All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 30, 2022 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
28:00
Ukraine In NATO? Foreign Ministers Flex Jaw Muscles in Bucharest

At the NATO foreign ministers summit in Bucharest this week, Member states talked tough about endless support for Ukraine "whatever it takes." They also reiterated a 2008 pledge to eventually welcome Ukraine as a Member. Are they serious? Also today: Biden's neocons are reportedly considering sending Patriot missiles to Ukraine despite Russian warnings that it would be a major escalation. How far will they go?

|

Time Text
NATO's Faster Pace in Ukraine 00:10:41
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.
Doing well.
All right.
Big Wednesday, big Wednesday.
You know, we're going to talk a little bit about foreign policy, but we talk about foreign policy a lot, so we're revisiting it in some ways, but there's some additional information going on about Ukraine continuously because it's always costing us money and always costing with more creative ideas.
And there's this group called NATO.
They seem to be butting in on U.S. territory.
But it's the other way around.
They're not butting in.
We own them.
And we run things.
So in spite of the fact that we say they should pay their fair share, we pay for what we get.
And right now, I see NATO as a pretty powerful arm of the U.S. government.
But I also see an end coming to it because of for financial reasons, because we can't afford the empire.
But it's still going on.
But there's a big argument now.
And this all started, this came up even before the coup in 2014.
And that is Ukraine, you know, they won in because it was offered to them to get into NATO.
And of course, there are people in NATO that they don't say it, but this is the only way we can contain our enemy.
And those are the Russians.
We've got to stop the Russians.
And they like to ignore history and the promises made and the innuendos that we were going to have a different world after the breakdown of the Cold War and get rid of the Cold War.
But no, they're continuing to do this.
And of course, there's a lot of people, the majority of our representatives in Washington, Republicans and Democrats, and it shifts because there are just some party loyalties that could just go along with the flow.
But there's strong support in Washington.
There's still a lot of support around the country for our policy to pester to death the Russians and also to send those weapons because some of them say, oh, this isn't a good idea.
But then there's a vote.
Why would that happen?
Well, we have an idea on that.
And we've talked about the idea.
Why both sides end up paying?
And it might have to do with money.
And so that's where they are now.
But they're still, and they're having a meeting.
NATO's having a little meeting this week at Bucharest.
And guess what subject they're talking about?
How are we going to get Ukraine into NATO?
But I know they're not serious.
There's a lot of back and forth on this stuff and a lot of grandstanding.
But never do I think they're speaking for the prosperity, the safety, security, and the wealth of American citizens.
They're supposed to be patriotic, do what they're told, and pay the bills.
And that's why I think the foreign policy that we take such a strong opposition to, interventionism, is a policy that is truly beneficial to the American people.
Yeah, you know, the symbolism is there.
They're meeting in Bucharest.
Met the last time in 2008, I believe it was, a NATO foreign ministers meeting.
And that is where they, for the first time, affirmed the possibility of a future membership for Georgia and Ukraine.
And I think somewhere, another country, I don't remember which one.
But that was where it began.
So they're back there.
The symbolism is heavy.
They're back in Bucharest.
They reiterate the idea that, of course, our open-door policy, Ukraine can join.
We want to help it happen.
The Ukrainian foreign minister was there, even though he's not a member of NATO, of course.
And he, as his par for the course with Ukrainians, he had his hand out.
He said, quote, faster, faster, and faster, meaning, give me more money as quickly as you can.
But there was a reiteration.
But what I noticed, and put up this first clip if you can, this is from our friends at antiwar.com.
And they also use the phrase that AP used, which is doubles down.
NATO doubles down on pledge to eventually admit Ukraine.
And certainly the rhetoric of Stoltenberg, the Secretary General of NATO, very, very strong, very, very feisty, very, very in favor of Ukraine joining.
But maybe it's just me, Dr. Paul, but I detected some bit of nuance when it came to the final statement of the foreign ministers.
And put that next clip up, if you will.
So here's a statement that they issued on the 28th.
But this is the statement that they all agreed on.
And if you, I think, put on the next one if you can.
And this is interesting.
This is the only mention in the official statement.
This is what they will take away from the meeting rather than just all the jawboning during the meeting.
We firmly stand behind our commitment to the alliance's open-door policy.
We reaffirm the decisions we took at the 2008 Bucharest summit and all subsequent decisions with respect to Georgia and Ukraine.
That's as heavy and enthusiastic as the statement got with regard to Ukrainian membership.
So the actual document, and I hope I'm not putting too fine a point on it, but the actual document that they took away from it was really not that awfully, it didn't look to me like it was a doubling down.
One thing I noticed in these discussions that are going on, especially for the NATO side, is somebody will suggest, well, you know, this could be antagonistic toward the Russians, you know, and they're looking at it as diplomats.
But I think they definitely know it'll be antagonistic.
But the thing that shouldn't shock us, but it happens, is I think they're smart enough to know what they're doing is antagonistic.
But I think they're also dumb enough to believe, oh, well, we're just going to pester them, you know, and we're going to satisfy certain factions and things will change.
And they think they can get away with this.
But this is the warning that we generally have given is be careful.
Sometimes things get out of control.
Sometimes things happen that you didn't plan for.
And how many wars in the history of the world has been started by a misunderstanding of the enemy?
And I think that's what I sense here, too.
Yeah, it's moving in that direction.
The one thing else, the other thing I noticed in the statement, Dr. Paul, was a little bit of fake news, disinformation, whatever you want to call it.
Put on that next clip because this is, I mean, this is pretty blatantly, this is from the statement of the foreign ministers at NATO.
We stand in solidarity with Poland following the incident of 15 November that led to the tragic loss of life as a result of Russia's missile attacks against Ukraine.
I mean, if you read that a couple times, the way that is written obviously is meant to blame Russia.
And in fact, it was Ukrainian missiles, as we know, that hit Poland and killed those people.
So that was really kind of a bit of fake news.
But the other thing about this, and there's a statement that Stoltenberg made that I think was really interesting.
Again, you have to unpack what he said.
But he said, if Ukraine does not prevail as an independent sovereign state, then membership issues are not on the table at all.
And those aren't just empty words, I think, Dr. Paul.
What he's saying is if Ukraine doesn't win this war with Russia, forget about NATO.
Forget about joining NATO.
It's not even on the table.
So you've got to keep fighting.
You guys got to keep fighting.
You have to win.
Which goes with the statement that basically NATO is fighting Russia on Ukrainian territory with Ukrainian blood.
And, you know, von der Leyen, the EU commissioner, the head of the EU, said in a speech recently, and she actually deleted the tweet, it was a tweet of hers saying that Ukraine has suffered 100,000 killed in action in this war.
And that's the first time any government official has come out and put out a number, certainly on the pro-Ukraine side, and she was criticized for it.
So put those two together.
You have 100,000 soldiers killed on the Ukrainian side, and you have Stoltenberg saying, you guys better win this one, or there's no NATO, so keep fighting and dying.
And you see really the depths of the cynicism of these people.
But the propaganda machine are sure to paint it that the only people who are objecting to that are the Russian people that live in Ukraine.
Oh, the Ukrainians are all for this.
We're going to fight to the death.
That's what they're told to do.
But it's so, it was so disgusting.
It's so artificial, so unnecessary.
And opportunities, you know they have to have some evil spirits in their minds to go through this.
When you think of the end of the Cold War and opportunities and a general agreement that, you know, we've had enough of this war stuff.
We're going to back off.
We're not going to come and put our missiles on the borders of Russia.
Why would we ever want to do that?
And then we go and do it.
And NATO keeps growing and growing.
But that doesn't mean that it's more of a threat.
It just means they're going faster.
And even though it was completely overblown, you could at least theoretically understand that in the middle of this global communist conspiracy in the 50s, when Khrushchev was banging on the table, we're going to bury you.
Well, you might be able to say, well, maybe some missiles.
Maybe we need to go ahead and get ready because these guys seem pretty aggressive.
But today, I mean, today's day and age, it's just really crazy.
But I do think I do sense that the enthusiasm was a little bit lacking, despite the rhetoric, certainly when you look at the final statement.
And, you know, one of the things that I don't want to go too much into the details.
I do follow them very closely, but Bakhmut in Ukraine is a very, very critical battle.
And that is kind of, you know, it's wrapping up.
It looks like the Ukrainian lines are disintegrating.
If Russia does take Bakhmut, it'll be a very, very important victory.
Patriot Missiles Controversy 00:09:12
So I think there are people in Washington who do analyze military affairs and who are smart and know these things.
Now, they're not allowed to say anything, but I think they know, I think there is a sense now that MeatGrinder has ground Ukraine to the ground and that this thing is going to fall apart fairly quickly.
And I know that Colonel McGregor has said that for a long time and has been proven right.
So I think they're hedging their bets.
We'll see what happens.
They don't like losing, but they're good at it.
So anyway, describing it is something good.
They're having a discussion and they can talk about policy and some can come out with a managed policy that's a little bit better.
But that's still a frustration to me because you're still endorsing the principle that we just can't leave it alone.
Don't feel so compelled to be involved.
But I think I would take, you know, anybody who wants to, you know, talk a little bit more common sense than the other, which is what we have done.
I think there's been, there was a fair amount of that had to happen during the Cold War, you know, but it's still discouraging that people won't even think about, they think about a compromised approach and they're thinking about backing off.
It's a management problem.
It's sort of like in economics.
It's intervention, managed economic.
It's you don't have the right people with the Fed.
This sort of thing.
So we don't have the right people in charge of these weapons.
And I would like to rearrange the weapons.
Well, you know, Europeans are freezing over the winter.
Some of them are starving.
Prices have gone through the roof.
And people say, well, it can happen here.
It can't happen here.
The fact is, it can happen here.
And that's one of the reasons I do again want to bring up the sponsor of our program, 4patriots.com, the number 4patriots.com, because having a supply of food, having a supply of generators, of solar generators, of water, it's very, very important to be ready for whatever may happen.
We don't know how bad they're going to tank the economy here.
The Europeans are certainly finding out.
So you can get food.
You can get solar-powered generators.
You can get all of these things at 4Patriots.com.
If you enter the code RON, you'll get 10% off your first order, and you will receive free shipping for every order over $97.
Not only do they have great, delicious food that lasts for 25 years in storage, easily stored, but again, they do have many other items that you need to prepare for whatever may come.
So go to 4patriots.com, the number 4patriots.com, enter in RON, get some food, get some generators, and be ready for whatever is going to happen.
Very good.
I'm ready to go on to one other item here that we have.
And this comes from the Libertarian Institute.
It says, White House considering transferring Patriot missiles to Ukraine, Kremlin threatens response.
So we are, and we've already talked about what will Russia do, and we're antagonizing them, what's their next step.
But this is sort of more than half of our job is anticipating and knowing what we're going to do.
So here it is.
They're doing this.
And this is more weapons sending over there.
And the Russians don't like the idea.
So it's antagonism.
And if you had just, you know, as soon as somebody takes a different position like we might do and say, well, you look to ourselves, and don't say that it's 100% the Russians.
But theoretically, if you could find somebody who just absolutely has the credentials for being independent-minded, and they say, yes, we can check this out and find out who really has precipitated this crisis.
You know, I come down on the side of saying, we participated in too many coups and too much arms manufacturing and all these things going on.
But then the reaction comes, and then the propaganda machine comes in, and then they are able to stir the people up and say, we have to help the Ukrainians.
What kind of a person are you if you won't do that?
So that to me is a frustrating thing.
But right now, it looks like we're just antagonizing them again.
Patriot missiles.
So they cost a little bit of money.
They do, they do.
They do, indeed.
Let's put on that next clip because this is, again, as you say, Libertarian Institute.
Good friends, good organization.
Follow their work.
White House considering transferring Patriot missiles to Ukraine.
Kremlin threatens response.
But there's something interesting about this as well.
Maybe I'm in a conspiracy mode to me.
I need to put some tinfoil on my head today.
But put on this next one because I'm just, you know, sniffing around this story.
To me, it feels like these Patriot missiles are a hot potato.
Because, okay, we had, here's the timeline.
November 15th, we had the Ukrainian missile hit Poland.
They try to blame it on Russia.
No, it was Ukraine that fired it.
It hit Poland.
And so Germany immediately says, hey, Poland, how about if we give you some Patriot missiles?
And Poland says, no.
Go ahead and send them to Ukraine.
And Germany says, I don't know about that.
We're not going to do that.
So it's a hot potato.
They know it's an escalation.
And how do they know?
Because they've been told by the Russians.
And let's put on the next one because this is Medzedev, who is the former president.
Now he's head of the National Security Council.
He said, if, as Stoltenberg hinted, NATO supplies the Kiev fanatics with Patriot defense systems as well as the Alliance's personnel, they will immediately turn into legitimate targets for our armed forces.
I hope it is clear for the North Atlantic impotence.
He has a very sharp tone, which is kind of funny because when he was president, he was known as being a bit milquetoast.
But now that he's not president, he's pretty tough.
I'm going to read a short sentence or two from the Institute, Libertarian Institute, and it won't be new information for you, but it should remind us constantly.
This has to do with who precisely might be behind selling Patriot missiles.
Well, this is something I think that we've been aware of.
This statement, though, is repeated here.
The Patriot missile system is produced by Raytheon.
Well, that's a good, honest American free enterprise company.
Doing well, though.
Where Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin once served as board meant.
The platform is considered to be NATO's most sophisticated air defense weapon.
So there's money involved in this stuff.
And he's in a position where he could have a little bit of influence, you know, the Defense Secretary.
You know, it's sad.
I guess the real disappointment comes from the allies that we once had where the progressives would say, you mean that's going to profit some warmongering corporations?
Oh, we better stop that.
No, when can we vote for it?
Yeah, exactly.
Some of the most radical progressives are voting for the money for these events and voting to send more and more over to Ukraine and keep it going.
So it's pretty disgusting.
I mean, I do hope, and it's probably not going to happen, but I do hope I would love to see in the next Congress some progressives start to wake up and to start working together with some of the more conservative Republicans who feel the same way about spending this money.
I don't know.
Hopefully it'll happen.
We'll see.
But yeah, you're right.
The whole thing is such a scam because Raytheon, I looked at their stock earlier, it's going way up.
They're doing really well.
We send these missiles.
We send these weapons.
Russia blows them up and then we send more.
And Russia blows them up and we send more.
I mean, if you're on one of these companies, this is the greatest thing ever.
You're saying, go, Russia, hit them again.
And now I was reading that we're going to send a couple hundred million bucks to help rebuild the energy sector there in Ukraine.
Russia's going to bomb it again.
And then we're going to send billions more money.
Could you just imagine, theoretically, of course, that they know what they're doing.
They call them up and say, hey, you know, get your guys out of there.
We're going after those weapons.
Just move them out.
We don't want to kill people.
We just want to make some bucks.
Make some money.
So then they go ahead and do it.
But, you know, the one thing is there's always a cost to this, and the cost is hidden.
The cost is never described very often to the American people.
And it's politicized.
And that is what has to be overcome.
It's an issue of information getting out.
That's why some of these fights over the First Amendment and what's going on in social media are very, very important to get this information out.
And the conditions have always been tough getting information out.
It's not like this is something that's just started with social media.
That's just they're more sophisticated.
Costs Hidden 00:03:18
But, you know, throughout all of history, you know, there's been many times where the strategy was just to deceive and lie and get the people to march to their death in wars that was totally unnecessary.
Yeah.
Well, we've talked a lot about Ukraine and Russia, but let's not forget that other huge threat, China.
We've got to get those Chikoms.
Let's go ahead and put up, skip that one because Dr. Paul already read it and go straight to the anti-war article if you can.
U.S. warships sails near disputed Spratly Islands in South China Sea.
There we go again, as Reagan might say, sailing our ships around their islands.
I think I read, and I could be wrong, that one of these ships strayed into Chinese territory and was chased away by the Chinese.
But they're there basically just to irritate the Chinese in their backyard, and here they go again.
You know, this statement, I remember when I first heard about this many decades ago, we have to always be prepared for a two-front war.
And then there are some times I think they better prepare for a three-point war, three-point war, because there's enough continents around that we could fight them all at once.
But, you know, they're doing this, and it's always done.
And people in this country, I'll tell you what, they don't like China.
And, you know, I don't particularly like their system.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But they are really inclined to go along with being very, very tough on China.
And look at, you know, look how strong the Republicans are right now.
They can't wait to bash China and not for once think about it.
But China's over there, you know, very, very destructive about their civil liberties at home.
But like I've said so many times, when we have solved all our problems and abuse of our civil liberties of our people here and our justice system has something to do with justice, then it might be a different story.
But then, by that time, if we had a system like that, I say we would be an influence.
There was a time in our history where our system was an influence because people liked what was happening and there was a respect for personal liberty.
But no, you can't do that by threats and sanctions and all these other things that go on.
But these warships, I just, for some reason, I just don't feel safer just because of this.
It doesn't seem to assure me that we, oh, things are coming.
This is all fake.
They're not serious about this.
Why would they send those?
These Navy people have to have a lot of practice.
Oh, sorry, go ahead.
Maybe something interesting will come of our patrolling the coast of China.
I'd really love to hear one of these Republican China bashers just once say, China is bad because of how they treat their people.
The civil liberties are really not respected.
Therefore, I'm going to stand even stronger for civil liberties at home.
Just once, I would like to hear them actually.
Yeah, actually hit the real problem with China.
No, they don't.
They love all the surveillance stuff.
They really do.
But I'm going to, I think if we're about ready to wind this thing down, I was remiss yesterday.
A Lot Better Yesterday 00:04:30
I wasn't looking at our live stream of our chatters.
And so I do want to thank a couple of our Rumble ranters.
Dennis Marburger sent us 22 bucks yesterday.
He said, thanks for all you do, Ron Paul and Danny McAdams.
of 45 to 23 Michigan victory contribution for the cause of peace and prosperity.
Very nice.
Thanks, Dennis.
And do another couple more.
Doubting Thomas sent us $20.
They want to put Santa Claus in jail.
Okay, we'll do that.
Brewster McBrewster gave us 10 bucks for the RPLR behind the scenes crew.
We appreciate you guys participating.
Please hit that rumble plus sign and give us some more rumbles.
Subscribe to our channel if you're not already subscribed.
Tell your friends and enemies about us.
Watch the show.
I do also want to thank everyone who yesterday on Giving Tuesday made a donation and contribution.
Dr. Paul was very nice.
A lot of people responded.
I'm sure many of you responded from my ask during the show.
So thanks very much for keeping us going.
We appreciate it.
Back over to you, Dr. Paul.
Very good.
I want to talk for a minute about the cost of our foreign policy and the costs of war because it's not mentioned when the war is starting after it's there 10, 20 years.
Maybe this is costing us too much.
They're into the trillions, trillions of dollars.
But for the most part, they like to avoid it.
And right now, our foreign policy is designed not to have any body bags coming back because, you know, in Korea and Vietnam, that was a big psychological problem.
The American people were seeing Americans actually dying there.
But you mentioned early on that the number of people who have died in Ukraine, and it's huge.
But nobody said, well, they're not Americans.
Yeah, but they're people, and they're dying as a result of a foreign policy that we're promoting and antagonizing.
So there's tremendous cost.
People don't want to think about it.
And the lives lost, whether they're the civilians of our so-called enemy or whether they're our soldiers or whatever, there's a big cost for this.
And when you think of how many people have died in war since World War II in undeclared, unconstitutional, immoral, useless wars have gone on.
A lot of Americans, certainly a lot of people who are victims of our bombs.
And this also contributes, and this is a big issue, even though it's not the biggest.
The lives, I think, are the biggest issue and working for peace.
But the big issue is the dollars spent.
It's huge.
And matter of fact, though, that's what will finally bring this to an end because they can't do it.
Now we're paying interest on the money we borrowed to have these wars going on and we have to keep on borrowing.
So that's why this is self-limited.
We have to have some real plans made for what kind of a society we want after we don't have to keep financing wars.
But there's a lot of people who will resist this because that's their livelihood.
War is their livelihood.
But the other issue that all this foreign policy antagonizes is the issue of liberty, the loss of liberty.
You know, there's more economic controls.
There's more civil liberties controls.
Just think of the war against COVID.
Well, in other kind of wars, that's when wage and price get controls on and freedom of speech is regulated.
So it's been said, and I happen to believe this, that probably one of the rare times where the people ended up with more liberty rather than less after war was the American Revolution.
Because most of the time, the countries, both sides end up poorer and with less liberty, and a good reason to steer clear of trying to provoke some countries to see what they're going to do, see how close we can get to their borders without starting a shooting war.
It's a little contest they play.
So there's a lot of practical benefits from endorsing and understanding what a non-interventionist foreign policy should be all about.
We basically had that in the early years, but far from perfect.
We can do a lot better, just like we can do a lot better on monetary policy.
We can do a lot better on the foreign policy, and that, of course, is what we do our best to promote, because I believe that the American people are supportive of peace and prosperity, and that is what we expect to talk about for as long as it takes.
Export Selection