Destroyed Ukraine Is Testing Ground For The Military-Industrial Complex
With an estimated half a million Ukrainian soldiers dead, there is one "bright spot" in the US proxy war with Russia: the US military -industrial complex has used the war as a live-fire testing ground for the latest weapons. As Politico reports, a batch of "Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bombs" will soon be tested in Ukraine. The US military has not even received these weapons. Also today: Russian investigators claim a US Patriot missile shot down a Russian cargo plane carrying Ukrainian prisoners of war. Finally: More Texas border woes for Biden.
With us today, we have Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you this morning.
Happy Thursday, Dr. Paul.
How are you?
Thursday already?
Yes, it's my Friday.
That's good.
Okay, I guess we'll talk about foreign policy.
A little bit.
A little bit of foreign policy.
And of course, we, you know, get a lot of leads from Zero Hedge, but they also quote a few other people dealing with this issue we're going to talk about today, Reuters and other people, because there's propaganda in this, so some of the regular media is going to talk about it.
And the propagandas, usually that's a polite word of saying they lie and through their teeth because they make it sound like, boy, this is a big deal.
Maybe the Russians will lose this war after all.
It's not likely to happen.
But the headline that Zero Hedge used is interesting.
It says, Ukraine said to receive bombs so new, it hasn't reached U.S. arsenal yet.
But it's coming on the market.
It reminds me of how they bring about vaccines to the market.
Emergency, emergency.
Don't test them.
Don't test them.
We'll use them getting a pig.
So they said that they're bringing this one out.
They didn't have it fully tested.
But the magic of this, Daniel, because everybody knows we're running out of money and they're becoming fiscal conservatives.
What they said is that this is really a neat deal.
It's a new weapon.
It's expensive and all that, but it's paid for.
That's great.
I wonder if the military industrial complex volunteered to pay for this one or they volunteered to take some money for it.
Well, anyway, it's paid for, which helped them get a waiver and move it along because, you know, I don't know what's so crucial about the war right now.
It doesn't look like Ukraine is going to fold tomorrow completely.
And it doesn't look like the Russians are going to change the front line again.
So I think that, you know, there's a lot of activity, but that war looks like it's going to go on for a while.
We like long wars.
I'm being cynical, of course.
It is our government that likes long wars.
And some of them purposely like long wars because it's perpetual war and perpetual spending.
But this new bomb was developed by Bohan Saab, and it's supposed to be really great.
It's going to shoot 90 miles and very accurate and all that kind of stuff.
But we have to learn a more difficult substitute for the full name because it's GLSDB.
Yeah, that sounds like LGBT.
So that stands for Ground Launch Small Diameter Bomb.
So they're up in it.
They're still in the bomb business.
So anyway, but they want to refer to it.
They're teaching us GLSDB.
And social media, you have to learn a lot of letters too, but military have to as well.
And this is something that's very interesting how they're proposing, how wonderful it is.
And I want to read a little bit about some of the claims here.
And in the article, this was reported as shipping the GLSDB into Ukraine war could pay dividends.
Who would have ever guessed?
Boeing and Saab in other ways.
This is the one that got me, got me started.
It's an opportunity to showcase the new weapons in a hot war.
You know, they're out there training on weapons.
We've talked about that, but when you see it again, what's the difference is they're so blunt about it.
You know, this is just a practice session for weaponry.
You know, it does a lot of things.
Some companies make money and they develop weaponry and they can perpetuate things and it just goes, it goes on and on.
But it gives them a chance to test.
You know, wasn't there somebody that wanted us to make sure we tested those B-52s and make sure we test all the airplanes too.
And it says, like last year, Boeing pitched the Pentagon on an expedited nine-month option for delivering the new weapon.
So they got a waiver.
You know, and they at first the article was trying to mislead us by saying, well, it's paid for.
We don't have to do too much.
But they haven't.
They don't really have the money for any of this stuff.
And then they also admit what they're up to.
They're just out there practicing with weaponry.
And then they get a waiver to, maybe it isn't as accurate as I said.
They say it's really great, you know, within a very short distance, of course.
90 miles.
So maybe they don't have a weapon quite understood yet because, you know, the first thing they didn't want to admit it.
At least they said, well, the Iranians did it.
The Iranians did it.
Well, we find out, I think, that it just might have been a little bit different than that, which was our suspicion from the very beginning.
Better wait and find out who's causing what and who's building up the propaganda.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, the article origin is in Politico, and we can put on that first clip.
And Hedge wrote it up for us, thankfully.
New U.S.-made longer-range bomb expected to arrive as soon as Wednesday.
Well, that's yesterday.
They're already there then.
The war's over, I guess.
The ground-launched small diameter bomb doesn't even exist in the U.S. inventory.
So here's what's going on.
Go to the next one really quick.
This is what Dr. Paul said.
The weapon has one feature that's particularly attractive since it's already paid for.
The Pentagon can ship it to Ukraine without waiting for additional war funding.
This is the crux of the issue because they have not passed that $61 billion that Biden is demanding for Ukraine.
Republicans are digging in their heels.
Ukraine is out of weapons.
They're called shell-starved.
They can't fire any shells.
They're running out of weapons.
There is a pre-coup situation in Kiev, which we don't really go into today, but there's massive problems between Zelensky and Zeluzhny, and Poroshenko is wanting to come back.
So it's a pre-as Ukraine sinks further down into this bloody war.
There's a pre-coup situation there.
So you have that problem.
The folly of this entire exercise is about to be exposed.
This two-year idiocy of our proxy war is about to be exposed.
And again, as I said, Republicans are digging in because they have nothing to lose by saying, no, you can't have any more weapons right now, or by tying it to the border or what have you.
So what do you do?
Well, you ship over these already paid-for weapons that don't need a new appropriation, right?
They're already paid for.
So you ship them over.
And they say, well, that's going to really make a difference.
Well, this whole war has been a history of the latest Wunterwaffen, the latest great weapon that's going to make a difference.
All of these things were shipped, and they were all game changers.
Well, this will go down as yet another one of the game changers that really changed nothing.
But the thing that sickens me the most, Dr. Paul, and sorry to go on about this, is that, yes, they're thrilled.
The military industrial complex is thrilled.
We get to test this in live, real combat experience.
Meanwhile, Ukraine is an ocean of blood.
500,000 dead members of the military is the latest estimate, probably more than that.
And instead of saying we need to end this right away, nothing is making a difference.
You can't beat the Russian military.
Instead of doing that, hey, we got a great idea.
Let's test some more weapons and get more Ukrainians killed.
See what they want us to believe that this is just a technical problem.
They don't have the right weapons.
And as long as we keep doing this, we're going to be able to fight this war and win this war.
They don't claim that they're on the verge of winning quite like they were before because reality is setting in.
But they're still, in order to get more, it's getting more difficult to come here because even some of the members of Congress are waking up and realizing.
But you know why the congressmen are waking up?
Because some people in this country, the constituents, you know, we don't give them enough credit because they will wake up and send a message, and they have talked about this.
But they want to call it a weapons problems.
And this is their answer is more money, even if you hide how much it costs, and build more sophisticated weapons.
But it's really a policy question.
You know, why did we go in?
What is beginning?
Are we being honest about it?
Do we speak the truth when we know the truth?
Yes, we wanted the people to believe this was all due to Iran that caused this problem.
And what is it?
Was it one of our missiles that did this?
This bombing that happened?
So it's a fiction, and they will not deal with policy, nor will they deal with recent or not too distant history of what's going on.
Why don't they ask why more often?
That's what I want them to do.
Well, it's called $100 bills.
Tons and tons of them.
Go to the last one.
This is the last one we'll do on this topic because you already said it, but it's worth underscoring.
Plus, I already made a clip, so I better use it.
I love this.
Shipping the GLSDP into Ukraine war could pay dividends for Boeing and Saab.
It's an opportunity to pitch a new weapon in a real war scenario.
That's not a quote.
That's my summary of what they're saying.
Yes, paying dividends is what it's all about.
And it's so sick and so cynical, you know.
But let's move on because we have more weapon issues.
And you had alluded to it a second ago.
But the Russians, there was a little bit of backstory.
So there was going to be a prisoner exchange between Russia and Ukraine.
The Russians had a plane filled with 60-some Ukrainian prisoners of war that they were flying to the place where they were going to be exchanged for Russians.
So the plane's up in the air.
It's an illusion.
It's shot down over Russian territory and everyone dies, including, I think, five or six Russian crew members.
So everyone's dead.
This happened a couple weeks ago.
And so Russia said, we're going to investigate.
Was it a French missile?
What was it?
So put this the next one on.
Reuters is reporting now.
Russia says it has evidence U.S. Patriot missiles downed its military transport plane.
Now, that doesn't mean that Americans were necessarily operating the batteries, but it is possible.
We know that they're in places where they don't belong.
However, no one has disputed the fact, I don't believe, that it was probably an accident.
It probably wasn't on purpose.
Someone probably pulled the trigger when they should have.
But nevertheless, it was an American missile that destroyed a Russian plane on Russian territory and killed at least five Russian military members and 60-some Ukrainians.
You know, we work hard at ducking responsibility, like no body bags coming back here, and we're no good troops on the ground.
But we sure look pretty close to the war activity when we see these maps on where we have troops.
But we make a big effort to duck the military responsibility.
But when they do that, they don't usually talk about how we finance sometimes both sides of these wars that are going on.
And we have a responsibility there that we ought to have Congress emphasize it even more.
But then there is the moral responsibility of a policy that drumbeats, you know, these conflicts throughout the world.
And it's been going on.
And we're taught to always have an enemy.
And, you know, there was a brief period after the Cold War ended that we actually moved in the right direction.
We started talking to China.
It was so much different than when I remember the Korean War going on.
I was in high school.
And we were talking to people, trading with people, and traveling to China.
And even Russia, there was more activity.
And we were, you know, sharing some of the products that we were able to.
So they did that.
But that isn't happening anymore.
It's always, that was too soft.
The people who want this perpetual war for perpetual fees, they had to make sure that we hate people.
And it's really, you know, how they demonstrate it is if the people are there speaking the truth and suggesting that we shouldn't jump to the conclusions and we should, like last week, did somebody advocate we just go into Iran and bomb Lindsay, baby.
So it's the refusal to have the responsibility and the sadness of the gullibility of the people in this country who pay all the bills and yet they've been able to con the people into believing, yes, that might be a problem, but we have to deal with, we have to deal with the inflation and deal like that.
But they won't consider the fact that maybe they're connected.
Maybe that's why they're suffering because the average person here is, in this country, is paying for the bills, you know, in all the options, national security.
I think you can make the argument on the whole security.
We're less secure because of this, you know, and the economic challenges that we're facing.
But that message hasn't sunk in yet.
And, of course, that's one of our goals of this program, to try to get people to at least think about these issues.
Yeah, absolutely.
You know, and the thing is about this Patriot missile, are the Russians lying?
It's possible.
We don't know.
And I messed up the order.
Can you go to the very last one?
Because this is what they're claiming.
They sent investigators to look for missile fragments and see what they can identify because it does leave fragments.
And it's hard to do this.
Yeah, I go to the very last clip because I put it.
There we go.
Thanks.
So this is what the Reuters is reporting.
Among the fragments were serial numbers with English acronyms, including confidential classified by Patriot Security Classification Guide Data 920.
Russian Invasion Claims00:07:56
Addendum Contract N-O-D-A.
So whatever it is, this is what they say was on the missiles.
And my guess is people who know back in D.C. will look at this and recognize what this means.
And that's the reason why they released it this way, because to the rest of us, it doesn't really mean anything.
But if it's a unique marker that was on the missile, that will be an indication to them.
So they're trying to provide some evidence here.
But if this is the case, we will face probably the first time in history that an American missile shot down a Russian military plane over Russia.
And that is a significant thing.
Especially not in the Cold War.
That never would have happened.
An American missile shooting a Russian plane over Russia.
This is what happens.
But now we're in a situation, Dr. Paul, where the U.S. has announced we're going to have a weeks-long bombing run in the Middle East.
We may hit Iranian ships.
We may even hit Iran.
We're not going to say we're not going to do that.
And why?
Well, did Iran attack us?
No.
But an Iranian-made missile hit a U.S. base in the Middle East.
So the parallels are an American-made missile hit a Russian plane over Russia.
An Iranian-made missile or drone may have hit American troops in the Middle East.
But it's okay if we attack Iran based on it, but Russia has no right to attack us, even though it's our missile.
So I think the rest of the world sees this pretty hypocrisy.
So we'll move on to something sort of domestic.
Closer to home.
Yeah, closer to home.
And this has to do with the growing conflict, which has been around for a few years, a few decades, 100 years or two.
And that is the conflict between a strong central government and the sovereignty of a federal government against state sovereignty.
And it brings it back an understanding of how it started, what the states were supposed to be like.
And yet there was a conflict from the beginning that had the Jeffersonians and the Hamiltonians fighting over this on how strong you would have the central bank and all this thing.
So now we fought over this.
And Lincoln was very clear.
I mean, the quotes that are available on Lincoln on why he thought the Civil War should be fought was to preserve the Union.
And he had some soft words to say about toleration of slavery as long as it saved the Union.
That was it.
But, you know, we heard all the noise recently because somebody put some words in somebody's mouth and said, oh, well, it wasn't about slavery, and that's a political sin to say something like that.
But if you're seeking the truth, you have to realize that there was a concern by and a real concern by Lincoln and his friends to save the Union, save the Union, and a few lives were sacrificed.
So that's still a history that has not been fully exposed, although it's available to anybody who wants to read about the causes.
But right now, I think there's something similar to what's going on in Texas.
You have the federal government coming in.
Oh, they said they're not going to cause any violence and that sort of thing.
But it could break out.
We have the feds down there disagreeing with the states and who decides about the invasion.
We had the program on this the other day and where the authority comes from.
And it's something that I think can get very, very dangerous because the Civil War didn't break out overnight.
The other thing that was involved in the Civil War were the tariffs.
So there were other things.
But that is not to say slavery wasn't an issue because it was the key issue for mobilizing people.
So that was the case.
But this is something that I think is very, very dangerous.
And that has to do with the park and where the exchanges are going.
And the Texans say, look, we do have a right and an obligation to defend our state if we have been invaded.
And I made a point you ought to be watching about it becoming an invasion a few years back.
I think there's a lot of people now who refer this finally to an invasion.
And it probably, when I first mentioned that, it probably wasn't because mine was this sort of, when does it become an invasion?
And I would say it has become an invasion.
So the states have an obligation, and the people are behind this.
And so I don't think Biden has agreed.
Biden, they're determined.
And they said, but we're not going to bring our guns in and start shooting Texas people and all that kind of stuff.
But, you know, it's like all wars.
How do things get started by accidents and who knows what?
But that to me, that's a hope and pray that nothing vicious and violent turns up.
But this thing is not going to go away easily because there's going to be, even with an election, the election might make it worse.
So we have to wait and see what happens.
Let's put on that first clip because this is what we're talking about.
We've talked a little bit about what's going on there, but this is something new.
This is reported by LifeSight News.
There we go.
Thanks.
Texas denies federal agents access to Border Park at the heart of the Razor Wire standoff.
And most people are aware of what happened.
The Supreme Court said that the federal government could remove the Razor Wire, and Texas Governor Greg Abbott said no.
Sorry, you can't do that.
25 states said we agree with Abbott.
They're all red states.
So this has become a real political football.
If you go to the next one, it explains a little bit more.
This is from the article.
Texas has rejected the federal government's request for access to a border park at the center of one of the ongoing disputes between the states and the Biden administration over immigration enforcement, while the union representing the U.S. Border Patrol says its agents will not be pitted against state agents working to secure the border.
So that's also interesting, Dr. Paul.
The union is actually sort of defying the president and saying, we're not going to go to war with our fellow border agents just because they're state border agents.
Yeah.
You know, I think about the misinterpretation of some sincere people who got involved with obeying your oath of office.
And then I think of Kent State, you know, where we had troops shooting at American citizens.
And people are outraged, and they were able to take that principle of maintaining your oath of office.
And this is what I think the Texans are doing right now.
They're sticking to their oath of office and their understanding of their state and they're getting support from it.
But this is going to be, this could turn out to be very, very, it's already very, very serious, but what the consequence will be, because, you know, heaven forbid, but what if Biden gets an overwhelming, you know, somebody can rig the election and Biden wins overwhelmingly and gets super control of everything?
What do you think would happen?
Seeking Truth and Conforming Policies00:03:08
Oh, yeah.
I mean, they control the FBI and all the other security agencies.
So it would not be good.
And that's when you would see some real concern about more fighting.
But, you know, Biden is so dynamic and articulate, it's hard to believe he could possibly lose, right?
Yeah, well, hopefully, I mean, you know, people talk about Texas, you know, and that's there's a big Texas independence movement.
It's probably not a bad idea.
Secession is probably not a bad idea in some ways.
But as you always say, yeah, but we don't want to be ruled from Austin either.
We should just have Bissoria County secede.
That might be all right.
You know, we could form our own nation here.
It's too bad we can't do that.
I'm going to close and just, this is my Friday.
Tomorrow, I've got to do my other job again.
So, I thank you all for watching the Liberal Report this week.
See that like, please hit it.
You guys have been doing a great job.
We had great likes this week because you're just pushing that button.
If you're not following our channel, please follow it.
Help us keep moving up and get more viewers because we're doing our best to try to bring you the news with the Ron Paul flavor on it.
So, thanks again, and we'll see you on Monday from my end.
Very good.
You know, one thing that I emphasize, and a lot of people agree because it sounds so nice, that we should seek truth and tell the truth and pursue, you know, policies that conform with the Constitution.
And most people, most members of Congress will take an oath to do that, but they know that it's really deep down in their heart.
It's fake because some of them say that we have a constitutional obligation to alter the Constitution.
Oh, yes, by amending it?
Oh, no, we don't have to amend it.
We'll just ignore it.
So, that is, I think, the important thing is seeking truth.
And the years I've spent doing this, what we're doing today, plus what I was engaged in at Washington, is, you know, the people seeking truth are always pushed aside because the whole system is operated, whether it starts with the kindergarten all the way up through the progressive university system.
It's always, you know, a lot of people call it flat-out lying, but it's very much motivated by propaganda, is always seeking power.
And certainly, when we start talking about the militarization and the pharmaceutical industry, it's money too.
So, that is not truth, and it's not moving in the right directions.
But, like I say, I do believe there's a lot of Americans who are sick and tired of it, would like to move it in the right direction, but doing it is no easy task.
I'm afraid things are going to get worse before that there'll be serious consideration for the restoration of liberty.