WWIII? Ukraine Should Attack Inside Russia, Says Latvian Foreign Minister
Taking advantage of NATO's defense umbrella, the Latvian Foreign Minister stated yesterday that Ukraine should be free to bomb targets deep inside of Russia, stating that NATO members "should not fear" any escalation. That these weapons are primarily made in the USA apparently means little to little Latvia. Also today: is Poland salivating over western Ukraine? Finally: as Congress races to shovel more money into Ukraine, a new poll shows Americans could not care less.
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 this morning.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Doing very well.
And on this particular morning, there's things in the news right now.
We found some things we're going to talk about on foreign policy, but even on the financial system, it's very interesting that one measurement of what's going on in the economy and the budget and all this is measured by what's going on in the gold market.
This morning, the gold market is really jumping.
So they're not only figuring in the past inflation of the money supply, they're also anticipating that there's a lot more to come.
But we won't talk about that in particular.
I think probably Chris and I will talk some more about that tomorrow.
But, well, I want to start off with an interesting headline that we got.
I think it came from Politico.
And it says, Ukraine should be free to hit military targets in Russia.
Oh, would we be involved then?
And it was the prime minister or Latvian minister speaks, and he said, Latvia is speaking for us.
Just go ahead and do this.
But my immediate reaction is, is this true?
I mean, where's the common sense?
And besides, the second thing is, not only is it dumb and involves us involved with it, why do we give money and bombs and weapons and give it to these countries?
And then they tell us, well, we have to be free to hit them.
That was a big argument during the Korean War, whether we should hit Red China, you know, when the South was losing.
And they tried to, in a way, their reservation did work.
It was a tragic war, but it was still not quite as tragic as it could have been.
Right now, though, I just think that it's sort of a little bit sad that this even comes up, but that means there's people who are thinking about this.
And, you know, just because it sounds irrational and not too smart and very dangerous, that doesn't mean they're not going to do it someday.
So that's one reason why I thought it'd be good if we called attention to the people on this and keep an eye on it, because the public pressure is something worthwhile.
And we'll talk about public pressure and pulling on what's going on here.
And sometimes they don't coordinate very well.
Yeah, and we can actually put up that first link.
It's actually from Bloomberg.
It came out.
So it's a solidly mainstream publication.
But you make a great point, Dr. Paul.
You mentioned that we were talking about bombing Red China in Korea when the South was losing.
And I was just going to say, before you said that, this sounds like a desperation move.
Obviously, if things are going rosy, if you're about to win, like the mainstream media continues to report, you don't talk about things like this.
So that was really appropriate you said that.
But my other thought, first of all, about this whole thing is this is exhibit A as to why NATO should have never expanded, especially to include the Baltic countries, which are so rapidly, rapidly anti-Russia, so desperate to get into a war.
I guess you want to make up for their history.
They were obviously there right next into the Soviet Union.
Nobody liked that very much throughout Eastern and Central Europe, of course, but nevertheless, trying to drag the U.S. into a war.
I mean, this is a foreign minister of Latvia.
This is not some guy in a pub trying to talk tough.
He's saying that weapons should be given to Ukraine to allow it to strike deep into Russia.
And these would be American-made weapons.
So American missiles are going to start blowing up Moscow.
And this guy thinks it's a great idea.
And here's what he said.
NATO allies should not fear escalation.
Well, speak for yourself, you know, speak for yourself.
So it's a crazy, crazy, crazy move.
And it shows just how crazy the Baltic countries are.
You know, somebody I know pretty well because I was in Congress with him for a good many years, and that's Michael McCall, and he's going to be, it looks like, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
And he came out with a restrained emotion, you know, talk because he's been known to be very bipartisan, from our viewpoint, in the wrong sort of way, because he's not a non-interventionist.
But I do give him credit because I think he's a very decent person.
And yet, in this case, we could say at least he's moving in the right direction.
He didn't say, what's the matter with that?
Those guys are going to do this.
We need to protect ourselves.
And Russians are shooting at the Ukrainians.
So you have to go and compete with them.
But McCall takes a more reserve stand.
He said, you have to weigh in the tremendous backlash and the world public opinion.
Ukrainians have done a phenomenal job being on the right side of this issue with the public.
And this would be a step too far.
But he just said that there could be escalation.
And he certainly didn't cheer him on, which is glad he didn't cheer him on, but it makes me more aware and alert rather than reassured that his position will be protecting our interests.
Well, McCall, as you point out, he's a massive, massive hawk, you know, but he's not insane.
We believe that his view on foreign policy is not pro-American.
Certainly it isn't bankrupting the U.S. to help other foreign countries is not pro-American.
But he's demonstrated, at least, again, that he is not insane.
And let's put up that second clip because this is what McCall said.
You know, McCall loves brinksmanship.
He wants to get Russia right up to the point of retaliation, but he understands that once you go beyond that, there is a danger.
He said strikes inside Russia, quote, would trigger a massive response from Russia, and that truly would escalate the situation, McCall told Bloomberg News.
That is correct.
Russia could certainly would feel justified, I believe at least, and they've even said it, Medzediev said it yesterday, we talked about on the show, they would feel justified hitting bases in Poland and Germany from where these missiles were being sent into Ukraine if indeed Ukraine started hitting targets deep inside Russia.
And then you really would see World War III.
So even McCall, yes, the big hawk, not pro-American in my view on foreign policy.
Even he says, hang on a minute, Latvia, take it easy.
You know, I could just see some of the people that are relatively close to us saying, hey, what's the matter?
That's a country over there.
They're getting bombed.
Don't they have the right to do this?
But you've got to go to the next step because everything is happening there.
And we do have troops there.
We have CIA agents there and special forces there.
So we actually have people there.
But we have money there.
Nothing would have happened.
You know, NATO wouldn't have gone there if we wouldn't have supported it.
And we're going to talk about that in a minute.
How many plans there are for more money over there?
But anybody that's saying, well, they have a right to do it.
Now, we have a right to criticize it because it's our policy.
Our people and our taxpayers' money is doing this.
What we have is an obligation to get out of the way and hopefully make a suggestion and set a standard that we don't need to be organizing coups and throwing out people that we don't like and thinking that we're going to make the world safer democracy.
So that's where the flaw is.
But right now, I hope that we can help convince the American people that we just don't need to be over there.
And NATO should do something, like they should disband.
In the meantime, we could get out.
Or in the meantime, we could quit funding.
There's a lot of things that could calm that whole mess down.
They say, oh, yeah, but Russia is going to take over the world.
That would be their argument.
That's why we have to do it.
If you guys keep going, yeah, you sound like you're pro-Russia or something.
Well, you know, the Baltics are beautiful countries, but they're unfortunately ruled by very insane people.
Poll Shows Shift in Republican Stance00:12:59
And I remember a few years ago, I was in Latvia.
I was staying in Latvia with the British Helsinki group.
And I woke up in the morning from the hotel.
I look outside.
There's a parade going by.
Oh, that's a nice way to parade.
And so I asked my colleague Mark Almond, who was on our board, so what's going on out there?
He said, well, that's a commemoration of the SS from World War II.
And they were literally dressed in SS uniforms, marching down the street.
I thought, that's a little odd.
I'm not a big fan of Nazis, but I guess they are over there.
So that might be why they're so pro-Ukraine.
But let's hope that common sense prevails because we don't want to have World War III.
And again, this is an example.
This is the reason why we can talk about the sponsor of our program, 4Patriots.com, because there is a danger of war expanding, and we all have to be prepared.
People in Ukraine, unfortunately, don't have the option, I don't think, of ordering from 4patriots.com, but putting some meals away.
They have a great three-month program where you can put three months' worth of meals away.
All you do is add water, boil, simmer, serve.
Use the code RON for 10% off of your first order.
Get a survival bundle.
Get a solar power generator.
Get three months of food.
Be ready for whatever happens, even if it's just a snowstorm.
Be ready for whatever happens.
Enter RON after you go to for the number 4patriots.com.
Free shipping on orders of $97 or more.
It's just a great idea, Dr. Paul, to be prepared for anything that might come.
It's just smart.
But I guess we're going to move on to the next one.
Now, we're going to have a caveat on this because obviously, we can even put that up.
The source for this story is the head of Russian intelligence.
And obviously, we know that all spooks lie, right?
That's what they do for a living.
So we're taking it with a grain of salt, but we've seen this a couple of times, and we view that it's worth bringing up.
The head of Russia's Foreign Intelligence Services says that Poland is intending to hold referendums in western Ukraine.
Ideally, that would be a return to a time that Poland did control that part, Galicia, that part of Ukraine, and looking to get some of it back.
Is it true?
Is it not?
We don't know, but it's worth talking about, I think.
No, I find this interesting because, of course, this is the argument that Russia used.
You know, the Crimea and The western part of Ukraine has been part and part of Karaim become part of Poland as well.
Let's just go back, you know, a statute of limitations or what.
And so they're just using the same argument.
And, you know, a little bit of that might become necessary under certain circumstances because you can understand why if you take a third of a nation like that, you know, for instance, would be the third of the nation could be the Russian section.
And then when NATO has absolute total control of the rest of Ukraine, then it comes down very hard.
Some people might say, well, you know, we have to do something else.
It should be cut and dried on this, but I don't think it can be all the times, especially when the boundaries are made up.
It's made up after war, and it's arbitrary.
It is made up usually by the politicians, whether it's making the boundaries in the Middle East, like, you know, after World War I, or more recently, oh, well, we have to remake the Middle East.
And so it keeps coming.
But from our viewpoint, or my point in particular, it should be done as local as possible, you know, if there's an argument there.
But once you get us involved, and we have to, you know, the supply lines, we have trouble getting our supplies back into our country now because a little economic problem we have here.
Our supply lines are breaking up.
How are we going to continue supply lines to every country that we're involved in?
It doesn't make a lot of sense.
So this is the reason why I think the non-intervention philosophy is so attractive that it makes a lot of sense.
You save some lives, you save some money, and you save some freedom.
But right now, this looks like it's not going to stop very, very soon.
And I have no idea about predicting.
My first gut reaction would be, I don't think this is going to happen.
A true referendum would be something.
You mean, yeah, a true referendum, you're going to kick out NATO and the United States?
No way.
A referendum would be just say, we want to add the property to NATO and the United States will take care of it.
So it's far from, you know, I think another example which is quite a bit different is Crimea.
Crimea was an easier thing to look at and see.
You know, the history was different and the background was different.
But anyway, the more local the solutions are, the better off it is.
And it shouldn't be the internationalists that fight wars, that war to end all wars.
You know, I get sick of that stuff.
Well, you know, hypocrisy and cynicism are the core components of U.S. foreign policy, you know, and that is an absolute fact.
And it is true that when the borders have been redrawn, there have been injustices done.
You know, a part of Ukraine was trans-Carpathia was part of Hungary for the longest time.
And after World War I, of course, Hungary was all carved up and everyone got a big chunk of it.
Of course, at the same time, the western part of Ukraine, you know, feels Polish, feels Lithuanian because it was part of Poland and Lithuania.
And at some point, it may make sense to allow people.
But the funny thing is, as you point out, when Russia looks at ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine saying, hey, if you want to join Russia, it's all right, well, let's do it.
That's horrible.
But the United States itself did the exact same thing.
Think about the breakup of Yugoslavia.
Hey, Croatia, don't you want to be independent?
Don't you want to break away?
Hey, Kosovo, don't you want to break away from Serbia?
So the U.S. foreign policy encourages all these things, of course, when it goes along with the sort of the larger U.S. goal of divide and conquer, U.S. neocon goal, I should say, of divide and conquer.
That's fine.
But what's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander when the gander happens to be Russia, you know.
So we'll see what happens with it.
Okay, we have another subject here that you always enjoy talking about polling.
I know, by which it tells you what's going to happen in the future or something like that.
Anyway, polls can be fascinating.
I understand politicians spend a lot of money on polling.
And sometimes they fib a little bit to make the poll say certain things.
But there's a poll out that says that the American people are losing their enthusiasm for the war in Ukraine.
Well, that's good.
But at the same time, you know, that's one story here.
It tells them that the poll is showing.
You could talk a little bit about that.
But then I had too many articles to bring them all in of all the proposals for the increase in the money because of this terrible situation out there.
We have to support it.
They're completely contradictory that the poll is trying to tell people, maybe we're tired of this, you know, and yet sometimes the politicians are slow to learn, but sometimes the deep state is a lot stronger than what we think are our local politicians representing our viewpoints.
Oh, they'll follow the Constitution.
And we have the Department of Justice.
That'll take care of things.
And we have the FBI and the CIA.
We will be protected so we don't have to worry about things like that.
But anyway, the poll says the American people are losing their enthusiasm.
That's good, right?
Yeah, it is good.
It is good.
And it just shows that it's not a priority despite what politicians think.
And we can even put that, put it back up, actually, if you don't mind.
This is a business insider.
They are reporting from a morning consult poll that found that American support for Ukraine is softening, is really disintegrating in terms of what Americans value.
I'm going to look at some of these tabs here.
Now, these are priorities, first of all, as ordered by Republicans.
Let's look at that next clip, if you can.
This is from the poll, just came out.
And it shows that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is number 10 down on the list for Republicans toward the very bottom of the list.
And of course, immigration, terrorism, drug trafficking, cyber attacks, supply chains, economics, et cetera, et cetera, are way above that, according to Republicans.
So down toward the bottom, here's a message from McCarthy and McCall, McConnell.
Republicans aren't that keen on it.
Let's look at the next one.
But even Democrats, of course, are not super jazzed about it.
It's down to number six after climate change, global pandemic.
Those are the number one for the Democrats, of course.
And so it's a low priority.
Americans do not want to get further involved in this, but their leaders are not listening.
Let's put this next one on.
I just looked at this before we started the show and clipped it very quickly.
People like Ted Cruz, who is our own senator, Dr. Paul, he does not get the message.
He wants more money for Ukraine.
He says Vladimir Putin is a KGB thug.
It's important for him to suffer a crushing defeat.
Yes, with our money and with Ukrainian blood, Ted, there you go.
Good job.
You know, the people hear this, and the conservatives here, and the Republicans hear about it, and some cringe, but a lot of them say, yeah, they're right.
We have to have that and we have to have these hawks.
But then some of the leadership, Republican leadership, will realize that this polling may have an effect.
So they try to play both ends.
They want to soften their stance and soften their rhetoric.
At the same time, they really don't want to give up on the spending.
Because McCarthy said that what we will not do is give them a blank check, to reassure the conservatives this is not going to be just duck soup, anything they want.
And yet, my argument has been, and it comes out pretty well, is that things don't change.
Foreign policy doesn't change with the change of the policy.
But then the other thing, Michael McCall even came out for this, that maybe that Rand Paul and a few others are on the right track.
Maybe we should have oversight.
Oh, my goodness, that's what a radical thing.
Pretty soon they're going to want to investigate and have oversight of the Federal Reserve if this continues.
But anyway, that's this balance they have.
You know, have some people go out there and talk really tough and then have the leadership calm things down.
Yes, we don't want that.
And we will not give them a blank check.
And that's the way we come.
That's how we're going to create peace and prosperity for the world.
Well, I neglected yesterday to mention a Rumble rant that we had.
Gypsy Magic contributed $10 and said, NATO, a Cold War relic, should have been abolished with the fall of the old Soviet Union.
Today, its existence merely supports the profit margins of the vast U.S. military-industrial complex.
Gypsy, we cannot agree with you more on this.
Unfortunately, we're not live today.
We've got some internet problems, but we're going to get it uploaded, and you'll see this as soon as possible.
But we do want to thank everyone for sticking with us.
Please subscribe to this channel.
Please hit a plus on your rumble to get us up to the top.
And I'm going to turn it over to you, Dr. Paul, with a couple closing thoughts you have.
Yeah, I just want to further make this point that sometimes you hear the talk about fiscal conservatism.
And at the same time, they're planning other things.
So here are a couple of clips on headlines that I have that contradicts any idea that they're going to have a more sensible foreign policy and don't give them a blank check.
House Senate agreed to add $45 billion to Biden's 2023 military budget request.
Thanking Viewers for Tuning In00:01:06
So I wonder who's that.
Oh, it's bipartisan.
Oh, Biden administration, this is a little one.
This one doesn't count.
Pledges $53 million to help restore Ukraine's damaged power line.
Well, who damaged it?
Why do the people who damaged it have to pay?
No liability laws over there.
So, okay, 53, we can't complain about that because it's chicken feed compared to what they want.
And then there's one here: a DC think tank urges America, oh, now this one, this is big money.
Now they say DC think tank tank urges America to invest in Zelensky's reconstruction plan for $1 trillion.
Where are these guys coming from?
And where are we going?
We're going down.
I want to thank our viewers for tuning in today.
Sorry that we didn't have our internet live on this one, but we are very happy that you've tuned in.