UK Talks Tough On War With Russia...But It Doesn't Have Any Tanks!
Through the Russia/Ukraine crisis the UK government has been among the most bellicose in urging Ukraine to fight Russia to the last man. UK politicians openly talk about being "at war" with Russia. But yesterday Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, UK Chief of the Defence Staff broke the bad news to tough-talking UK: They have no tanks! They have no army! It was all just bluster! Also today, CNN puzzled by anyone opposing government censorship.
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. Pohl.
How are you this morning?
I am radio and rare and ago.
I wish the problems were simpler, but they're still there.
But we will talk about a few of the problems that are going on.
We're going to start off with one of our close allies.
We used to fight with them, but they're our close allies.
And they support us.
They support NATO.
They want NATO to go in there and clobber the Russians.
But we see a report here from the Daily Mail that says the Brits that we're talking about, they don't sound like a very good ally.
Will they be sending some tanks over there to help the people in Ukraine?
Well, the story is, and the article is saying, fight Russia?
Britain has just 40 tanks and around a dozen frigates and destroyers ready to go to war, the lowest figure in modern history.
But they talk tough, and that'll intimidate.
That's going to intimidate the Russians, you know.
But it is crazy about all this anticipation of what to do.
But, you know, it's in a way, this preparation for the big war.
I think a few months ago or a year ago, I said, maybe there can't be a big war because we'll be exhausted from the financial moral crisis and there won't be any energy left.
But who knows what?
They might resort to bigger bombs if that happens.
But if this is true, where countries like Britain, England, the United States is not as rich as we pretend, you know, and people claim, what if there's a strike?
What if our military, no new members?
We talked about that.
So we're not in a war-fighting mode, like maybe in World War II or all, that this might be something that's going to be difficult to really accelerate.
Already, even the warmongers are saying, hey, we can't do this forever.
You know, you hear those stories now.
But they're not going to have the monies and a weapon.
And I got to thinking, does that mean there won't be a war?
No, there can be a war because if the cause is just, for sometimes the money is secondary.
When I think about our revolution, you know, we were fighting the biggest army in the world, but it was morally justified and fighting for the homeland.
And that's what doesn't exist now.
You won't have weapons.
And if we continue to weaken, and our closest allies lies like Great Britain, this means that we're not ready for a bigger, hotter war than ever.
And besides, the bankruptcy is going to go on regardless of what we do.
Well, you know, Teddy Roosevelt is credited with the old saying, speak softly and carry a big stick, which I always thought was kind of good advice.
Don't be so bellicose.
Well, the opposite is now obviously the case with the UK, speaking as loudly as they can, being as bellicose as they can, egging Ukraine onto war, acting tough like they're going to go ahead and go to war with Russia as well.
Turns out they don't have a big stick at all.
And in fact, as you point out, as we saw in the Daily Mail, they don't have any sticks at all, hardly.
They only have 40 tanks that are ready to go to war.
They've already given 14 to Ukraine, and they were promptly blown up.
So those are gone.
So, but they're bellicose.
We know Boris Johnson.
We know from the former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett that there was a deal signed, at least initialed, between Russia and Ukraine very early in the war, which would have ended the fighting right there.
And big Boris Johnson, carrying that small stick with a big mouth, he said, no way, you guys cannot make peace.
You got to keep fighting.
And that's what happened.
So this is a real revelation.
I wanted to put something up because now this is from March.
So I'm not going to pretend it's from now.
But this is, actually, it's that first video clip.
This is a member of the British Parliament who's talking about, you might want to put your earpiece in, Dr. Paul, before we start.
I think he's on the defense committee of the British Parliament.
Here he's talking about talking tough.
Let's hear him.
We are now at war in Europe.
We need to move to a war footing.
We are involved in that.
We've mobilized our procurement processes.
We're gifting equipment.
We need to face Russia directly rather than leaving Ukraine to do all the work.
We are now.
This is the classic method of the British ruling class of how they speak.
But that is their fantasy.
And put on that first clip that you had on for a second ago.
This is the reality.
All that big talk.
We've got to face the fact that we're at war with Russia.
Oh, okay.
Fight Russia.
Britain has just 40 tanks, as you mentioned, Dr. Paul.
They have 40 tanks.
And now this number, I haven't seen a number that's high, but they also point out that Russia is estimated to have lost over 2,000 tanks in the conflict, but it has as many in reserve.
So even if you take their numbers, which I think are wildly inflated on their losses, Russia is estimated to have 2,000 tanks.
And here comes little old UK with 40 tanks rolling in.
I don't know.
It doesn't sound like a very even fight.
Let's go get them.
Let's go get them.
You and him fight.
Yeah, that's what he did.
And who will be the victims?
The young people who hardly pay enough attention to stop it.
Nope.
It looks like there's a march to war.
I think what lingers with some of the Brits is, I am never going to be a Neville Chamberlain.
You know, and I can't ever look like I'm a peaser.
So they go extremely other, and they don't even have any common sense.
And the whole thing is, your point is, what?
There actually was an opportunity to prevent this from happening, but it was the West, NATO again, like they really are the ones who started a war as far as I'm concerned at this particular point.
Yeah, the neocons.
Well, this whole thing came out in the British Parliament.
Admiral Sir Tony Badigin, he's the chief of the defense staff.
He's the head of the military in the UK.
Now, he went before Parliament, was giving a little update.
And he says, at the Commons, that's their House of Parliament, Commons Defense Ministry yesterday, his claim that Britain could provide a division, which is around 17,500 fully equipped troops, accompanied by vehicles and artillery, that they could provide just one division was dismissed as a fantasy.
So they can't even field one division of troops, 17,500 persons, men in arms, whereas we're looking in Russia, 600,000 at least now, men in arms ready for battle.
So they can't even do 17,000.
And now this is again from the article.
MP Mark Francois told the Mail, Daily Mail, which is the article, it was clear from the CDS, now that's their defense ministry, from the CDS's evidence that armed forces would currently struggle to fight a war with Russia.
He says, quote, it is a fantasy to suggest we could provide a warfighting division to NATO.
So it's a fantasy that they could even come up with 17,000 troops to face Russia's 600,000 troops.
You would think in that situation, you would stop talking so tough, stop acting so bellicose like this MP, and we're at war with Russia.
It's stupid and it's foolish.
And when we talked about it before the show, you said, this kind of reminds me of World War I, this kind of lot of talking.
And so far, our side's assuming that the Russians aren't going to really react in a serious manner.
Because, you know, these pipelines being blown up, and there's, I think, pretty good evidence now that Ukraine didn't blow up the line and the United States knew something about it.
But whose pipeline was it?
Who had the money in there?
Who was offering some peace?
It's the Russians.
But there's been a couple episodes like that.
And that's probably the limitation.
One of these days, I think their attitudes are going to change.
Maybe the Brit will give them a false flag or something, which would be terrible.
Well, the thing is, the situation in the UK, we remark upon it primarily because they are among the most bellicose.
They and Victoria Newland and the others.
But the fact is, they're not unique in the fact that they are talking tough without anything to back it up.
And if you can skip ahead to that first one about Germany, this is just a random search this morning that I found out.
Now, this is from an article that came out recently.
Germany is running out of explosive artillery shells, having provided it in bulk to Kiev.
So this is from June 20th of 2023.
They gave all their artillery shells to Kiev, and they don't have any left.
So they're not looking in good shape.
And this next one, again, this is Germany again.
This is from The Economist.
I don't have the exact date, but it's important.
This is the chief of the German army, Alphonse Mayes.
He said, the Bundeswehr, the army that I'm allowed to lead, is more or less depleted.
He says, we saw it all coming and we're not able to get through with our arguments and draw implemented conclusions, et cetera, et cetera.
It says, almost a year after the general's much-noted post, Germany's armed forces are more depleted than ever, owing to the kit they are sending to Ukraine.
And this is the operative quote here from the Economist article.
Their stockpile of ammunition would last only a few days rather than the 30 recommended by NATO.
Radio equipment used by troops is 40 years old and analog and hence easy to intercept.
Of its 350 Puma infantry fighting vehicles, just 150 are operational.
So they are also in very bad shape, but they're not alone.
If you go to the next one, this is from Newsweek, Dr. Paul, just this week, I think.
U.S. retirees called in to make Stinger missiles in boost for Ukraine.
So I think it's Raytheon is having to call back in.
These poor old folks, they're down in Florida.
They're sipping their nice fruity drinks.
No, you've got to go back to work.
You've got to make some missiles.
You know, if I had to pick one group of people who probably are the most responsible for this episode over there, which is going so badly, would be NATO.
Without the existence of NATO, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
There may be a lot more trade going on between Germany and Russia.
Who knows what would happen?
But it can't be more chaotic than it is now.
And this is something that nobody wants to realize.
And they refuse to talk it over.
That's why the voice from RFK is at least Worthwhile listening to because he doesn't think we have to do this.
And all the way back to Taft, you know, after the war, he didn't even think it was a good idea.
But they think this is so necessary, it's an illusion as far as I'm concerned of what they're doing.
But it may be what we hint all the time.
Maybe it is about military dollars.
And that to me is the most criminal thing.
Being dumb, you know, you can excuse a couple dumb people for starting wars, but the ones who do it on purpose because they know we're going to build more bombs.
Right now, somebody's sitting back there and say, let's start a business.
Let's build more bombs.
But the limitation will be the bankruptcy.
And therefore, I hope our country wises up and decides that our borders are more important than the borders of our empire.
But you know, there's such a heavy shroud of propaganda that sort of settled over the American people.
And indeed, in NATO as well.
I was on a radio show earlier today discussing the release on Friday before a holiday weekend of the State Department's assessment of what they did wrong in the Afghanistan evacuation.
And it was just very typical because one of the main things, essentially, if you boil it down, is we kind of basically believed our own propaganda that the Afghan government would stay in power, no chance that the Taliban would take over, it would take months and we'd be able to get out.
So they believed all the lies.
And one of the things that I pointed out in this is that they talk about lessons learned.
They haven't learned no lessons at all because they're doing the same thing here.
And it's not us saying that Russia is great.
It's saying that if you're facing such a formidable force and you really don't have any tanks, you might want to just look for a different solution, back down a little.
And here's a funny example I was just going to put up, if you don't mind, Dr. Paul.
This is a small example.
Put that next one up.
This is a small example from Moon of Alabama.
This is a fraction of all the articles talking about Russia running out of missiles, Russia running out of missiles.
And it's all from the mainstream media, Daily Mail, Mirror Express, Financial Times, over and over.
You can see dozens and dozens.
Well, CSIS, which is really the military-industrial complex top think tank in D.C., they came out with a report this week finally admitting the truth beyond all this propaganda.
If we can put this up, CSIS report, Russia isn't going to run out of missiles after telling us for months that they were running out.
So this, I just think, is the danger, regardless of your position on the war, the huge danger of believing this propaganda that's coming out.
Yeah.
You know, the failure of evacuating Afghanistan is so well ingrained in the political system.
We hear a lot about it.
And certainly the Republicans are using it, and justly so, because there were others when Trump was in office that had suggested other ways of leaving Afghanistan.
But when I think about it back about the personal experience and reading what was going on and looking at the history of us leaving Vietnam, what I lament is, why didn't we learn anything from Vietnam?
Matter of fact, it gave an incentive that when George Bush got in office, he says, we're going to erase that negative feeling that we had to leave there.
Well, it looks like Afghanistan didn't erase the dumb puzzle policies that they have.
So there's another scheme.
Warning About Censorship00:06:15
It's called non-interventionism.
A little bit of common sense.
Follow the Constitution.
We'd have a much better world.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, our next story is not necessarily a good news story, but it's brought to us by a good friend.
So it makes us feel a little less bad.
But it says everything you need to know about the U.S. mainstream media.
If we can put that next one on.
Now, this is Jonathan Turley.
He wrote about this this morning on his website.
And he points out that a CNN host is very upset about the ruling that we discussed yesterday, which is that the government is bound by the First Amendment, right?
They can't go to Twitter and say, hey, you need to silence this guy.
And it was a very important court case.
Normal people who really do love America, like us, are happy and thrilled because we love the Constitution and we love the Bill of Rights.
Well, CNN is a whole different kettle of fish.
They think it's a terrible idea.
They say that we should yield to government censorship demands.
How's that?
Well, I think of this in context of what was going on with COVID.
And they really were able to overtake and take over the whole propaganda machine.
But the point that should have been made, which they still haven't made it, I think Jonathan would be delighted to get people to understand this, that when somebody lies and that becomes policy, they say it's for the greater good, you know, it's to protect us.
The whole thing is, is when they lie like they had on COVID, it's universal.
It's hard to reverse.
And they have the sentiment.
And so it's been so gradual.
And this was a great thing that happened on the court ruling and try to break that type of system up where the corporations are bosom buddies with the social media.
But that's obviously still alive and well.
And the more laws, I don't think the laws will settle that because I think they'll just hide it more and do this thing.
But this to me is a shame because they don't realize that when there's a mistake made by any government on anything they do, it affects everybody.
Because they always use this argument, well, you libertarians, you want to deal with your problems and try to have agreements and have voluntarism, all that.
He says, but there's a lot of imperfect people out there.
A lot of those contracts are going to be made.
But yes, but it involves either you alone or a couple people.
But when we give this authority or ignore it and the authoritarians take it, then when the mistakes are made, you end up with Vietnam, you end up with Middle East wars, you end up with Ukraine and Syria, I understand.
That's still going on too.
But we still have some oil over there.
We have to take care of it.
Well, the guy is a CNN chief White House correspondent.
His name is Phil Mattingly, who Jonathan Turley points out.
And he said on TV that, quote, it makes sense for tech companies to go along with government censorship demands.
And this is Turley writing, Mattingly admitted that social media platforms, quote, more often than not, gave in to censorship demands by the Biden administration.
However, he insisted it makes sense and it's probably what we should do on public health grounds, is what he said.
And if we can go to that next clip on what he said, and you've just made this point, but I'll make it again.
In fact, actually go to the next one, I think it is.
Yeah, go to the next one if you will.
Sorry.
And this is the point you just made that is so important.
He said, what is striking is not just the blind acceptance that the government should be protecting us from harmless thoughts, but it's also, and I highlighted this, the failure to recognize that the government was wrong on many of these points while experts were being banned and blacklisted.
Now that's Jonathan Turley writing.
And that's, as you just said, that's absolutely the case.
And Turley goes through and talks about in masks, in every other aspects of the COVID thing, that the government was censoring people.
The real experts were banned, and it turns out the government was wrong on the whole thing.
You know, they look at it more narrowly in order to motivate people.
So we need to do this for COVID.
We need better treatment as too much false information goes out.
Same way with Ukraine.
They're thinking about Ukraine.
They're not seeing the bigger picture.
And of course, what we're dealing with here is the advancement of the corporatist goal of moving more boldly toward fascism.
And most of the time they name it something else, Antifa.
Oh, they're against the fascists, aren't they?
And here there are fascist people doing the same thing, and they just, you know, put the blame on somebody else.
But I think this kind of stuff, and they're, you know, maybe the ruling is going to help a lot, and we can get people rallied and move away from it because I think there are a lot more people now disgusted with it all.
But they're not going to give up the corporatist movement completely.
And besides, it goes on all the time, probably under every system.
Usually it doesn't break out into the news.
That's why we have a better chance of more people finding this not going this direction because more people know it now, even though it's been there the whole time.
I mean, the time I was in Congress, there was also the big wheeling and dealing in the lobbyists patrolling the hallway.
And all of a sudden, if you were looking for allies who might vote consistently, I used to look for an opportunity.
There was one time on the vote, I always laughed about this one.
There were four people.
I was one of them.
And it was against some military funding.
But there was one name out there.
Warning Signs Linger00:02:50
And this guy, he couldn't be for this.
He couldn't be for this.
So the next day, I bumped into him on the house floor.
I said, hey, I'm going to tell you something.
I'm interested in your position because you voted yesterday with four of us.
He says, I did.
He raced out and got you in a man's consent to erase it.
That's how deeply they thought about it.
How many donors did he lose for doing that?
Well, let's move on to kind of the third one for today.
And this is more of a warning.
And I think that you mentioned that you and Chris might take this up in a little more detail.
But this is just kind of a heads up.
If we can put this next one on, and this is from Steve Watson on Summit News.
The heads up, especially when we talk about COVID.
Report: UN Pact for the Future seeks permanent emergency powers for, quote, complex global shocks.
Now, we know what the UN and these international bodies did during COVID.
They made life miserable for the rest of the world.
And it looks like they're going to have a summit in September, Summit of the Future, where they're going to adopt a Pact for the Future.
It doesn't sound like a good future for the rest of us, though.
And here's a hint at what's coming.
A global body to lead a, quote, common agenda for all nations during any, any complex global shocks.
And there's a couple coming, such as new pandemic.
Oh, Gloria.
I think there's been some sneaking talk about the next pandemic.
Oh, guess what?
We have another virus.
They'll never catch us on this one.
But we won't allow them to get vaccinated.
Oh, no, no.
Everybody should get vaccinated in the future because we know it's coming.
So we'll keep an eye on that.
I'm sure you and Chris are probably going to look at some of that.
Yeah, we'll talk about it some more.
But this whole thing about globalism is sort of a sickening way to handle things.
It undermines, you know, it undermines national sovereignty in a true negative way.
But it also undermines personal liberty.
So if we have a country such as ours had been, more so, where personal liberty, a lot of people said nice things on the 4th of July about personal liberty.
But everybody knows that there's a dissent between two bodies now in this country fighting over the whole issue of even understanding.
Just the point that we talked about, major newspapers and companies getting together and saying, why are people upset about the government monitoring?
Understanding Natural Law00:03:38
How else are we going to get the truth out to the people?
That kind of nonsense.
So the bigger the body of individuals running us, the worse it is.
And I used to think I went to a government school.
But the government school was one little community.
But we had all the teachers and there was a school board and there were 20 of us in a class.
And I went eight years through that school.
But then when they started putting into groups together, I remember my dad saying, boy, that's getting pretty big.
And then it became statewide.
And then it became federal.
And now it's United Nations.
And every time, I think you had to take away from the quality of education and from personal choices and personal liberty.
And I think the evidence would show that.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, I'm going to close out if we're ready.
And I'm going to do something we haven't done in a while, which is thank our viewers.
We appreciate our live viewers.
You help us get the show out.
You can help us more if you hit like, please, and if you comment, keep the engagement high.
It'll help us get the show out and the word out to more people.
Tell your friends about it.
Tell your enemies about it.
Repost the show on your social media.
We really appreciate it.
We want to grow the show as much as we can.
And I will remind you when we look at our next clip, you've got to get your tickets for our September 2nd conference in Washington, D.C.
Now, we're not exactly in D.C., so don't get worried.
We're out by the Dulles Airport.
And the reason we do conferences out by the Dulles Airport is that, yes, technically we're in the D.C. area.
However, you can simply get to the airport, take a shuttle, get to the hotel, watch the conference, get back in and take off if you want.
Or you can go sightseeing and spend a couple extra days.
It's Labor Day weekend, so we just want to provide the most opportunities for you.
But we do want to spend that Saturday with you, Saturday, September 2nd.
I'll put a link in here where you can get your tickets for the conference.
We look forward to seeing you there.
Dr. Paul?
Very good.
I'm going to close with emphasizing once again what our goals ought to be.
And as far as I'm concerned, politically and personally, it should be to seek truth.
Recognizing that truth, pure truth, is unachievable.
This always has to be the goal for truth, believing that there is something like natural law that will give you a pretty strong hit of what is right and what is wrong.
But there is a growing number of groups that have gained control of our government and our society that say you're wasting your time because truth is unknowable and you can't reach it.
So governments have to devise a way of expressing and telling people what the truth is.
And they want to substitute that for all religious beliefs and an understanding of natural law.
So the battle is out there between the truth seekers and the people who say it's impossible to know truth.
That's one of the reasons I like our conferences because we have a broad spectrum of individuals that know and understand what truth is all about and what the purpose is.
And history sort of, I believe, supports what I'm just saying because it has been known for a long time the difference between right and wrong and truth and lying.
But there are some people that even like the report we had today, a business group saying, What's wrong with lying?
You know, why shouldn't people know this?
That's why we need the government to do this.
Well, our organization doesn't buy that because I think it's important.
Almost Finding Truth00:01:18
But we also recognize the fact that man is not perfect, but there's been a big variation of what man can do.
And when there's a greater understanding of a natural law and a seeking of truth, I think you can end up with a much better country.
We still have, I think, a very, very good country.
We've heard a lot of good talking about what we're all about, but I think it was more talk than reality because I think we have wandered from an experiment that was very wonderful, and that was what came out of our constitutional fight back a long time ago.
But this will continue to go on, and half the time, almost, we find things that show that we are in that direction.
A lot of young people, a lot of people believe what I'm talking about, and others say, no, I'm with the nihilists.
I can make a better living doing that.
You can't find truth, but these people will get me a good job.
That's the way people get sucked into the Soviet system and all the authoritarian system.
But eventually, the government runs out of morality and they run out of financial benefits.
And that's when the country has to do something about the situation.