All Episodes
Previous Next
June 14, 2023 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
29:22
Did Ukraine Attack NATO?

According to a new Wall Street Journal report, the Central Intelligence Agency warned Ukraine early last summer not to blow up the Nord Stream pipeline and Ukraine did it anyway. Instead of punishing Ukraine, however, Biden keeps sending billions. Is the story true? Or does Hersh have it right? Also today US acknowledges big Ukraine losses in counter-offensive and plans to send Ukraine depleted uranium ammo. What could go wrong?

|

Time Text
NATO's Role in Ukraine Conflict 00:14:58
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel Mitt Adams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Still struggling.
Still struggling, but I figured it out.
Oh, yeah?
Somebody has control of the weather.
That's it.
And the Canadians don't like us.
Yeah.
And they're sending this smoke down here.
But I haven't seen it yet.
I think it's Putin.
I think he's... Putin.
It used to always be those Soviets, you know, they're going to change the weather and pattern.
They're going to change the weather.
But they lost the war, so I don't know how they did that.
Excuse me, but the U.S. I'm going to talk first about the U.S. warning Ukraine not to attack Nordstream.
So the argument's up, who did it?
Who caused it?
And, you know, we sort of made it, at least I did it.
I think you sort of went along with it, made the assumption that Seymour Hirsch was on the right track.
The U.S. in collusion with the Ukrainians because of the technology required.
The Ukrainians just couldn't do that.
So the question is, why?
This article came from the Wall Street Journal.
So why would the Wall Street Journal and others all of a sudden say, well, we're not sure.
Hirsch can't be allowed to have the final word.
And others have claimed, you know, who really did it and blaming the Russians and different things.
But here they are saying that the Americans advised them once they knew about it.
And the Netherlands, you know, they're loyal, loyal to the cause of NATO.
So they said they warned the United States, watch out.
You know, the Ukrainians are going to blow up this pipeline.
But the question that we want to deal with today is who's telling the truth?
Because that always seems to be one of the major efforts that we have to, who's telling the truth?
And for some reason, I'm sticking with, until proven otherwise, I'm sticking with Hirsch.
And this whole idea that the Ukrainians were warned not to do this, well, does that mean we're not allies anymore?
They're working on our own.
So it's a typical example of a war that's fought for no good reason other than a conspiracy of expanding, you know, NATO and a few other things.
But they've done this, and we end up with a lot of things that don't make much sense.
But it's perpetual war, you know, and it starts, oh, a couple months, this will be over.
We've heard that before.
And a couple months, a couple years, a couple decades before they know it.
So they're on and going.
It looks to me like when you hear stories like this, and we have other information here.
This does not look like this war is winding down to the satisfactory of the insiders, the world globalists.
Yeah.
And this is another example where you have Wall Street Journal, you have Washington Post.
They're always the favorites of the spook leakers, you know, the people, the spooks in there who want to leak a story.
Hey, don't say where this came from, but here's what happened.
And I think that's what we're seeing here.
We saw some earlier reports, I think in the Washington Post, suggesting that the U.S. knew Ukraine was going to do it or did it.
But let's put this first one up because this is the article we're talking about.
And U.S. warned Ukraine not to attack Nordstream.
I don't know if we have that clip, but there we go.
U.S. warned Ukraine not to attack Nordstream.
CIA pressed Kiev weeks before the explosion sabotaged the natural gas pipeline bringing Russian gas to Europe.
And if we can go to the next one, this is from the article.
The CIA warned the Ukrainian government not to attack the pipelines last summer after it obtained detailed information about a Ukrainian plot to discover a main energy connection between Russia and Europe.
Officials familiar with the exchange said, no, this means it's an anonymous source, so we have to take that with a grain of salt.
Apparently it happened in June.
The CIA called up Kiev and said, hey, we heard you guys are going to blow up the pipeline.
Don't do it.
Bad idea.
And then Ukraine, a couple months later, did it anyway.
Now this contradicts, as you suggest, Dr. Paul, the Seymour Hirsch article, which has been mostly ignored by the mainstream media, which is that the U.S. government attacked the pipeline itself.
The U.S. military assets attacked the pipeline itself.
There were a lot of people saying that Russian attacked its own pipeline.
That even, I think that's even a little bit too far to the west.
But again, it raises more questions than answers if this is the kind of ally you have.
Now, the CIA looks like they're getting a little protection here because when the Netherlands came to the CIA to tell them what was going on, the CIA took the warning seriously.
And these officials said it had questions about whether Ukraine had the capacity to carry out such a complicated matter.
So the CIA stopped acting with a brain.
A breakthrough of a little bit of consideration there.
So anyway, they went along with the whole thing too.
And now it's who are going to be the best liars, who's going to control the media.
And in order to satisfy the people who want to continue this war.
But I think it raises the other question, and we may talk about this a little bit more later, is maybe there's a break in the supporters for the war.
Maybe there's a few people are questioning it.
Certainly in Washington there are.
You know, a few Democrats are saying, and there's a popular opinion now that it makes sense to the American population.
Why are we spending all this money over there?
And why are we doing this when the American people are suffering?
So this is probably what they're trying to do.
Who blamed what?
And how can we continue it?
And the people who are making the money, how are they going to protect their interests?
Well, in an oversimplified way, but for the sake of argument, Article 5 of the NATO Treaty says essentially that an outside attack or an attack on one NATO member state is an attack on NATO as such and is to be defended as such.
The question I have with this article is how does it help the U.S., the U.K., the pro-war position to have this as the answer?
No, no, no, we didn't do it.
It was Ukraine that did it.
Because if you think about it, the U.S. warns Ukraine, don't attack a NATO country.
Ukraine says, we're going to do it anyway.
So they attack a NATO country.
The response of the U.S. to Ukraine attacking NATO essentially as such is, here's some more weapons.
Want some money?
Here's some more money.
And by the way, we'd love to have you in NATO.
So you're going to welcome into NATO a country that has already attacked NATO.
It absolutely makes no sense if this is the case.
So if this Wall Street Journal article is true, then the U.S. is absolutely insane to want this kind of country in NATO.
If it's not true, however, and Hirsch is right, it's not any better for the U.S. because it means the U.S. attacked NATO.
The U.S. attacked NATO.
So it might have been designed to diminish some of the guilt that we have so far for promoting the war.
And that, again, is an indication of the discrepancy of who's funding us for what reason.
Because really, we have the money.
Send the money.
We have the technology.
We have the control of NATO.
We motivated the coup that took over Ukraine.
And we generally would assume that we have control of the policy.
But this is saying, oh, maybe you don't have control of the policy.
It just becomes more insane.
But the diehards, to me, it's more heartbreaking because there are some people you expect them to be not too swift with policy.
But sometimes when you see conservative, constitutionalists, pro-Republicans who come out, and they're some of the worst ones that promote this.
And they still pretend they're the greatest defenders of the Constitution and these war efforts.
It's all done for one thing, our national security.
It's unfortunate, but I think you and I frequently see what they're doing doesn't help our national security.
It dangers our national security.
So the big argument is how to prove how Vietnam helped on national security or Korean wars and all these things.
It doesn't help our security.
It doesn't help our personal liberty here at home, and it doesn't help our financial situation.
Well, the other thing about this is skeptics in Congress, and we can name a few of them, and some of them are Republicans, and there are even some progressives, they're starting to be skeptical about this.
They have every right to demand answers from the administration.
Hang on a minute.
This is a country that attacked NATO, you're saying, on one hand.
And on the other hand, you're giving them more weapons and more money.
I mean, we need to know what's going on here.
And I know a few senators that might want answers to that, and hopefully that will come out based on this story.
And let's just close this out with this next clip because this is kind of a reiteration of what you said.
Dutch military officials told the CIA Ukrainian sabotage team was looking to rent a yacht on the Baltic coastline and use a team of divers to plant explosives.
This is the part where I think it really beggars the imagination that you just basically go out and rent a yacht, get a couple divers, go down and blow up these, you know, this is not ducting.
You know, these are serious concrete pipelines deep in the water.
That should discredit them.
Yeah.
Totally and completely.
It's weird.
But it doesn't happen onward because there's still a lot of propaganda out there looking for the people to believe what they tell them.
Fortunately, though, there's a crack in the seam, and we have to work on expanding that.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, before I move on to number two, today's show was sponsored by TackWrite, and they're here with their mini chainsaw at a 50% discount for our viewers.
This new mini chainsaw is so small, it's mind-blowing.
You can see it here in the picture.
It makes tree trimming easier and two times faster.
It's the easiest chainsaw that can even be operated with one hand.
You don't have to deal with bulky chainsaws to get the job done.
Thousands of Americans have bought this mini chainsaw at full retail price.
But our viewers of the Rumpolitan report today will get 50% off from TachRite.
So grab that mini chainsaw today for 50% off and free shipping.
That's tackrightron.com.
I will put a link in the description to snatch up that mini chainsaw and start trimming away.
Now, Dr. Paul, back to our second related topic, if we can put that up.
Biden is not upset about things getting blown up.
He's actually rushing, and here's from Politico, Biden-Russia's replacement armored vehicles to Ukraine after battlefield losses.
Yeah, and one of the things they want to do is rescue American equipment.
We're losing it.
Of course, we keep sending it to them, and we want to replace it.
But I keep thinking they talked about rescuing these tanks like they were rescuing some prisoners of war.
So it's once again, you know, more money, more weapons, and moving along.
And the latest package in the military is, this is the 40th since the start of the war.
40th.
Is that right?
40th?
That's what it says.
40th package.
Unbelievable.
Includes 15 Bradley vehicles and a Dallas Suleiman AP.
Okay, we keep sending the weapons, but I imagine their maintenance is not all that hot either.
So if the Russians don't do damage, I think that this equipment doesn't work.
But if the goal is to keep something persist, some people say, it looks like they just, some people just don't even want to end the war.
They won't even talk two minutes with somebody.
How could this war end?
And they see this as just an advantage.
So that's why they help us make the case that dollars in the military-industrial complex have a lot to do with the motivation of this abuse to the American taxpayer, the American people, the innocent people who die.
It just happens that right now, fortunately, American citizens aren't dying, unless it's a consequence of our stupid economy here, because we send all of our weapons overseas and don't worry about our borders here.
So this is the whole policy doesn't make any sense because this is an individual thing.
A lot of people deal with this, even who lean our way.
They remain always like an interventionist.
But the argument is, are we intervening enough for the right people?
And we did a little bit of that here.
Maybe the wrong people are doing it.
But see, it's so much easier if one develops and accepts the principle of non-intervention, which the Constitution requires, and that it's a matter of are we non-intervention?
And if we are intervening, does that make us guilty?
And too often, or very often, they make it pretty easy for us to show that we're very much involved.
This whole mess in Ukraine, it's not too difficult to have an indictment when you think of the coups that go on and the weaponry have, the NATO efforts to start a conflict with the Russians.
So it's not easy to put that together.
I don't think that's imaginary either.
And the other thing about this, Dr. Paul, said they're rushing to replace the tanks, the armored fighting personnel carriers that have been blown up, that have been destroyed.
Well, this essentially is an admission that their narrative has collapsed because we've been told for the past year that Ukraine is winning and Ukraine will win if we just send them weapons, more weapons.
Instead of guns, we need to send them Bradleys, et cetera, et cetera.
Well, we sent them the Bradleys.
They got blown up, and we see it now.
Biden is rushing to send more Bradleys.
So obviously they're not winning.
It's not usually a function of winning that you get your stuff all blown up.
So it really underscores how the narrative has collapsed and is altering.
Evidence Of Narrative Collapse 00:07:03
And if we can put up in that next clip, this explains it.
This is from Politico.
The Biden administration is rushing.
Now, why aren't we rushing?
Rushing more armored vehicles to Ukraine as the country's forces suffer some early losses in the early thrust of this counteroffensive.
And those rushes are $325 million drawdown of U.S. military stocks.
As you point out, as Americans continue to suffer, we continue to shovel money over there to Ukraine.
So I have a clip that I wanted to play because this is, I think, part of the evidence that the narrative is collapsing.
Now here's Donald Blinken, our Secretary of State, yesterday saying something very, very different than we're used to hearing about Ukraine.
If we can cue that up and play that clip, listen to Blinken.
Ukraine's success in the counteroffensive would do two things.
It would strengthen its position at any negotiating table that emerges, and it may have the effect as well of actually causing Putin to finally focus on negotiating an end to the war that he started.
Think about Blinken, he always looked like he has indigestion or constipation or something.
But what was missing from that little clip?
He didn't say we've got to send them more weapons so they can win.
He said we've got to send them more weapons so when they go to the negotiating table, they'll be in a better position.
Well, that's 180 degrees from what they said all along.
It's an admission that they're not going to win.
So why on earth are you prolonging this fight?
That sort of promotes that idea I suggested about why the Wall Street Journal might be taking a different position because they're not as enthusiastic about it and they're working their way out of it.
But something will happen.
There'll be some disaster.
There will be a ship blown up or something where people will, and the American people will change their mind overnight.
Because if you don't go along with it, you're not patriotic.
You're not for the troop.
That all argument.
And it's not just the U.S.
Now, this next clip is from anti-war.com.
The Germans also have seen some leopards.
Now, they were going to win the war for Ukraine.
And that is obviously not the case right now.
If we can put up that next clip, the U.S. is rushing, trying to get more stuff.
Well, Germany has basically just admitted defeat.
It says Germany says it can't replace all the leopard tanks provided to Ukraine.
It doesn't have any leopards left.
It doesn't have enough leopards left.
And as you point out earlier, Dr. Paul, apparently, and this is the Russian Ministry of Defense, so we'll take that into consideration.
But they claim that they have captured a running, working leopard tank and a Bradley fighting vehicle.
If that's the case, they're certainly going to send some scientists out there.
They're going to look at where the vulnerabilities are, where they should hit it better, all sorts of things.
They may even park it in front of the German embassy in Moscow.
But whatever the case, it looks like these are being captured on the battlefield and being destroyed on the battlefield, and they can't be replaced.
You know, they've had trouble just giving them airplanes and training the pilots and all.
But in this case, the assumption was that they could train them how to drive a train, drive a tank.
But the Army has supplied over 100 Bradleys to Ukraine, and it's trained Ukrainians to use both type of vehicles.
So they're covering their bases.
They're doing a good job in managing this war.
I suspect they didn't really learn how to handle those tanks.
Yeah.
I mean, this poor Ukrainian.
Yeah, for sure.
This poor Ukrainian military.
Can you imagine going to war with not just one type of tank?
It's a hodgepodge of different things.
You've got a couple of these, a couple of those.
How do you coordinate?
How do you make, I mean, I'm not a military expert, but these kinds of things seem like they're rather complicated.
People do study battle.
I mean, how can you do all these things with this hodgepodge makeshift army?
Why wouldn't people be suspicious?
Because there's the stories out that the Ukrainians were getting tanks donated that with the Russian tanks, Russian airplanes in there to fight Russia.
Yeah, yeah.
It's a little crazy.
Well, this is all Ukraine-dee, I guess, today, because so much is happening on this front.
And the next one is also, I would say, an escalation on both sides.
If we could put that next one up, this is from Zerohedge.
Now, Lukashenko is the head of Belarus.
Lukashenko's latest nuclear bluster comes the same day that the U.S. signals depleted uranium has been approved for Kiev.
Now, the nuclear bluster is The basing of tactical nuclear weapons on Belarusian territory.
And Lukashenko said, God forbid I have to make a decision to use those weapons today, but there would be no hesitation if we face aggression.
So there's a threat from Lukashenko.
If you come at us, we've got nukes.
And then at the same time, Dr. Paul, the U.S., following the lead of the U.K., has said, yeah, we're going to go ahead and send some depleted uranium over there.
You know, I don't understand well enough as I should about the depleted uranium.
But I know the politics of this.
This is, you know, I know they're dangerous and they linger and it is a political issue.
But it just doesn't seem like the most appropriate thing.
Even if it were a serious war, would we still be arguing about depleted uranium that's been around since World War II, I guess.
But it's lasting and it's a big issue, but it's being used to escalate.
And do they do those kind of things for escalation?
Or, I mean, that's not going to really solve the problem of this perpetual war.
So I don't know.
But for Lukashanto to come back and be more aggressive, that should be understandable.
It's, again, just stirring up more trouble.
Well, this is the birthplace of Chernobyl, you know, the greatest nuclear disaster.
So obviously, I think there's going to be some hesitation about bringing in this depleted uranium.
Now, a lot of people say, hey, it's fine, there's no problem with it.
I don't know.
I mean, I've seen a lot of reports, statistics, about birth defects in places like Serbia, where the U.S. used depleted uranium, and Iraq, where the U.S. used it.
So, you know, there are plenty of conflicting reports.
I mean, here's an interesting response from the, I think, if you can go forward, just skip that next one.
We've already talked about it, and just go on to the tweet.
There we go.
Now, this is Maria Zakharova.
She's a spokesperson, I think, for the foreign ministry.
And I think she does make a good point.
I have to admit, the United States apparently believes that the supply of depleted uranium shells to Kiev will not affect them because they're on the other continent, she said.
But at the same time, they forget that Ukrainian food and grain in general will be contaminated.
This will affect food security.
So, yes, it's going to be in Ukraine, but all of these grains are exported.
So, you could be, you know, putting it together really an environmental catastrophe.
Maria Zakharova's Point 00:03:04
It's time to come home.
Yeah.
Where's Greta?
She should be out there yelling at you.
It's time to save some money.
Yeah, absolutely.
So we'll have to see that.
I think we're about ready to close.
Did you have?
Oh, yeah, you had to say that.
Yeah, I wanted to mention this because maybe this is good news.
I think it is.
Or at least it's at least revealing something that hasn't been in the news.
And this has to do with Schiff.
Remember that guy?
Adam Schiff.
And the Republicans, now, not a super control of the House, but a little control.
The only obstacle, real obstacle they have with a group of Republican conservatives who want to stick to their promises.
But anyway, that's one thing.
But the Republican-led House is expected to consider a measure as early as Wednesday that would censor, well, that's serious.
Representative Adam Schiff, Democratic California, for pressing allegations that former President Donald Trump colluded with Russia.
Does that mean they're calling Schiff a liar?
Yeah.
Shifty Schiff is what Trump called him.
Oh, he's just shifting.
But anyway, you know, we had to listen to so much.
It went years.
It didn't go a month or two or a war or two.
It started really in 2016 making up stuff.
And they had control of the administration and they were using the judicial system.
They essentially have destroyed, maybe forever, the image of the FBI, because, and some of that needs reevaluation anyway, but it's still something that people have to consider because there was a time when people did rely and they were more reliable and they actually were not, they didn't belong to a political party.
But now you know that what Trump already said, if I get in, this is what I'm going to do.
So this is what they did to the Republican.
So it's out of control.
And, you know, as kids, a lot of times parents would say, I don't want to know who started this fight.
Just stop fighting.
But maybe who starts the fight should be known.
Yeah, that's true.
Who started the recent fight for the last decade in Ukraine?
That would help a lot of people understand what's going on.
Yeah.
Well, the most egregious thing that Schiff did is that he said, hey, I'm the chair of the intelligence committee.
I know stuff that you guys don't know.
And believe you me, that Trump, he was sure colluding with Russia, and it was all a lie, we know.
So, I mean, I think censure is the least.
I think there's a fine.
Isn't there a fine in there as well?
Yeah, I was wondering if you thought that was overkill.
Do you think they should be able to find them for lying?
Or should they go to prison?
Yeah, that might be the thing to do.
Send them off to jail.
Ron Paul's Generator Announcement 00:04:02
Well, before we close out, I'm going to remind our viewers of our sponsor for this month, and that is 4patriots.com.
Down here in the south, we're looking at hurricane season.
When hurricane season comes, you start thinking about your generator and whether you have one or not.
Well, the good people at 4patriots.com have a new generation of generators that are portable, safe, silent, and fume-free.
The Patriot Power Generator, it's a solar generator.
It doesn't use gas, doesn't leave fumes, and it's quiet as a laptop.
The best thing is you can pick it up and take it where you go, throw it in your RV.
You can power up your fridge, medical device, or your phones.
And the best thing is you can get 10% off your purchase of this Patriot power generator or anything on 4Patriots.com if you use the code RON.
So use the code RON to get 10% off your purchase, first purchase of anything in the 4Patriots.com store.
I will add a link at the end of the show to the description where you can go grab your generator and move it around with you.
And I'm going to finish on one other note, Dr. Paul.
If we could put up that last clip to remind all the young people out there, upper division undergrads and grads, to apply for the Ron Paul Scholars Seminar.
It's going to come up on September 1st, the day before.
And here's a big announcement.
Save the date.
September 2nd is our big Washington DC conference.
So if you're planning what to do that last Labor Day weekend, kind of the last weekend of the summer, come out and join us in D.C. I'll be releasing information soon.
But again, if you go to the Ron Paul Institute website, ronpaulinstitute.org, in the meantime, you can apply to be a Ron Paul scholar.
Here, our scholars are listening to a lecture from our favorite Capitol Hills Congressman, Thomas Massey, a couple of years ago.
It's a great one-day seminar, and there are scholarships available to young people.
So Dr. Paul, tossing it back to you.
Very good.
And I want to thank all our viewers for tuning in today.
And hopefully by tomorrow, I will have a little bit better voice.
I hope the message always remains steady and to the point, because that, of course, is what our main goal is all about, is to have an institute that is dedicated to promoting peace and prosperity.
Very noble goals, but very confusing if you read ordinary media and try to sort out why we're at war and why it doesn't change and why we had lockdown during, you know, maybe a flu epidemic.
So there's a lot that is available to us to present.
And the main goal I think we have, and so many other people are begging for, and that is to just know the plain truth of things.
And sometimes there's no way for to have a final decider on what the truth is and how you can reach it and this sort of thing.
But the important thing is to seek truth in an honest way.
And in that manner, you should be able to provide a lot of benefits to a lot of people because you want evidence in order to defend one's position.
And that should be true whether we're talking about interpersonal relationships, whether we're talking about economic activities, or especially if we're talking about world events and how we get along with other countries.
Because so far, I think we don't get a very high grade for the conditions that we're facing today and what the future is in store for so many people in this country who will have to pay for all this.
Because the answer is not complex.
It comes from our traditions.
It comes from our Constitution.
It comes from trying to challenge those people that said, truth is not available to us.
We can't worry about that.
Why waste our time?
You people who think there's a truth out there and there's a natural law of nonviolence, you're just kidding yourself.
Well, that's their excuse to become a dictator, and that's what we challenge.
Export Selection