out, I'm going to just again remind our viewers because we've got a lot of people joining Ron Paul on locals.
The locals is a counterpart to Rumble.
It's the Rumble Club, we can put it that way, I guess.
And we're going to start doing things like live QA's with our locals members and things like that.
But we've got to get a critical mess here because we don't want to have questions and then be sitting there twiddling our thumbs.
So join for free.
We have some paid members, and those people will also get special benefits as well.
So go join the Ron Paul community on locals.
And finally, again, get your tickets for the Ron Paul Institute's War on Speech Conference.
Shut up, Cancel Culture, and the War on Speech.
Again, we have Del Bigtree.
We have Jeff Dice from the Mises Institute.
We have got just a great lineup.
It's going to be a great time.
So get those.
It's just a little bit almost about a month from today.
So pretty exciting.
Very good.
I'm going to close up by making another comment about this episode in San Francisco.
Because the headline that I believe you read, it says, no free health care for straight white people.
And the word here is such a deceitful way of doing it.
It's free, and so therefore you have to be equitable.
You know, everybody has to get their fair share.
But it also means that it's government.
And most of these problems that you run into are government created because they make all the rules about these special groups of people and design and government will allow them and not allow them.
They get into too much management of the whole system.
Schools are this way too.
Schools, when you have a private school, you don't have problems like it.
But when you have the government school, there is a need to try to make sure that a minority isn't punished.
But they end up making it worse is what they do.
They think that to compensate for it, you have to have a special right.
Instead of just saying, if you're denied a right, they don't say, well, this, you know, make sure they have their right to do what they want.
But no, they come in and they want to mess around with the other side and say, well, we'll take a right away from you.
But it's this whole idea that government bureaucrats and politicians and money and special interests can get involved in this.
And there's really nothing fair about this whatsoever.
So the answer is so easily found if people would decide that individualism is far superior to collectivism.
And we are, as our country has gotten poorer, and there's more aggressive activity amongst us that people want to demand and get their special favors.
That's because we're getting poorer and poorer and civil liberties become less and less important.
And all you have to do is look at COVID.
I mean, people have ulterior motives.
Did because that's what they like to do is make sure there's chaos in the streets because they have a better idea how to organize society.
So they do this, but it never solves the problem.
I think you still have to, you don't have rights because you belong to a group, and you shouldn't lose rights because you belong to a group.
Rights come to individuals, and it comes to us in a natural way.
It doesn't come from our government.
And the government is there to try to do their best in trying to make sure that one person's rights aren't abused by somebody else.
But collectivism is the real evil of what goes on in our society.
And those are the seeds that are planted for whether it's fascism, corporatism, communism, all kinds of socialism.
It's authoritarianism, and then that becomes very aggressive and very destructive to wealth and usually leads to chaos.
And I think that's what this country is leading into now: a lot of problems because the wealth is dwindling, and each group is coming more aggressive, demanding their fair share.
But we have to do our best.
The solution is not complex.
We just need more liberty.
We need to make the emphasis not on collectivism and who has the best lobbyists in Washington.
We have to say that we want to grant liberty to the individual and put the responsibility on the individual and make the government very, very small.
And that is the reason that we have a program called Peace and Prosperity because the only way you can grant peace and prosperity to the maximum number of people would be to have a free society.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.