All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 11, 2024 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
28:04
NATO Summit Demands: More Weapons For Ukraine!

The rhetoric at the NATO summit this week is predictable: we must send more weapons to Ukraine! But behind the rehearsed facade, there are increasing cracks in the alliance...and among the peoples of Europe. Even Blinken is changing his tune a bit...

|

Time Text
Biden's Call and Weapons Talks 00:15:18
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 this morning.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Doing well, doing well, thank you.
Thursday, yeah.
But you know what?
I don't know whether it was a dream or what was going on, but I had a tough time last night because I was shocked because I received this phone call and the president was calling me.
And I haven't had a president call me in a long time.
The only president ever called me was this guy, Trump.
He just wanted to have a friendly conversation.
But that's a different story.
But I had this, but it has to be a dream because Biden got on the phone and he said, well, he says, I've been watching your program.
You and Dean really do a great job.
That made me nervous.
What kind of a job?
He says, well, I don't want to tell anybody, but it's a secret.
But I'm having a problem.
I'm having a problem not only with inflation.
You guys talk about inflation, but this foreign policy stuff.
It seems like if I had some good advice on it, because there are a lot of hawks in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, and he says, I'd like to get some advice from you.
So I've narrowed it down, and I wanted to confirm with you, and we'll see what kind of reaction we get from our audience.
I said, it's not all that complicated.
If you want to improve the situation and the conditions that we've had since World War II, just tell them tomorrow.
It's just like a de Gaulle would do it.
We're out of here.
Just chuck it and get out of NATO and things would get better.
And he says, who would think about it?
But of course, I do strongly believe, and we've mentioned it, that NATO is not to our benefit.
It's not part of our national defense.
But I wanted to know a little bit more details of exactly what they were thinking when they started NATO.
And of course, it was started in 49 after the war.
And you'd have to say that one idea which was sold to the people and accepted had a tinge of credibility, and that is, you know, the Soviet system, they were pretty rough characters.
And they said, well, there were three reasons.
One, for security against any Soviet uprising.
But by that time, you know, we were moving into the Cold War.
But anyway, that was the reason why most Americans went along with it.
And also, they had concern about nationalism building again in Europe because it comes and goes.
And NATO to prevent it.
But I don't know.
You and I have been talking a little bit about some strong nationalistic feelings and warmongering in Europe right now.
And Europe is not unified.
So I don't see where they have accomplished very much from NATO preventing those ideas from coming about.
But another one that I didn't realize how much emphasis there was made back then, it was for political and economic unification, the New World Order.
They were laying their plans for it.
And that was one of their main goals.
You know, one thing I found fascinating in this little research was it was the first military alliance during peacetime outside of the Western Hemisphere, which means we've never done exactly what we did.
Was a type of an advanced entangling alliance, this type of thing that the founders warned us against.
But nevertheless, they won the political argument, and the people loved it, and they believed it would bring peace.
And it brought a Cold War that is getting hotter all the time.
And there's a lot of consequence of NATO and that foreign policy because we have lived beyond our means.
It served our interests with supporting our dollar and supporting our empire.
But what we're talking about most of the time every day are the consequences of this type of policy that we're in a transition now.
And whether or not the president's going to take our advice and just get out or not, we know the answer there.
But the one thing is it's not going to last.
That is not a lasting organization.
De Gaulle, even since that, way back in 1969, he says, the heck with all this.
And the European Union that they hope for, you know, it's on its last legs too.
It's breaking up.
And that was that economic union that they wanted.
So, you know, economic forces will handle most of this, but it's still a serious problem because the one basic assumption and position we have taken is that NATO has never served the interests of peace.
They have served the interest of more war and more warmongering and more profits for the weapons industry.
Well, the first tip off, Dr. Paul, that that was just a dream is that he spoke in complete sentences, right?
So that wasn't Biden.
If you could understand what he said, that wasn't Biden.
That was unfortunately a dream.
But the reason we're talking about NATO is there's a two-day NATO summit.
And usually this is not worth talking about because just a bunch of blah, blah, blah.
But Brussels are going to meet for two days.
Secretary Austin's there representing the U.S.
This is a NATO, as you suggest, now desperate for an identity, desperate to find a reason for its continued existence.
And it's landed on that with the Ukraine-Russia war.
Now we finally have a purpose.
Now we finally have something we can do that we've wanted to do all along.
And so when that is the case, regardless of the situation on the ground, regardless of the facts on the ground, it's proven itself to be very sclerotic.
It can't change depending on the change in what's happening, for example, on the ground.
And actually, you can put up this first clip because this tells you where NATO's head is on the eve, the beginning of this summit.
NATO Chief Stoltenberg calls for, we lost it, there we go, calls for more heavy weapons for Kiev, for Ukraine, as Kiev reveals that has received just 10% of the weapons promised by Western allies.
So there's a lot of promises, according to Zelensky, if you believe him, but not a lot of deliveries.
And again, Stoltenberg saying we need to meet and we need to give them more weapons, more weapons, even as you're seeing more and more voices saying things on the ground are not looking very good.
You know, I imagine back then they didn't use the term as freely as we use the military-industrial complex.
But my guess is, my assumption is, is that a type of military-industrial complex has always been around for a long time, the promoters of war for special interests.
And this a couple other interesting tidbits when they were putting NATO together was the expression by some of the promoters in the media said, well, this is good because this is time has come for this because America has shifted their foreign policy and they have essentially given up on diplomatic isolationism.
So they get that pitch in and back then the isolationists were known, of course, for Not wanting to fight the Germans and the Japanese immediately or do anything to prevent it from happening.
So that was thing.
But the other thing is there were some other seeds planted.
Of course, there were requirements that they're supposed to prepare militarily all the countries that join so that they get together.
But I imagine the one article that they quote the most now, and what does it mean, is Article 5.
If one group, even groups are thinking about it, are included in Article 5.
We might let you in, but we better treat you as if you're in because we want everybody to come together.
And everybody means all the countries who take our money.
Not that they're going to contribute anything to national security for us.
It's they're ruining our national security because we're defending them and spending all our money.
But Article 5 says if anybody's attacked, everybody has to go in and help out.
But everybody was supposed to prepare militarily, and that would be good for building weapons.
There was a little profiteering going on.
Yeah, for sure.
And we see it here today.
You know, Biden has answered the call, and we were actually, we were slackers yesterday because we talked about $600 million more dollars going to Ukraine.
That's not the case, because right after we finished the show, Biden wasn't being friendly with us.
He was being mean to us.
He went and gave out a statement.
Let's put this up.
Here's from the White House.
Here's Biden talking.
He just finished watching our show and said, we'll show them.
He said, I informed President Zelensky with two eyes that the United States is providing another billion dollars in security assistance for Ukraine, including additional artillery and coastal defense weapons, as well as ammo for the artillery, et cetera, et cetera.
So $600 million?
Nah.
That's Trump chains.
It's a billion.
And more seriously, though, these harpoon weapons are going to, I think they're designed to keep Russia from dominating the Black Sea from taking Odessa.
We'll see if they get there, or if it's, again, just like the other things, more money laundering.
You send things, they get blown up, and you buy more from the defense companies over the years.
And the process just continues on and on.
And yet there is an end point because the bankruptcy will finally force us to change our ways.
The other thing I wanted to mention is the reaction of passing NATO.
Everybody thought, well, you know, that was to stop the Warsaw Pact, you know, the Warsaw Pact.
The Soviets still held that together and they were threatening Europe and all that.
But that isn't what was going on.
Matter of fact, they backed down a little bit.
They actually started spending their money on space.
That's when they had sputnick.
And we were out there stirring up war trouble, and yet they were doing that.
But the Warsaw Pact came about as a reaction to NATO.
And by 55 is when the Warsaw Pact was started.
So it was sort of an acceleration of what they were pretending that they were going to do away with.
But it's sort of expected because it's an unintended consequence.
It's sort of like we're going to put on sanctions and teach them a lesson, you know, and it always backfires.
It teaches the American people that they ought to be more cautious about what their political leaders are doing because they're paying the bills.
It's like the speaking of the sanctions having unintended consequences.
I was on a show earlier where I pointed out that Russia earned $20 billion in oil revenue in May alone, which is an 11% increase from the previous month.
So in fact, the sanctions against Russian oil and the disruptions in supply are actually causing Russia to be able to finance its war.
So there you go.
We're actually paying for them to finance their war.
But we are seeing shifts, and there are a couple of things.
And this is a piece from the Hill that's just out today.
Remember when Austin and Blinken said, our real goal, wink wink, is to destroy Russia rather than fight for that plucky democracy, Ukraine?
Well, this just came out.
If we can put the next one up in the hill today, turns out that Biden did not like that at all.
Biden told Austin and Blinken to tone down remarks supporting Ukraine.
And this is a report that he didn't like that at all.
Maybe they showed too much truth.
But nevertheless, we saw a real distinct change in Blinken's rhetoric today.
And I think this is actually from yesterday.
If you put the next one, this is a tweet from Bloomberg, Dr. Paul.
It shows that despite what they say, things are happening.
U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken says it's up to Ukraine to make its decisions about territorial concessions after President Zelensky claimed the war may stagnate if allies don't speed up deliveries.
Now, this is the first time that an American official like this has said, you know, basically you might have to make some concessions to get this war over.
Look, guys, let's face it, you're not winning.
Things aren't going as well.
We all know it now.
We keep trying to deny it.
So, hey, it's up to you.
Don't blame us.
Do whatever you want.
But this is what's happening.
And as if taking notes, the media, of course, mainstream media follows on and supports the government.
If you look at this, it's in Politico today, I think it is.
An opinion piece in Politico, which has been a very pro-war, all of a sudden it says negotiating to end the Ukraine war isn't appeasement, which is what they've said all along.
It's appeasement, it's appeasement.
No, it's not.
Don't worry, we need to sort this out.
And almost as if to punctuate that, Dr. Paul, and the final bit in the segment I'm going to mention is that you have an unprecedented situation where, and we can put on that next clip, where the leaders of Italy, France, and Germany, all three of them, now here they are, they're in a train car.
I don't know what they're doing, but they're going to Kiev.
Draghi, Macron, and Schultz, they're going to Ukraine.
They went to Ukraine today.
They had a surprise trip.
They wanted to show a strong signal of support, the message of unity.
But I do sort of wonder about this as we're seeing more talk about that Ukraine needs to think about concessions.
Is this really maybe a swan song where they're going there saying, listen, guys, we're going to make a lot of promises, but you're on your own.
Yes, and we'll find out.
But I'm sort of hoping that my theme and thesis is going to be right.
That is there's signs of it cracking up.
Cracking up.
And they don't have a choice in it.
You know, that this is happening because of the financial things going on.
But, you know, I want to address the subject a little bit of, you know, you guys are a little nutty.
You just want to walk away.
How much harm is going to come from it and how much good is going to come from it?
But that subject came up in 1966 when de Gaulle just walked away and France was part of the originators of NATO.
And they just walked away and nothing happened to them.
And I think that walking away from this, to me, the first most important thing is that there would be less incentives for the Warsaw Pact to be around all the time and stirring up trouble.
Big Numbers, Small Justice 00:08:22
But when you think, I think just adding up the cost that was instigated by NATO since 1948, 1949, was the, how many wars have we been involved in?
You know, I was amazed, you know, a few weeks ago, we reported that I discovered, you know, the very first thing that NATO did was they got involved to some degree in Korea.
You know, even though this was a NATO organization.
But we've been involved in all those things.
NATO is always involved, you know, theoretically, at least, even though it would never happen where they would actually do what they have promised to do.
But we had Korea, Vietnam, we had the Middle East.
We have Ukraine, Syria, and they're always involved.
What if somebody really gave us an accurate figure?
How much did that cost, really and truly?
Interesting and everything.
Trillions and trillions of dollars have been spent on that.
How about the cost in the American lives lost?
A lot.
Oh, yeah, but it wasn't like World War II, and we're preventing World War II.
Nothing like that.
But there were a lot of deaths and a lot of injury, a lot of harm done to families because of what was going on.
And there was a lot of civilians killed that were totally innocent as a result of our bombs.
So the cost of a foreign policy that was delighted to know that we became, that we have given up on our, you know, isolationism, which is a fake term, you know.
What we want is non-intervention.
We don't want to be isolationist.
And that's more or less what they're creating.
They've created isolation.
We're being isolated from the world today.
And I think that is a result that is predictable.
And it's tough, as you say, to just walk away from NATO.
It's tough because it is so profitable for powerful people.
I mean, people will knife you for 20 bucks.
Imagine what they do for $20 billion, which is what we're talking about.
And look what happened to Trump when he said over and over, what do we do with this NATO?
We're not getting anything out of it.
We're putting all this into it, getting nothing out of it.
And we saw what happened to him, you know, over this.
But I think it resonated with people, and that's what was so dangerous to the military-industrial complex and why they essentially offed him, not directly, but indirectly, is because of that.
See, I don't think you can walk away today and the people aren't ready, and the people in charge of the propaganda and the lying, if they're in charge, they can turn it on you and say, oh, you're just a Soviet spy, you know, and this sort of thing.
And they'll demagogue it that.
So the groundwork has to be laid for it.
But I think you made some points there that shows that in a practical sense, people are saying, you know, not only people, Americans, who are realizing they're paying for this, but the other people who are involved in this, this hope this is just not an artificial strategy on their part, but they've changed their tune.
And I think that is good.
And so you have to prepare the way.
But I think regardless, the best thing in the world for world peace and for us, for our finances, for our dollar and everything else, would be for us to say, you know, we're done with this.
We're leaving and we're coming home.
And I think that after about a week of adjustment, people might adjust because maybe even the psychological element, because even though inflation comes from printing money, there's a psychological factor.
What if we did have this openness to peace and less spending and less deficit?
That could give the psychological subjective type of boost to saying, well, maybe it looks like inflation is going to wane.
There might be even a benefit from that.
But of course, the big thing would be that we would have to print a lot less money and it would be a benefit.
But we're not quite there yet.
We're not quite there yet.
Well, the last topic I wanted to throw out, Dr. Paul, because we like surveys, or I like surveys a lot.
I hope you do.
This is a new survey that came out.
It was published yesterday.
And it was a survey done by the European Council on Foreign Relations.
And it was about peace versus justice, the coming European split over the war in Ukraine.
And this is fascinating.
And of course, the results, like with many polls, are mixed.
So I am picking out the ones that are specifically, I think, of interest to us that show some interesting shifting views in Europe.
If we can look at the next clip, I'll just run through them really quick.
Now, this question was about, are you in the peace camp or the justice camp?
Or a little bit of both.
The peace camp wants the war to end now.
They don't care who wins.
They want it to end.
The justice camp wants to punish Russia and they want Russia to win.
And the swing voters kind of go either way.
And this is fascinating because the peace camp European Union-wide is 35%.
They are the plurality over the justice camp of 22.
And when you throw in the swing voters, if they swing more toward the peace camp, you have got a majority in Europe.
And in fact, in many countries in Europe, it's a majority or close to majority of people saying, we do not support our leaders pushing this war forward.
We want out, and look at that next clip, and you'll see exactly what I mean, Dr. Paul.
The size of Europe's voter camps in response to Russia's war on Ukraine.
If you look at Italy, 52% are in the peace camp.
We want it over versus only 16 in the justice camp.
And it's similar in Germany, 49 to 19 in the war versus punish Russia.
Romania, 42-23.
France, 41 to 20, overwhelmingly in favor.
The only countries where you see we need to punish Russia are the most insane countries like Poland and the UK, who have a lopsided preference for punishing Russia and Finland as well.
Another one here, Dr. Paul, and I think this suggests some interesting divisions within Germany.
If you look at this next one, this is according to political party.
Now, Germany, as a total, we said, is 49 in favor of peace camp versus 19 in favor of punishing Russia.
But if you look at the Alliance for Germany, the AFD party, 78% are in the peace camp.
And this is the conservative right-wing alternative to the CDU-CSU.
78% oppose this war.
Social Democrats traditionally oppose peace, 55%.
CDU, 43%.
Big, big numbers in favor of peace.
The weird thing is, the only party in Germany where you see a decreased level of support for peace is the Green Party, which was founded to oppose nuclear armament in Europe.
So the Greens have actually come out in Germany more opposed to the peace than the other parties.
But I think those numbers are strong, and they tell a lot about where the German people are in the country, in the continent.
You know, I think this is very important to take these polls and find out.
But then again, a generic poll today, even with a lot of warmongering still going on, if you couch the question more objectively, are you for peace and freedom and balanced budget?
You know, most Republicans, oh, yeah, we are.
Peace through strength.
We spend more money on the military.
But it's still good stuff.
It is.
But people will respond in a favorable way.
But the big question we have is how can we get them in reality to support the people that do that?
And they don't kick them out of office because, oh, you're a Russian spy.
Because you won't do that.
Yeah, I have one thing.
I'm going to give our viewers a sneak peek.
September 3rd Conference Teasers 00:04:23
You'll see it here first of our logo and design for the September conference, September 3rd, Washington, D.C. Let's put it up.
Let's put it up a little bigger if we can expand it a little.
September 3rd, 2022, Weston Washington Dulles Airport, Anatomy of a Police State.
And tickets are not on sale yet, but I'm hoping later today.
I just run into a lot of moving parts into getting these tickets on sale.
But hopefully today, and I will send out a notice to all of the RPI subscribers with a link to ticket sales as soon as they go up on sale.
So if you're not a subscriber to free updates from RPI, I will put a link in the description here where you can sign up for free and subscribe to updates and get your tickets.
We're also signing our Lake Jackson Conference contract, I think, today, and that will take place in Lake Jackson on the 5th of November.
So lots of stuff happening for RPI this summer, and we're very happy about it.
You know, if we could get a movement going to finally extricate ourselves from, you know, this involvement right now, especially in Ukraine, we would need a slogan.
You know, in Vietnam, when that was going on, there were slogans about, you know, about emphasizing how dumb the whole thing was.
But the most famous slogan or the most famous explanation on why we should get out of Vietnam was Muhammad Ali.
He finally said, and his language was much better, much more emphatic, but it was there.
He said, what have they done to me?
What have they done?
And he gave up the championship title.
He believed in being for peace, and he was punished for it.
He was convicted for it.
I don't know if he served time, but he suffered a lot from that.
And I think just what he said was, well, we need more of that.
Just come home.
And I think that it's sort of like biting the bullet.
It's sort of like, yes, I don't want to have this surgery because it's a tough surgery, but it's going to save my life.
But I don't think it's going to be that bad if we would just walk out because it's not going to happen tomorrow.
But when it finally does happen, it'll be such an economic benefit, you know, to everything and to everybody.
But, you know, I opened a program.
We're talking about that.
This was the first time we had a peaceful military alliance outside of the Western Hemisphere.
And it's an alliance that is very specifically the kind of alliance the founder says, don't get involved in an entangling alliance.
This is entangled, you know, and it got worse as the years go by.
But I think you did several times today indicated, you know, the reasons why we could unentangle it.
And there's a lot of reasons for it.
You know, I frequently would argue there are moral reasons why we shouldn't do this.
There are financial reasons why we shouldn't do this.
There are constitutional reasons why we shouldn't do this.
But ultimately, the most important reason ends up being pragmatic.
And that doesn't make any sense.
Why do the people die and why do we go broke doing this?
And I think we're seeing signs of that.
So I'll take a victory anyway.
We can get it.
But if they started with a basic principle of staying out of entangling alliances and protect this country, we wouldn't have such a complicated mess.
So I think that it's possible people should think about it and not say, oh, the world will come to an end.
They keep arguing with me that if you have A free enterprise system and free markets, you would have total chaos.
No, you have total chaos now.
And that's what you want to prevent.
This whole idea that freedom causes chaos.
No, freedom prevents the chaos.
And freedom is what provides the peace and prosperity that most people seriously want.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.
Export Selection