All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 11, 2024 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
28:45
NYT 'Bombshell' - CIA Massively Engaged On-Ground In Ukraine

In another case of who is leaking and why, the New York Times has revealed that the CIA is heavily involved in training and advising Ukraine in its war with Russia. As former CIA official Larry Johnson writes, this is a very selective leak from the US government. So we need to read between the lines to answer why. Also today...one day before NATO's Madrid summit the talk is all about escalation.

|

Time Text
Government Secrets Revealed 00:15:10
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Good to see you Daniel.
Happy Monday Dr. Paul.
Good to see you here today and we're going to talk about an explosive report.
Yes.
You know, my first reaction is, what's so explosive about this?
This is what we suspected.
We just didn't have it down.
But it now comes out that a lot of our suspicions, because it's so commonplace, and that's what empires do, is they occupy countries, they get involved in war, and we're talking about Ukraine.
You know, the U.S. position is, you know, we don't have troops on the ground.
We're not there.
We're neutral on this and all that other nonsense.
And yet now we have an authentic report, which even made the New York Times that they're recognizing this CIA is actually in Ukraine.
Can you believe this?
And all I can say is there's a lot of hypocrisy going on.
It's worse than hypocrisy.
It's flat-out lying and deceit.
And of course, we had a lot more troops in there.
And when the real serious fighting broke out, a lot of the troops were brought home.
But now they're admitting, it's been confirmed that special forces and the CIA there.
But Daniel, we've talked about this, and I always make the assumption, and maybe it's an overstatement, that we have an empire to defend.
We have 120 countries that we have to deal with.
We have to deal with sanctions and bonuses and selling weapons and all these things.
So we probably, you know, years and years ago, I had a relative that worked in an embassy.
And this was before we knew about the conspiracy of the CIA.
Probably might have even been before 1963.
But he said that the businessman, he ran at embassies, he ran into more CIA agents and business people at the same time in the embassies.
So this whole idea, this facade is one thing.
But this is a good report, though.
You know, it confirms our strong suspicion that we do occupy, but it also confirms the fact that our worries are justified because, you know, foreign countries don't put up with this forever.
And besides, our money doesn't last forever.
And it costs money.
And it costs money in a moral sense.
It costs money with dollars and deficits that we deal with.
It costs money in the value of our dollar.
All these things right now are a deep concern for the marketplace.
So this is just another bit of evidence that they're revealing this information.
I think it's interesting that people have a couple ideas on exactly why are we getting this information right now.
Yeah, it really is like reading Pravda in the old days in the Soviet Union.
You read what the party reports, and then you have to interpret and read between the lines and figure out what they're really trying to say and why they're trying to tell you this.
And that's exactly what's happening with this report.
On the surface, it's an admission.
It's a scoop.
It's a bombshell that the CIA is involved in Ukraine.
As you say, wow, surprise me again, will you?
But they're directing how the Ukrainians are using the top-level intelligence that the U.S. intelligence community is feeding them and also an unspecified number of commandos acting on the ground there who knows what exactly what they are doing.
But the main important part, and this is where our friend Larry Johnson comes in, because he has been involved in this for a long time.
He did counterterrorism and counterintelligence with the CIA and the State Department.
And he points out something very important about this New York Times article.
And he says, and I'll quote him from his piece on Son of theAmericanRevolution.com.
He says, when you read some so-called bombshell report dishing out the dirt on some top secret U.S. operation in the New York Times or Washington Post, you need to understand that this was not the result of some intrepid, eager beaver reporter who took the initiative and came up with a nifty idea for a story.
Such stories are based on official sanctioned leaks, and they always have an ulterior motive.
This is not so much about informing an ignorant public about reality.
Rather, it is either propaganda or signaling a shift in U.S. policy.
So I think that is important to keep that in mind when you look for context in the New York Times reporting.
You know, government is out of control.
That's the big thing.
And it's well known at a period of time when I got very interested in politics and economics and the monetary system.
And it had to do with the significance and the tremendous influence a secret group of men, some people call it the deep state, have absolute control, monopoly control over a reserve currency of the world.
And because of the power of the United States, military and economic power, it lends itself to tremendous political power.
So that has been there.
But I started off and continue that we ought to audit the Fed.
And when people know what the Fed is really doing, the people are going to say, why do we have a Fed?
But what about the CIA?
The CIA really doesn't get audited.
I didn't have a chance to look at all their activities and where the money went.
That was all done in secrecy, and it continues to do it.
I'm not even sure that most people in Congress, I imagine it would be 12, 15 people probably are trustworthy for the deep state to know what's going on.
So they have a pretty good feel.
So, you know, it wasn't big news to us because we just understand how the system works, but it was not good big news to the people who share this information.
But, you know, there's never been an audit, a total audit of the Pentagon either.
Just think of the, especially in this century, the Mideastern wars, and it continues that way.
And it's done by, you know, shenanigans through the Fed, but it's also done by just the old-fashioned way of filling up a railroad car of cash and shipping it over someplace.
And all of a sudden, the people are able to maintain their power that way.
So it's the secrecy in government.
And I think there will always be secrecy in government, and that's the tough one.
I think it's going to be much easier to argue the case for shrinking the size of government, you know, because there was a time when our government was much smaller.
We didn't police, we weren't running an empire, and we had a dollar that was backed by gold, and we didn't have a welfare state, and it was a little bit easier keeping tabs on.
But that isn't it.
And so I see the problem for this time of runaway foreign policy as a result of, you know, just big government that's hard to manage, and the people are held in ignorance because the politicians either don't care or don't know, they don't have the energy to really look into it.
Look at all the stuff that went on with COVID, getting the information.
And then it turns around that it isn't so much that people don't ever look, but when people look for information, then they can get in trouble with the law.
You know, all of a sudden, you know, the Justice Department is on you.
So information to me, I think, is what's lacking here.
That's why these articles are good.
Yeah, it's very good and very important, but maybe not even for the intended reasons.
One of the great points that Larry Johnson makes are a couple of things.
First of all, according to this New York Times bombshell, the CIA is, quote, directing vast amounts of intelligence to the Ukrainian government and military.
So the idea that they are giving them vast amounts of intelligence, that also means, Johnson points out, that they know what the Ukrainian government is doing with that intelligence.
He demonstrates it very well in his article, that they know very well what Ukraine is doing.
And the interesting point that Johnson makes is this directly contradicts a recent New York Times report of just a couple of weeks ago claiming that the U.S. has no idea what's going on inside the Ukrainian government.
We have no idea how they're fighting this war, what they're doing.
This is completely undermined by this new narrative that they're establishing, excuse me, which is that we're giving them tons of intelligence, tons of directions.
Here's where this troop movement is.
Here's where you can take this out.
And he's pointing out that by passing this intelligence, you can see again how they use it.
And the point that is being made here in the article is that Ukraine is not able to use it.
For example, they could do nothing to save the 2,500 troops that were captured of the Azov battalion in Azov Stalin in the plant there.
So they're not able to use it.
And what he concludes is very important, I think, too, and this is in an article, he points out that the last couple of paragraphs of the New York Times article are the most important parts where they talk about the Ukrainian military's most acute training problem right now is that it's losing its most battle-hardened and well-trained forces, according to former U.S. officials.
So the point is we're giving them the intel.
The CIA is giving him the intel, and they realize now that they are not able to use it.
This New York Times piece says, having American trainers on the ground might not be worth the risks, other former officials said.
Would the enhancement of training be worth possible price if it's going to have to be paid, Mr. Wise said?
He's a government official.
The answer is probably not.
And so Johnson points out that this is signaling, and I'm paraphrasing, I think, what Johnson means here.
We're there, we're doing our best, it isn't helping.
It's time for a policy shift.
Yeah, it's tough figuring it all out, but there's one healthy thing going on because the American people right now realize that it's tough getting the truth no matter how hard they try.
And it's finding the people that they can trust.
And Caitlin, Caitlin Johnstone wrote something over this.
And I think, in a way, it's sort of funny, but it's so true and exactly what you were talking about.
She says the New York Times said, the CIA has no idea what's happening on the ground in Ukraine.
Well, that's a pretty good statement in the New York Times.
But 17 days later, the New York Times reports, Ukraine is full of CIAs.
It makes you report.
I thought that was pretty neat.
But the other problem is we've lost confidence in our government, and it's justifiable.
And the whole idea of having journalists That might do some real research, that's essentially gone too.
So we go to other people.
Thank goodness that there's still enough room on the internet for programs like ours that tries to get information out.
But also, other people, journalists that we rely on, they get the information out there.
But boy, their challenge just think of the restraints on the very important issue of natural immunity.
Oh, that was a dangerous subject to bring up.
Yet people were punished for that.
So it's the whole thing, the most important thing is that we maintain the ability to get our information out.
And it's becoming more difficult.
And I guess the one quote that I've used that I think is so neat is: ideas are sort of pervasive.
As bad as it is, and as difficult as it is, that the enemy and the establishment and the deep say they don't want anybody to know about it.
Ideas seem to filter out there and they do spread.
And that, of course, should be the goal of anybody who cares about the country that we live in, spreading these ideas.
And one of the things, again, in between the lines here, Dr. Paul, is in the article itself.
And if we can skip to that third clip here, we've got ahead of ourselves here.
But this is from the article.
And this is why they're not capable of acting on the intelligence that they're being given.
If you go back one, please.
Sorry, I messed up.
This is from the article.
Former Trump administration official says, quote, they, Ukraine, are losing 100 soldiers today.
That is almost like the height of the Vietnam War for us.
It's terrible, a former Trump administration official said, and they're losing a lot of experienced people.
So they're losing their most experienced people.
And the New York Times says 100 soldiers a day.
Why don't we take the president of Ukraine for his own word and use that next one?
Put that next one up, please, because Ukraine's own president is saying 60 to 100 soldiers are killed and 500 wounded daily.
I've seen the defense minister said 500 to 1,000.
So when you have, if 100 off the battlefield is like the height of Vietnam, you talk about them losing 500 troops from the battlefield, 100 killed, and the other 400, if you get your leg blown off, you're not dead, but you're not going to go out fighting the next day.
So you're seeing an absolute attrition of the forces in Ukraine.
They're not capable of using the intelligence that's being given.
And what is the answer for NATO in the West?
Well, more escalation, more troops, more weapons, more money to Ukraine.
And that's even our next topic here.
I think it's pretty amazing how arrogant the Ukrainians can be, Zelensky in particular.
I mean, he doesn't think it.
Oh, he doesn't say please.
I'll tell you that.
You better do this, or this war could last for a long time.
But we promise it's going to be over, and you've got to get the weapons here.
It's a total dependency, and it's more likely a money issue.
So you wanted to go on to talk a little bit about NATO?
No, NATO, which the summit is tomorrow, and we'll probably talk a little bit more about it tomorrow.
But here's a couple of tidbits and previews.
NATO Summit in Madrid 00:03:10
We can actually put that next clip up about the keep going, actually.
Keep going.
Sorry.
There we go.
NATO to increase the number of forces from 40,000 to more than 300,000.
These are the rapid reaction forces.
They only have 40,000 now.
But Stoltenberg, he must be on his knees thanking whoever he prays to because all of a sudden his organization has a purpose.
We need to have thousands and thousands of more troops in Europe.
You know, I read recently for popular uprisings to be successful, you don't need a lot of people.
We've used that argument a lot, that people get discouraged when they're trying to persuade others that you need 51% and that that's democracy and democracy will rule.
But no, it's a small number of people that count.
Leadership makes a big difference.
And a lot of times people talk about philosophic leadership, but 7 or 8% can persuade a lot of other people, which is fairly well known.
But I came across an article now that said that when it comes to really changing a system, that it's more successful if you don't use violence.
If you don't use a violent revolution, you have twice the chance of being successful than if you use violence.
So this is good news.
But I thought this was a great heading, Daniel.
NATO to massively increase high-rate.
Well, we said that, no, the demonstrations I wanted to talk about.
Thousands demonstrate in Madrid.
They're turning out ahead of the NATO.
This is ahead of the NATO.
Of course, the meeting's in Madrid.
So this, I wouldn't have suspected that this was going to happen.
But I think this is very good news.
And they should be encouraged.
And if they want to be more successful than failure, do it peacefully and demonstrate it.
And the article I read showed some of the examples in the world when peaceful means were used, nonviolent revolutions, and they can be very successful.
But the problem is sometimes when they're very non-violent and they're making success, the enemy that don't want it to work, they claim that there's violence.
There's an insurrection going on.
So you have to watch out on the reports coming from the governments.
And you're right, there are thousands of people demonstrating in advance of the Madrid summit.
One of the signs says neither Putin nor NATO.
And they want, this is from the Al Jazeera article about it.
Demonstrators called for U.S.-led NATO to be dissolved and for military bases maintained by the U.S. and Spain to be closed.
They said tanks, yes, but full of beer, right?
They want tankards of beer rather than this.
So there is some resistance among the population.
There's going to be a lot more when the winter gets a little bit colder in Germany and they don't have anything to keep warm with.
I think we have a picture of that protest, if we can put it up.
We're skipping around here today a lot.
We're going to upset our friends in the back.
G7 Sanctions Escalation 00:05:39
Here we are.
Thousands demonstrate in Madrid ahead of NATO summit.
But they're undeterred.
In fact, if we can backtrack one, this is from Zero Hedge.
And we're talking about escalation, Dr. Paul.
U.S. Ready's longer-range missile defense system for Ukraine has G7 hike sanctions.
So even as we see from the New York Times that there's a real problem and the U.S. administration is trying to signal somehow that this isn't working well, the answer is never to say, you know, this is not working.
Just like with Afghanistan, remember, for 20 years, they said, we're just around the corner.
We're almost there.
We've almost got this thing won.
Then we went home and about three minutes later, it fell.
So what they plan on doing is sending missiles now that can have a 100-mile range.
The high Mars they sent have a 40-mile range.
Now they're going to up it and more than double it.
If those missiles start going into Russia from Ukraine, there's going to be a major escalation.
In fact, there's a possibility of major escalations on many fronts here, including Kaliningrad, which we talked about the other day.
But here you have the power, I think, Dr. Paul, of the military industrial complex, where you see laid out in front of you a devastated nation destroyed by war now.
And instead of saying, you know what, we need to figure out a way out of this, the answer is we need more high-priced weapons sent in there.
You know, you can imagine Biden probably gave Putin a call on this.
And he promised, he says, we have no intention on using these things.
So we'll put on more sanctions or do something else.
It is sort of a joke, the whole thing, but it's such a dangerous joke.
So that to me is a real pity.
It is.
And I was going to mention something just in advance of the, this is the G7 summit.
And actually, I think you had something about the G7 that you were going to mention.
But here's Johnson and Macron.
Boris Johnson is probably, he makes George W. Bush at his worst look like a softie.
But let's put this next one up.
This is from Politico.
Boris Johnson called up Macron.
He's actually hanging out with Macron.
You know, they're arms around each other.
Good buds.
Johnson warns Macron not to attempt Ukraine settlement now.
He's literally saying, don't settle this.
Keep them fighting.
Keep them dying.
And here's a tweet from Kyle Anzalone, who's from the Libertarian Institute.
And he points it out as well.
UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said Russia's victory in Ukraine would have consequences for the world that are absolutely catastrophic.
Johnson continues.
Joe Biden is currently spending $46 billion to help Ukraine.
I would argue that's a price worth paying for democracy and freedom.
So Boris Johnson thinks it's a good price that we have to do out $46 billion.
There's a little change here.
Now, at the G7 meeting, when I think of G7, I usually think NATO and some other organization, they're all the same people, and they like to spend money, but usually it deals with the military stuff.
But here, the G7 unveils a $600 billion global infrastructure.
Oh, they're in infrastructure.
They're not totally controlled by the military-industrial complex.
And they maybe want to build highways or things.
But what gets me this is this is so important.
They have to counter China.
You know, China sells a lot of stuff to us, and Americans get a pretty good deal.
But we're taking care of that.
We're putting on enough sanctions to make it difficult and pushing these prices up.
But our goal now, or G7, which is the United States, the goal is to counter China's Belt and Road.
And that, of course, is sort of capitalistic when you think of really trade, international trade, where you can travel these roads.
Of course, in an area where they've had a road there for a thousand years, probably.
So they're going to get involved there.
And I guess the military people will have to argue, well, that's way too much for that.
They could use it for military trucks or something.
So it's almost difficult.
You talk about Ukraine and a few other places, but there's always the idea of a two-front war.
And what are we going to do?
Are we going to antagonize enough that if Ukraine is a failure, will the Chinese attack Taiwan and go in?
And that's a whole different story, too.
Who's right and who's wrong?
And what are we going to do?
And how many Americans should die over this?
And that kind of nonsense.
But right now, they don't talk about small change.
$600 billion here.
And they just continue.
They believe, it really goes back to my big concern: is they believe that the monetary system has no limits.
All you have to have are guns, and then you can spend money in reserve currency and be a wealthy country.
But, you know, the attempt to have guns and butter in the 60s turned out to be a fiasco for the 70s.
And I think we're at the beginning of that fiasco that demands a correction.
The Coming Fiasco Demands Correction 00:04:45
And I think the distortions from all this stuff that we've been talking about is much greater than the distortions which were horrible with Vietnam.
But I think what's going on in the world today is a much bigger deal.
Yeah, I'm afraid you're right, because you usually are, so I can't disagree.
But I'm going to close out if we can put on that very last clip.
I'm going to skip over that one.
We'll deal with that some other time.
But that very last clip, and I'm going to have some good news on Monday.
I always need good news on Monday if we can make that nice and big.
We announced on Thursday that we had just opened up ticket sales for our Washington, D.C. conference on September 3rd at the Weston Washington Dulles Airport.
Very nice hotel.
Well, Dr. Paul, I'm very happy to say just over this weekend, without a lot of fanfare, we've sold about a quarter of the available tickets.
So we've already sold 25% of the tickets without announcing any speakers.
One of the things that we've done, because we know everyone is hurting, is we put in an early bird special, save $10, buy it in the month of July.
So get it now, get it quick.
If you go to the, there is a link in the description.
I already put it in.
I'll give you some more info on it and a clip of where you can buy the tickets.
I'll have something in the article later, but we are looking for gold and silver host committee members who will join us for the different VIP events, and I'll give some details on that.
But long and short of it, Dr. Paul, great response so far.
And we worry, I mean, everyone's trying to make a buck go a little further.
We understand that.
But they also, it's important to get together, as you know, hear some great speakers and make contact with like-minded people.
So very, very good, early indicators that we're going to have a great, great crowd, as usual.
Good.
And, you know, what we do here and with our conferences and all our reports deals with a bankruptcy that I have mentioned for many years.
And most people think of bankruptcy, and most of the time I do mention, we're thinking about financial bankruptcy, how individuals right now are going bankrupt because prices are going up, which was a predictable event.
So people are in trouble because there will be and continues to increase real bankruptcy.
So far, the United States is not considered financially bankrupt because we still have control of the high seas and we have most of the weapons and people still trust the dollar.
But we are in the middle of a financial bankruptcy because the market dictates that when there has to be a correction and it always invites the political problems that come with it and all the disruption there.
But the other thing that people don't talk as much about it, but I think just with this recent court rulings on the constitutional right to own a gun and also the Supreme Court making this sincere attempt to do something about what's going on with the abortion issue and whether or not it's constitutional to return some of that responsibility to the states.
But I think it's symbolic of the moral bankruptcy as well.
So when you look at wokeism and what's going on in our schools and This genderism and people who want to be on the Supreme Court, they don't even know what a woman is, and yet we're promoting them.
I mean, this has to be a reflection of some very, very serious problems because I think it is reflecting of 100 years of a downturn and what we have talked about, what freedom is and what liberty is all about, and that there is such a thing as a higher law.
And when people say, well, you can't know right and wrong, and we're seeing the consequence.
And I think there's a lot more people are very interested in and want to do something about the financial bankruptcy, but also the moral bankruptcy is very important.
And people will have an opportunity to think this through because this whole issue of what life is and when it's important and how you deal with it, that is a major issue.
And it's going to be with us for a while.
But these are all very important things.
So if we want to live in a free society, which is my goal and the goal of most Americans, I think that we have to pay attention to this because if we want more peace and prosperity, we have to consider seriously the definition of what liberty really means.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.
Export Selection