Why Is Washington So Openly Releasing Details Of Armored Vehicle Shipment To Ukraine?
A US Pentagon agency has released photos and details of the loading and shipment of Bradley Fighting Vehicles to Ukraine for the purpose of fighting Russia. While obviously such shipments can be tracked by governments, including by Russia, does it seem odd that the Biden Administration seems to almost be bragging about the long journey through international waters? Also today, a sad time for the once-neutral Swiss. Finally: a Med Student speaks out against his profession's response to Covid.
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 today.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Doing well.
Do you know a lot about tanks?
I don't.
Well, you know, I'll bet you there's a lot of people in Washington building tanks and passing them out around.
They probably don't know much about tanks either.
The one thing that I've decided is the people I knew up there, what they did know about foreign policy was wrong.
And when it came down to applying the Constitution and then maybe leaning toward non-intervention, very little interest in that.
So obviously we want to talk a little bit about foreign policy, but it has to do with this buildup.
This buildup is getting to be something, what?
It looks like it's all, it's not just Ukraine.
Ukraine is just a conduit for the mischief.
Now it's all over Europe.
And the municipal industry is doing quite fine.
Yeah, for sure.
But evidently just recently, in the last couple of days ago, a ship was going out and they had 60 Bradley tanks on.
Ukraine, Ukraine, there's going to be a tank war over there.
But they didn't get the airplanes yet.
So we have to wait and see.
I guess that's on next month's budget to keep the money flowing.
But anyway, they're on their way and it can't be up any good.
And matter of fact, the title of this sort of caught my attention.
I'm not sure I figured it out.
Tracking the U.S. vessel with 60 Bradley tanks bound for Ukraine.
Maybe who's tracking it?
The good guys or the bad guys?
Because, you know, like people think of ships going down, you know, whether it was World War I or the Spanish-American War or whatever, that ended up badly.
And this is something we'll be watching.
I sure hope they don't have to use them.
Yeah.
Well, that's the thing that really caught our attention on this is the whole, and this is a zero-hedge headline, but that doesn't, that's sort of reinforced by the way this thing is being handled.
Track the U.S. vessel with Bradley fighting vehicles, Bradley tanks inside.
And that's really interesting because normally, at least for me, it seems a shipment like this, like previous shipments of weapons to Ukraine, has always kind of been under wraps.
It's kind of like quiet because they don't want to advertise it.
And so I was very surprised to see it very openly advertised.
And in fact, I went back on Twitter to see how other people reacted to my reaction to it.
And I was happy to see that the very first comment on this tweet was exactly what I was thinking.
If you can put this up.
Now, here's a tweet from OSINT Technical.
And OSINT are people who look for open source intelligence and publish it.
So these are some photos of the Bradleys being packed into a ship to send to Ukraine.
OSINT Technical put this up on Twitter.
The first commenter said, please delete this picture.
Too much intel being provided, which was exactly my first impression.
I thought it very odd.
But what is the source of the picture?
Let's go to the next clip.
This is where it gets interesting, Dr. Paul.
The source of this picture is the Defense Visual Distribution Service, which is part of the Pentagon.
The Pentagon itself released these photos.
This is out of Charleston, South Carolina, of them loading these fighting vehicles into a ship.
They give you the name of the ship.
They gave you the look of the ship.
And if you go to the next one, they even show a picture of the Bradleys inside the ship being loaded onto a ship to take to Ukraine to kill Russians.
Now, that is a fact.
And we even see from the next picture, Dr. Paul, that they're openly talking about the route the ship will take.
U.S. Transcom's press release noting the vessel's name, data via marine traffic, shows ARC integrity is full steam ahead in the Atlantic Ocean.
I don't know, Dr. Paul, maybe I'm being a conspiracy theorist, but something smells very funny about how openly they seem to be bragging about this ship full of tanks going to Ukraine.
Well, if we question the wisdom of our leaders in foreign policy, I think I might have a suggestion.
That is, they're intimidating the Russians.
This is going to make the Russians scared, and they're going to have to say, hey, we don't need to take them on because now we have to face these 60 Bradley tanks.
Of course, the opposite.
If anything, if it affects the Russians, it'll do the opposite.
It'll precipitate even more problems because this is part of the acceleration and the amplification of what the West had promised not to do, is put a lot of weapons up near the border.
But now these are, you know, they're inside the border constantly, and we were involved in a coup and whatnot.
So we have sort of broken our promises.
Well, we know for a fact throughout history, and I think FDR is a prime example.
FDR, we now know, absolutely provoked the Japanese and was actually looking forward to a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
And Colonel McGregor had a great interview with the judge about this where he talked about the history down to the finest detail.
We knew that FDR was doing specific things like leaving the Pacific Fleet in Hawaii when he knew it was vulnerable to attack because he wanted that attack to happen.
And we've known things about Gulf of Tolkien and others that have been used to provoke.
This is a ship that's going to be in international waters carrying military equipment to attack Russians.
Now, whether you believe that eastern Ukraine is now legally part of Russia or not is beside the point.
The perception in Russia is that this is Russia and these tanks are going to go into Russian territory to attack Russians.
To me, it almost seems like they're dangling it out there as bait so that the U.S. can get more involved and start the war because nothing else is working.
All the provocations are not working so far.
We sent in the javelins.
We sent in the High Mars.
We did all of these things and the Russians still stubbornly refuse to attack a NATO country.
So this almost seems to me, again, maybe I'm being conspiracy-minded.
This almost seems like dangling bait out there.
Yeah, and I think the odds of the Russians seeing an advantage for them to go out, boy, if we could sink that ship and take out 60 Bradley boy, this is a benefit.
But, you know, the whole thing is, how about this false flag business?
Maybe somebody would do, oh, let's see what the Soviets do better, the Russians.
What we do, you know, they're the bad guys, and that's why we have to use more bombs.
You're right.
It could be a false flag.
Someone could do it.
I mean, look at the Nord Stream.
It really doesn't take much to sink some of these vessels.
Remember the ship they damaged in Yemen?
Yeah.
You know, and that was out of commission for a year.
They were in a little boat, and they went up there and just blew a hole in the ship.
Kind of like what they did with Nord Stream, right?
They took a little boat and they blew a hole in the thing.
So it is really concerning.
It sounds to me like there are people in the U.S. government who are desperate.
The Pentagon, we know, was completely opposed to the Abrams sending the Abrams tanks, which are next, but they won't get there for a while, if they get there at all, because there's a lot of speculation.
But they're clearly, and I would say the neocons in the State Department are clearly hell-bent on provoking some kind of Russian reaction to justify a massive U.S. strike because they believe their propaganda that Russia is losing, Russia is weak.
And the fact, as you point out very well, these are 60 Bradley fighting vehicles.
Russia has already destroyed 2,000 armored vehicles of Ukraine.
So this is not a big difference, but as a tripwire, it seems very important.
Yeah, efficiency would be 60 at one time, you know.
But I think the Russians are probably a little wiser than that.
And then they just might work with somebody here that blame them, but that's what I always feel, accidents and false flags, you know, substituting for what they wanted to say.
And it just looks like another danger point from our viewpoint.
This does not serve our purposes.
It costs us a lot of money.
It exposes us.
It doesn't make us safer.
It brings us closer to a war that gets out of hand over there.
So interventionism is built in the name of, well, we have to do it.
And we have to have our empire.
We have to have these coups because that's how we protect our national security.
This is very, very important.
If you don't go along with us, you're unpatriotic.
You're like somebody that won't take your vaccine shot or something.
It sure is a shame, but we'll have to keep an eye on it because it'll be a few weeks or so before they can get over there.
I think to further go on with this a little bit, I think momentum appears to be shifting against the neocons in the State Department and in the White House.
Because you had this article in the Washington Post that came out in the past few days that openly talked about the fact that the pledge to send the Abrams tanks to Ukraine was kind of a ruse on the part of the Biden administration because the whole thing was that they wanted the leopard tanks, the German leopard tanks to go in there because they're easier to run, they're easier to learn, they're more suited to the terrain than the Abrams.
They wanted the Germans to send the leopards, but the Germans said, no, you've got to pledge to send the Abrams first.
And so they got Biden to say, okay, we'll send the Abrams.
And then the Germans said, okay, we're sending leopards then.
And then Biden said, well, but the Abrams won't be there for a year or so.
So it's like a ruse.
But this is reporting the Washington Post.
And then you had this Rand Corporation study that came out in the past couple of days, which if you really sort of parse all the other things and look at it directly, this is the Pentagon's own think tank, the RAND Corporation.
They came out with a report with an analysis that essentially said a prolonged conflict in Ukraine is against America's national interest.
So when you have this kind of pushback from a Pentagon think tank, I think it's important.
So my guess is the neocons are sensing that the momentum is starting to turn against them.
And that's when they're getting desperate.
We saw this in Iraq, if you remember.
They started to get desperate when the American people didn't want a war.
So they sent Colin Powell to the UN to lie through his teeth.
So I think this is probably the most dangerous time of the conflict.
Yes, you know, the deep state has the people behind the scenes we don't get to talk to have a lot to do with this.
But there's always limits to it.
There's limits in economic policy.
You can have a structure, but the market is more powerful in economics over the planners, economic planners.
I think it's the same way, and I think that's what you're touching on, is they can have all these plans and get away with it for a while.
But eventually, the people start having an influence.
And that can happen.
You know, we have resistance here, and I think we're sensing that.
Yeah, and the neocons hate the people.
We know that.
Well, let's move on to another kind of sad story.
We're going to end with a happy story.
So we're going to move a little bit to a sad story.
And this is Switzerland, and we both have a very soft spot for Switzerland.
I know you've always admired Switzerland.
I spent a week there as an American Swiss Foundation young leader back when I was young.
So I have a very high feeling about the Swiss.
And of course, one of our late board members was a U.S. ambassador to Switzerland and someone who was dear to our heart.
But this is from Responsible Statecraft Connor Eccles.
This is a piece from a couple of days ago.
Diplomacy Watch: Switzerland Ways Break with Policy of Neutrality.
Sad news.
So, you know, they stayed, they were known for having a sound currency, and they maintained the gold standard for the longest period of time.
And I would guess it was maybe 10 years ago or somewhere around that line sometime.
They even rejected the gold standard.
Because when times got rough, people bought, you know, Swiss francs.
They were buying gold.
And they followed that, but they gave up on that.
And I thought, well, you know, this is a sign of what's come.
And that reminds me of the statement that Reagan made to me when we were in a quiet setting and we were talking about the gold standard.
And he says there's never been any great country that ever went off the gold standard did not remain great.
So he was probably predicting the end of dollar hegemony.
Yeah, he was.
And I remember when the Swiss did that, you know, you talked about it a lot and we're depressed about what's happened to Switzerland.
Well, here's a couple of quotes from the article that kind of gives you the background of what's going on.
Let's go to the next one, please.
This decision would represent a significant break from the policy of Swiss neutrality, though its supporters insist the measure would not violate their law of neutrality since Bern would not be sending weapons directly.
And this is that slippery slope, Dr. Paul.
Oh, well, we're going to take sides, but we're not going to send them weapons.
You remember in the beginning of this war, Germany said we are not going to send any weapons.
We'll only send helmets.
You know, and that was it, remember?
And now we're sending tanks.
So it's a slippery slope.
And once you get down on that slope, that's where they're heading, I think.
I think that's probably going to happen.
And to me, it's the wrong way to go.
It was always good.
Because there was a time when we even included Sweden, you know, with a tradition like that.
But they've been a long time gone now, and they're further along than Switzerland.
But maybe there'll be a day when we can popularize the whole thing of non-intervention and neutrality because, you know, there's so much value to it.
It's just amazing.
We see glimpses of the people waking up.
But really, the sentiments and the attitudes are built in the universities.
I mean, they get lectured about it, and they don't come out of the universities.
And if they want to get a job in those industries or in foreign affairs and government, or even run for Congress sometimes, that can be a strong negative if you're not marching lockstep with the deep seat.
The other thing about the Swiss break in neutrality, I think it's just bad for peace overall.
Because you know well, Dr. Paul, we don't have relations with Cuba, we don't have relations with Iran, and Switzerland serves an important purpose, which is it represents those countries and acts as an intermediary so we can talk to Cuba, regardless if we think our Cuba policy is dumb and we should have relations.
Scientific Community's Commitment00:07:35
Regardless of any of that, Switzerland has always been there to help to facilitate dialogue.
And you can't do that if you seem to be aligned with one of the combatants.
And even if they feel morally obligated in some ways to take sides, they serve a greater purpose by facilitating the dialogue.
And that's really sad to see going by the wayside here.
Yeah, that little article I just brought of this thing, you know, how long they've been following neutrality.
At least since 1850.
1815.
They've maintained that position.
And, you know, why doesn't somebody come up and write a neat little article describing how they did versus these other countries that went on for a militant type of purpose?
They got rich by doing it.
They went through World War I and II.
Yeah, as neutrals.
And now they're getting ready, they're arming all of Europe.
And to me, when I saw that, I was so upset about it.
This is part of the expansion of NATO.
But it's Western Europe, you know, and that's NATO.
And so it's essentially saying that we're with NATO and we've got to stop the communists and Russia and that sort of thing.
It's terrible.
We'll skip ahead, skip the next one because we already dealt with it.
Do the next one after that, the next clip if you can.
The one, if passed, the proposal would.
Here we go.
So here's just one last thing from the article.
If passed, the proposal would create an exception whereby Swiss weapons, and you mentioned this, whereby Swiss weapons could be re-exported to an active war zone as long as they're used to fight, quote, a violation of the international ban on the use of force.
Well, the thing about that that's weird to me when I read that, and maybe I'm reading it wrong, but who would determine that violation?
It seems to me that as much as we dislike the UN for a lot of different reasons, but that would be within the UN's purview, not the purview of NATO or the U.S. or Germany, because the UN would have to take into account the totality of the situation, the provocation, who started it, you know, all of these things.
So if one person determines that it's a violation of international law, the rules-based order, then it would be a green light for Switzerland.
I think it's a really bad move and it's very sad.
You left out the World Economic Forum.
Maybe they could have a little subcommittee signed to figure that out.
But they probably have those discussions anyway.
The final one is kind of a good news story, and I'm glad that we saved it for last.
If we can put that one up, and this is near and dear to your heart, Dr. Paul.
And this was, again, featured originally in Zero Heads, so they get all the credit, and we do rely on them.
They're a great source.
But it was from a Newsweek article, but Zero Hedge put it up today.
It's time, this is a quote, it's time for the scientific community to admit we were wrong about COVID and it costs lives.
And it was written by Kevin Bass, who is an MS and an MD-PhD student.
So he's in medical school.
The neat part is he's been brainwashed so far by the medical profession and went along with it and saw all the benefits because he's the student and he's looking up to his professors and they're talking about this and this is complicated stuff to know about vaccines and immunology.
So it took something for him to all of a sudden say, hey, I don't agree with this stuff.
The more informed he got.
And it's strange.
I was thinking about it.
When I was in medical school, I had a certain type of education that taught about immunity and natural immunity and these sort of things.
So when this nonsense came up, I had this thing of, I got to push this aside.
I've got to go back and look at some of the things I was taught originally.
Now, in this case, he's trying to erase what he was taught originally because he's a new student.
He's still a student.
So in the last five years or so, the students have been pumped with all this.
And he has written a great article.
I don't usually push too much on reading an article, even though we suggest people follow up.
But I think we should suggest, you know, where they can find it.
It's on Zero Hedge, it appeared in Zero Hedge today.
And it's a long article, but I found it fascinating.
Yeah, I'll try to put a link there in the description because you're right.
And this, I think, shows the value of courage.
Someone having courage, because this is not a smart career move, right?
Going against the medical establishment is not a smart career roof for a young, hopeful doctor, hopeful to be a doctor.
So it's individual courage, people standing up, one person standing up, like Dr. Peter McCullough and all of the others who've stood up and shown courage.
And he matches those good guys in this.
I was going to, oh, go ahead.
No, you go ahead.
I was just going to read a quote from it because you're going to be.
Probably the one you were going to read.
I'll put it up on the screen.
You can read it if you want.
If we could put that next one out, it's a long quote.
He said, I was wrong about the science.
We were in the scientific community.
We were wrong, and it costs lives.
And here's what he said.
Really interesting, this is a bill of particulars, Dr. Paul.
I can see now that the science community, from CDC to the WHO to the FDA and their representatives, repeatedly overstated the evidence and misled the public about its own views and policies, including on natural versus artificial immunity, school closures and disease transmission, aerosol spread, mask mandates, and vaccine effectiveness and safety, especially among the young.
All of these were scientific mistakes at the time, not in hindsight.
Amazingly, some of these case obfuscations continue to the present day.
And then he finishes in this segment.
But perhaps more importantly than any individual error was how inherently flawed the overall approach of the scientific community was and continues to be.
It was flawed in a way that undermined its efficacy and resulted in thousands, if not millions, of preventable deaths.
That was the quote I was looking at.
We were right.
I feel the same way.
I feel better.
No, that's very good.
No, you got out there.
So that's wonderful.
And I just think that the most important thing here is challenging the establishment because that's one of the things that people explain now that in colleges and all, who may know better, but they feel overly intimidated to talk out because there's a ramification which is all negative.
In the old days, you know, you were rewarded for this.
This would have been, you know, whistleblower or something new.
Now we don't even know, and he might not know, but if Newsweek gave sign of approval, that maybe that's the good news is that it's in a place where an audience other than our audience is going to read this.
And so this to me is really good news.
And this is searching for truth.
I think that's what the whole purpose is.
But what's happened, though, over these last several years, especially with COVID, is it was suppressing the truth.
It wasn't searching for the truth.
And this is, it's sad that it's such a surprise.
Oh, he's speaking the truth.
Searching for Truth00:02:49
He's getting on medical school, and he was able to overcome the propaganda, the scientific propaganda that ever pouring into his brain.
Yeah, yeah, speaking the truth.
Well, I'm going to close with one little mini-segment, Dr. Paul.
And, you know, for all the cowards in Europe, there are a few leaders that we've admired.
I know that you've admired Václav Klaus, and you had dinner with him once, the former Czech president, who's great on economics, great on free market, good on foreign policy.
We've both been admiring Victor Orban in Hungary for a lot of his independent views in the world.
But here's another addition, I think, in Profiles in Courage in Europe.
and there's not a lot of them, European political leadership.
And this is Zoron Milanovich, who is the president of Croatia.
If we can put this up, because he has a great quote that really runs against the prevailing view.
Go one more if you can.
Prevailing view in Europe.
Here's Zoran Milanovich, the president of Croatia.
She says, he says, I'm against sending any lethal arms to Ukraine.
It prolongs the war.
What is the goal?
Disintegration of Russia?
Change of the government?
There's also talk of tearing Russia apart.
This is mad.
Milanovich went on to say the war was provoked by the U.S. and NATO.
Quote, from 2014 to 2022, we are watching how someone provokes Russia with the intention of starting the war.
He continues, what is the goal of this war?
A war against a nuclear power that is at war in another country?
Is there a conventional way to defeat such a country?
Who pays the price?
Europe.
America pays the least.
Pretty interesting and powerful quote.
I'll end with that one and thank our viewers for watching the show and turn it back over to you, Dr. Well, I'm going to skip back to our medical article.
And the author gives some advice toward the end.
He says, it's okay to be wrong and admit where one was wrong and what one learned.
That was the purpose of education.
That's a central part of the way science works.
Yet I fear that many are too entrenched in groupthink and too afraid to publicly take responsibility to do this.
Personal responsibility.
But you know, you wonder where that comes from.
And it comes, I guess, for different reasons.
Sometimes it's bred into you, and sometimes it's parents, sometimes it's a teacher.
But in this case, I think that people, the most important thing I think individuals should have is curiosity.
And that means you have to challenge everything and not get punished for it.
And this is overcoming the punishment.
Encouraging Public Responsibility00:01:30
I mean, just think of the doctors who had a reputation and a medical degree and a job and they lost that.
Of course, I think they're probably going to recover a little bit because truth is coming out.
They couldn't suppress the truth forever.
So that to me is wonderful.
And that's why we talk about this, because we shouldn't be despondent and say, oh, what's the heck of doing it?
I mean, can you imagine?
I can imagine.
I don't think I was at the point if I was a senior in medical school because there was talk of socialized medicine back then, but I was not in the mood for taking on the establishment.
Let me tell you that.
I needed to learn a lot more to be more confident about it.
So this gentleman deserves a lot of credit for what he's done.
And that is what we should be doing, encouraging people to speak out.
And the one thing that Leonard Reed taught me about how to persuade people is the way you talk out.
Because if you talk it out with rough noise and rough tongue and pressure people and use the language that is not opening up people's mind, it doesn't work.
You can be 100% right, but if your attitude is 100% aggressive, it doesn't work.
And this is the wonderful part about this article.
This is not an aggressive article.
It said that you're going to, well, the opposition keeps saying, if you don't do what we tell you, you're going to be canceled.
You say what we want you to say or your job is gone.