Meat-Grinder: Biden KNEW Ukraine Couldn't Win But Forced The 'Counter-Offensive' Anyway
Sometimes the most shocking mainstream media articles are the ones that are most obvious. Over the weekend the Wall Street Journal revealed that the Biden Administration knew Ukraine had little chance against Russia but pushed them to launch a counter-offensive anyway. Thousands continue to die in a war even Washington believes is hopeless. Also today: Nobel Prize-winning physicist "cancelled" for having the "wrong" opinion on climate.
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Pretty and rare to go.
All right.
So let's see what we can start off with today.
A few good things.
The world is probably not a lot worse off than it was yesterday, but it didn't get a lot better either.
See, and that takes a lot of time, and we like to participate in making a suggestion on what we as individuals can do and what the writers can do and what information can do, because that makes all the difference in the world.
But today, we want to talk about a subject we've been talking about for a long time.
Matter of fact, we probably started talking about it in 2014 when this crazy war started in Ukraine.
It wasn't so crazy from NATO's position.
They claimed Russians are coming.
The Russians are coming.
So they had to have a coup and get rid of their leaders.
It's not tough enough.
So they had a coup, and then that caused the Russians to react.
And it's been going on ever since, hit for tat.
And right now, you know, it was announced just a month ago or so that the Ukrainians under pressure from us, we had to go in there and have a counter-offensive against the success of the Russians.
So they were all set to do this, but then it wasn't doing so well, and then it's back and forth.
But our government keeps pushing them anyway, even though we argued at the time that it was foolish to start it.
It was ridiculous.
And it turns out that they knew about how bad it was.
Now, the Wall Street Journal had an article out and said, you know, the officials knew that it was a no-win situation and just kept, it's bad, but give us more money.
So they keep doing that.
Even today, they have, even though now the article came out with information that, you know, a good person in the military could understand and probably predict this from early on.
And that is what is happening.
It was totally unsuccessful.
And now they're admitting, we knew it all along.
Of course, they're not saying it that way, but that's what the Wall Street Journal, who was very, very hawkish, admitted.
They weren't ready for this.
What in thunder are we doing this for?
Yeah, and the people who warned that this would be the outcome were completely ignored.
I mean, we've talked about people like Colonel McGregor and Larry Johnson and others, Scott Ritter, they've all spoken at our conferences.
They were saying this all along and they were just dismissed as, oh, just pro-Russian defeatists.
But now we have the Wall Street Journal starting to spill the beans a little bit.
Put on that first clip if you can.
This is the article, and everyone's talking about this article because it's rare when the mainstream media tells some truth, and when it does, it's shocking.
The article is titled, Ukraine's Lack of Weaponry and Training Risks and Training Risks Stalemate in Fight with Russia.
And go to the next one.
Here is the operative phrase.
When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kiev didn't have all the training or weapons from shells to warplanes that it needed to dislodge Russian forces.
But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day.
It's an astonishing sentence, Dr. Paul, because they knew they didn't have what it takes to do what they said they were going to do, which is take back parts of Ukraine that Russia had occupied.
They knew they couldn't do it, so their strategy was simply to hope that they did it.
I mean, I've never seen such cynicism on display before.
That is a real stretch to justify what they were doing and risk the lives of many people and lives were lost.
And this is, you know, it's propaganda.
And whether it was the Mideast wars that went on, how propaganda was used to pump it up and get the people, you know, annoyed to the point where if you didn't support the wars, you were unpatriotic and you're doing the same thing.
They have to pump the people up, but the people who really want war, we do know that people who make money off wars, you know, maybe a little war with continued wasting away of weapons, that might not be the worst thing in the world.
They don't have to feel guilty.
We just steal it from the American people through taxation.
But we won't have to go and have Americans killed.
And eventually that policy runs out of steam.
And I think it is starting to run out of steam.
But the American people have a lot of other things to think about.
And I think that's one thing that's happening today in the campaign is that the American people don't know a whole lot about it.
They're disgusted with it.
They're hearing, though, that it costs a lot of money.
And guess what?
They're starting to hear about problems we have here at home.
Maybe some of that money should be spent at home.
Maybe we should be worrying about our borders, that sort of thing.
So it's not very much enthusiasm.
Even though the beginning of the war, I wouldn't call that enthusiasm on our part because somebody else was going to do the fighting.
So there was not that much enthusiasm, but there was an intense interest, and they did a lot of maneuvering between not only the people who were going to make money, but also those people in government who philosophically think, well, this is necessary to save our national security and all that nonsense that they pump up to get the American people to support the efforts.
But this hope, my suspicion is, is that the American people are losing their enthusiasm for this war, and they never had a whole lot.
And that ultimately will be what changes the policy, is when the people just say, enough is enough.
Who knows?
By the end of next year, maybe the people will vote for people.
They'll say, I'm bringing the troops home.
I'm bringing the troops home.
And we're going to save this money, and we're going to concentrate on our problems here at home.
Yeah.
Well, I think we have to assume that the media is basically an arm of government.
So when I read this, when I read this article a couple of times, it really struck me as kind of what they call a limited hangout because they give you some information, a little bit of partial truth, so that you come to a conclusion.
So the reason that struck me this way is that it's like, oh, yeah, well, of course, we knew all along that they weren't going to be able to do this.
After five weeks of grueling battles, they estimate over 25,000 men have died in these five weeks in this counteroffensive.
And when it hasn't gone anywhere, they haven't even reached the first fortified lines in southern Ukraine, first of at least three or four, depending on what part of that area there are.
They haven't even reached the first lines and they've been slaughtered.
And so what do they do?
Someone from the administration leaks to the Wall Street Journal, oh, well, we knew all along that they weren't going to do it anyway.
We just kind of hoped that they would.
So it's really the height of cynicism.
But at the same time, you could also talk about how this is what happens when you believe your own propaganda.
I mean, it's a circular reasoning when people like McGregor and Ritter and those are saying, look, based on our experience, this is what's going to happen.
This is not what you're saying.
They just refuse to listen, like they did with COVID and other things and something we're going to talk about later today.
They just refuse to listen and refuse to consider any outside voices that would interfere with the narrative that they had constructed.
It's like the old thing that was from the Bush administration.
We create our own reality.
And that's what they do.
And so unfortunately, for Ukrainian men who are now fewer and further between, thousands and thousands have died because Washington hoped that they would do better.
Yes, you know, but they continue with some of their ordinary things that they do with sustainable war.
It keep precipitating.
And what I'm thinking about right here is the bombing of the bridge from Crimea to Russia.
Now, that's provocation, and that's explicit.
And they know darn well, you know, if they finally admit that they knew they didn't have a chance against Russia anyway, they know darn well that this is going to aggravate the Russians.
And there was no resistance by the United States, but it was our weaponry.
It was NATO.
They admit it.
And I think Ukraine sort of bragged about it.
And of course there was retaliation.
What did they do?
Russia says, well, now that you're just accelerating, you can just hold your own wheat.
The next step goes up.
They boycott the wheat.
And, of course, this has helped again.
Maybe this is what their goal was.
A lot of people say, oh, the Russians are starving the people.
It's all Russia's fault.
Just like they said Russia was the only one at fault with the war at the beginning.
Yeah.
Well, one of the things that this war is showing, and I remember Colonel McGregor said it from the beginning, it's basically showing that NATO's weapons aren't any good.
I mean, we've seen the leopards frying in the fields.
We've seen the Bradleys getting blown up by these $500 drones.
Their weapons aren't any good, and their training and tactics aren't very good either.
And so it really has exposed NATO as a useless organization.
But the article talks about sort of blaming the Ukrainians for not doing better and blaming them for not using combined armed tactics and maneuver warfare, which they started out in this counteroffensive.
I'm not a military expert by any stretch of the imagination, but they started the counteroffensive using what they were trained to do, which is this combined armed arms tactics and maneuver warfare.
But you can't do that if you don't have air superiority.
I mean, it's like having a stool with two legs.
You know, the third leg breaks off.
And that's what's happened.
And in fact, we knew that all along.
Let's put on the next clip.
This is from that article.
It says, America, this is a quote from John Nagel, who's a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel.
He said, quote, America would never attempt to defeat a prepared defense without air superiority.
But the Ukrainians don't have air superiority.
It's impossible to overstate how important air superiority is for fighting a ground fight at a reasonable cost in casualties.
And any person who's gone through the military training knows this for a fact.
And if you look back at all of the wars that we fought recently, all by the way against very, very inferior forces, but you look at Libya, Yugoslavia, Baghdad, Afghanistan, the very first thing was to establish air superiority.
And this is one thing that Ukrainian troops do not have, which is why they're being slaughtered.
You know, there's always lines being drawn.
We get involved in a war, but it doesn't want to be our war.
It doesn't have to be our troop, but we will use our NATO.
We will use our weapons and this sort of thing.
But there's always a line drawn.
Well, no, we're not going to send in troop.
send in the CIA and you know military experts for advice.
They do that.
But that's okay because it's not body bags like it was in Vietnam.
So they draw these lines.
And one line is, if this were serious war, let's say that everything they said about Russia taking over Europe, if we don't do something, and it had to be defeated, well, what would they do with the Air Force?
Would they draw a line and say, oh, yeah, we'll give, we'll pretend we're going to give them to Ukraine.
Oh, it takes a lot of training, but it stimulates that effort.
And they draw these lines, and it has to be in many ways deliberate because it's not an all-out war, fortunately, but it's an all-out effort to undermine a system of governments around the world and threaten a real war breaking out.
I mean, a real war, a big war.
I'm talking about, you know, all of Europe and all of Asia getting involved in this.
I think the money will run out before then.
I don't think that's going to happen here in the near future.
But I think the strategy of limited war and having lines drawn, and as long as we don't have our pilots flying those airplanes, that'll be okay because maybe the Russians would shoot some of them down.
Then that could be embarrassing.
So the lines are artificially drawn for a war that is artificial.
Yes, exactly.
And, you know, now they're talking about F-16s.
We can put on that next clip, please.
I think the next one.
Let's go ahead and put it up and see what we have here.
Yeah, here's just another example.
The DOD analysts knew early this year that Ukraine's frontline troops would struggle against Russian air attacks.
They knew that, but still they put out the propaganda that Ukraine was winning.
And go to the next one.
Now, this is about the next thing coming, because we've talked about this before so many times, Dr. Paul, which is if we only send javelins, if we only send High Mars, if we only send this, then that's going to turn the tide.
That's going to be the wonder weapon.
Well, nothing has worked.
And so now that's why they're talking about F-16s.
And if you look at this, if Ukraine receives the planes, i.e. the F-16s, their impact on fighting would depend on many factors, including the numbers applied, the sophistication of the onboard equipment, and the weapon systems provided to arm them.
And I underline this part.
Incorporating advanced jet fighters into battle plans is also extremely complicated, requiring another level of synchronization in Ukrainian operations.
And none other than Mark Melio, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he is now, instead of saying this is going to be the next wonder weapon, he's actually pouring cold water on the idea.
He says, quote, there's no silver bullet in war.
The outcomes of battles and wars are the function of many variables.
He's warning them that sending a couple F-16s is not going to change the nature of the battle.
And anyone who knows about these know where they're going to take off from.
You can't just take them off from an empty field.
There's a lot of technical things about the nature of the intake of the F-16s are very susceptible to sabotage.
So the idea that we're just going to throw these in and it's going to change the nature of the warfare is absurd.
Fear Mongering and Authoritarians00:08:15
The cynicism is insane, but also it's starting to take on a political component because this war is becoming less popular.
And I think Biden's people understand that.
You'd think an announcement like that would be on the front pages of every newspaper, war is over, the war is over.
Our heart hit and the money and our people aren't willing to support it.
Our national security is not threatened.
The war should end.
And the border disputes should be ironed up by the people whose borders are being abused.
But not our CIA and our military and our money and our taxpayers because they purposely fight no-wind wars.
They want delayed wars.
Look how long they lasted in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
It's just a tragedy what they have done.
You know, I guess World War II was a moralistic declared war.
People knew where they could identify the enemy and they identified the goal and it didn't last long, which was pretty amazing.
But that's not the case now.
War is to go on and it's never to be a clear declaration.
From the first week I was in Congress, I was on a radio program talking about this issue and the Democrat that I was pseudo-debating.
He says, it's never going to be used again.
And I've had that thrown out to me many times.
So it's been canceled.
This whole idea that the Congress, by vote and representing the people, have something to do about when we start these wars.
And that, I still think that's one of the problems that we have.
Yeah.
Well, I'd hate to be Zielinski because all he needs to do is look through a little bit of history and look what happens to the people who were the favorites, Noriega, Gaddafi, Saddam, Milosevic.
It's not a good position, and they're going to start looking for someone to blame.
And I would not, you're going to have to go to one of his hundreds of homes that he owns.
Well, let's move on because this is an interesting one.
This is something we've talked about for a long time, which is silencing scientists whose views are not accepted by the mainstream.
And this is from the Daily Skeptic.
Cancellation start for John Clauser after Nobel physics laureate speaks out about the corruption of climate science.
An extremely distinguished physicist wins a Nobel Prize, starts talking about things like climate change in a way that the elites don't want, and he's canceled.
Right.
And the one motivation that they have to have is fear, scare the people.
You know, whether it's a virus or somebody's going to invade us or whatever it is.
They have to scare and build up the fear.
And they generally get away with this until somebody wakes up.
But this mess that we have now, these people that are citing all these statistics, the hottest day in the world history.
And, you know, people have already dissected that, and that's what this article is about.
And this is why John Clouser, you know, has been revealing what he really believes.
And isn't it amazing?
When they were looking at him as a scientist, they give him the Nobel Prize.
But they turn on him, oh, he said something we don't agree with.
He told the truth.
Doesn't he know what his roles and these rules are?
So that to me is such a tragedy.
And I don't have any fear.
I don't lie awake at night thinking, will the truth ever be known?
No, the truth will be known.
But tragically, there's going to be a lot of suffering in the main time.
And this whole thing about, just think, you know, the whole effort of lockdown on COVID probably did a lot more harm than good.
But you would have ended up with more scientific evidence of what we should do and who should get shots and this sort of thing if it had been sorted out medically and scientifically rather than politically.
And that's where the real problem is.
And it also shows us, unfortunately, that not much has changed.
You know, the whole COVID narrative has fallen apart.
Everyone knows it's a joke, but they still continue.
You know, this is basically, I am the science.
And if you don't agree with me, then you are not the science.
And here's a little bit from that article, if we can put on that next clip.
because so earlier he slammed the climate emergency narrative as, quote, dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world's economy and the well-being of billions of people.
Now this guy does this for a living.
As you point out, Dr. Paul, he won a Nobel Prize.
One would assume he understands what he's talking about better than the rest of us.
However, his decision based on his scientific research that the climate models, the temperature models, are inaccurate and they're based on inaccurate assumptions, that's enough to get him canceled.
And why don't we go ahead to, I just want to go to the one, go ahead, one more, yeah.
So this is one more, if we can go.
So this is the Australian climate journalist Joe Nova was talking about Klauser's recent comments.
And she said, the thing about skeptical Nobel Prize winners is that they make the name-calling climate denier programs look as stupid as they can get.
And she goes on to say, the same team that tells us we must listen to the experts won't listen to any experts they don't like.
They rave about UN experts that hide the decline, but run a mile to avoid the giants of science.
They'll ask a high school dropout about climate change on primetime TV before they interview Nobel Prize winners.
It's a lie by a mission.
It's active deception.
And the whole climate movement is built on it.
And this is that journalist from Australia talking about Dr. Klauser.
Very interesting and revealing.
Right.
You know, whether it's COVID or what we do with these wars that go on, there's a certain group of people that have existed and they're getting a lot of attention right now.
And that is the true fascists.
And they talk about cultural fascism.
They're talking about no need for liberty, no need for truth, this sort of thing.
That's ongoing.
And I keep thinking, you know, and the word fascist is being thrown back and forth all the time.
The more fascists you are, sometimes the more they use the term.
So I thought, well, maybe the strategy ought to be something like this.
Instead of just saying, these guys are a bunch of fascists, so why will I listen to them?
And I've decided, maybe what we ought to do is not call them fascists.
We'll change it and try to put the label on them, which they are.
And the one word that I've used a lot over the year when the people are in disagreement with liberty, they're authoritarians.
They want to tell you how to live, what to buy, what to eat, and how to live, and when you should die in wars, and that sort of thing.
And authoritarians also want to regulate your freedom of expression.
And that's what's going on here.
They're doing this.
They're fascists.
But then they say, oh, you're calling him Hitler.
Some people think that that leads to fascism.
But he's an authoritarian.
People are authoritarians when they do this.
This aggressiveness in the climate or in treatment of viruses and that type of thing.
But what they're warring against is freedom of expression.
Authoritarians like to do like that.
And right now they consider it very important.
And it is very important.
And that's why the people that express themselves deserve the attention if they're telling the truth because that makes all the difference in the world.
That's why the people, there's a lot of people running for president.
If you had up everybody on the Republican and Democratic side, and the people, if they were allowed to speak and express themselves, the people who were most believable would do the best.
But somehow or another, they sometimes can distort, sort of like Robert F. Kennedy.
A Great Singer's Legacy00:02:27
I mean, he is a really, if you read the papers now, he is a really bad guy.
And Probably his greatest heir politically, he was too blunt with the truth, you know, that sort of thing.
Yeah, well, let's move on because I think we've dealt with this one.
And someone that I think we both admire quite a bit for his talents and for his humanity passed away over the weekend, and that's Tony Bennett, a great, great singer and great person.
Now, you had a quote you wanted to read that our friend Lou Rockwell put up, and I think it's just absolutely terrific.
So, we can go ahead and put it on the screen for people who are watching.
And this is from Lou Rockwell's blog, and I think you wanted to read that.
Right, right.
It was so impressive.
And it was sent to him by Mike Tennant.
And it caught my attention because I knew Tony Bennett was a great singer.
And singers, I'm not very sophisticated in describing things, but when I hear a song, which are usually several decades old, you know, I say, he's a feel-good singer.
You know, you hear it, you say, yeah, it makes you feel good.
And that's what music is supposed to do.
You know, feel good or be impressed with how great they are.
So, this is a statement.
Tony Bennett wasn't just a great singer.
After experiencing combat in World War II, he became ardently anti-war.
In his memoir, he wrote, The main thing I got out of my military experience was the realization that I am completely opposed to war.
Every war is insane, no matter where it is or what it's all about.
Fighting is the lowest form of human behavior.
It's amazing to me that with all the great teachers of literature and art and all the contributions that have been made on this very precious planet, we still haven't evolved a more humane approach to the way we work out our conflicts.
Pretty good quote there.
Yeah, that was great.
That was great.
Well, I'm going to close by reminding everyone that it's Monday and put on that last clip: it's time to get your tickets to join us in September at Which Way America, the Ron Paul Institute's 7th Annual Washington, D.C. conference.
Join Us in September00:01:50
It'll be held on September the 2nd.
We still have tickets for sale, and these last few days of July, we still have the early bird special.
So, save some money, get your tickets, and join us in September.
Over to you, Dr. Paul.
Very good.
Now, I'm looking forward to the conference, and I hope to see most of you coming to the conference.
And it's been very important for us to continue our momentum in energizing people who share our interests and share our belief that war and peace is achievable, and not magically and not perfectly.
But the contest is between those people who live and die having war needlessly, pretending that they're saving the universe, and that they do it in all sorts of manner.
So, it's a distortion of the truth.
So, I am always most pleased that when people will come and comment about our program or what we have been saying, is at least we can hear a straight story and hear the truth of things on what is going on.
So, we do our very best on that.
I don't think there's any other way to change things other than through persuasion.
And this whole idea that you can control expression by authoritarianism is an evil thought, but it's been going on for a long time.
Truth is powerful, and we do it's amazing to me always that our message doesn't do a lot better.
How can people refuse it?
You know, telling the truth creates the greatest amount of prosperity and the greatest amount of peace possible.
So there's no reason in the world to try to weasel their way, people weasel their way out of saying, oh no, but that's extreme.
Truth is unachievable.
You've got to admit, there's a lot of evil out there, and we better go get them before they get us.
No, there's a better way of looking at these things.