All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 25, 2024 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
26:26
Biden To Send NUKES To Ukraine?

According to a recent New York Times Report, the Biden Administration has discussed the idea of handing nuclear weapons over to Ukraine as it prepares to leave office. And France and the UK are discussing sending TROOPS into Ukraine! Do they really want WWIII? Also today...will Elon buy MSNBC?

|

Time Text
Ukraine's Last Gasp Escalation 00:07:23
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today with Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good morning.
Good morning, Dr. How are you this morning?
Doing fine.
Ready to start a new week?
New week, yes.
New problems.
And we need to get done before midnight because, you know, if we get it a couple hours in the afternoon, it might be a nice time to get out.
Yes.
Absolutely.
Can you believe that if we were living up north, they might see snow?
I was looking at Pittsburgh's.
Your old hunts.
Yeah, right.
One of the biggest snowfalls I ever saw living up there was on Thanksgiving Day.
Oh, wow.
Most people think Thanksgiving Day is still fall, not much going on.
Anyway, we'll let them worry about that.
We'll enjoy our weather and we'll enjoy reaching out to our supporters and trying to update them on some of the things we discovered.
And we're going to start with an article that appeared in Zero Hedge, one of our favorite sources.
U.S. officials discuss giving nuclear weapons to Ukraine.
That doesn't sound like such a great idea.
And what is motivating that?
And I think Biden might be behind it.
But you know, one thing that is a lot of people realize that when wars are winding down or chronic wars are there, then there might be an increase in activity because they know there's going to be a settlement.
We're wearing ourselves out.
They want to get the last inch of territory.
There might be a little bit of that going on.
And Biden, you know, time is running out for him.
He's not going to be president.
And he has his strong feelings.
And sometimes I can't figure them out because a lot of times they're a little crazy.
And not in our interest.
But I find that generally true of our foreign policy advocates on both sides of the aisle.
A lot of times it doesn't make sense.
It's done in the name of national security.
But for some reason, I think Vietnam and Korea and the Middle East wars and Syria and the ongoing thing doesn't make sense to me and it endangers us.
So right now, and we pointed out, of course, things about Ukraine all the way back to 2014 that we shouldn't be messing around over there.
But anyway, this is been escalation that we've talked about in general.
There's always troops here doing this.
But now there's this, it's almost last minute stuff.
What are we going to do at the last minute?
Who's going to be the last guy to die in this war?
And so there's no easy way to say, what is his purpose?
Because I know they're goofy.
They can't be literally saying, oh, you know, maybe it's a good idea.
Maybe they'll just use the small nukes or something.
But anyway, it's very dangerous, what their strategy and what their sense of morality is.
I can't make a judgment of that.
All I can do is when I look at that and look at the American people and the responsibility they have on the money that we use and the people who might die, we do have a responsibility for Portland.
And my answer to this is it's a stupid idea, and I hope they don't do it.
Yeah, I mean, I think it smacks of the desperation.
They look on the calendar, they know they have a couple of weeks left, and that's all they have.
They're afraid that Donald Trump may actually keep his campaign promise to end wars, not start wars.
And so I think what's happened is that Biden's foreign policy team, we can't necessarily blame Biden because I don't know where Biden is, neither does he, but nevertheless, his team is looking down at the wasteland of what should have been the central feature of the Biden foreign policy, which is the destruction of Russia.
That's what they've wanted.
That's what Biden's entire career has been about as a neocon.
So they're looking at their biggest project that was supposed to be their crowning achievement, going up in smoke and going up in flames.
And so that is why what they want to do is escalate.
If you can put up that first clip, now that was on heads, but it was also picked up from anti-war.com and Kyle Ansloan wrote the piece.
U.S. and European officials discussed giving Ukraine nuclear weapons.
Now this is on top of the fact that the U.S. has sent attacks with the permission to hit deep in Russia, which they've done.
The British have sent storm shadow missiles deep into Russia.
And so this is a kind of last gasp escalation.
And if you go to the next clip, what they are doing is they are rushing, taking steps to rush weapons into Ukraine to give Kiev the ability to strike targets inside Russia.
But this is something that we've said, Dr. Paul, to we're blue in the face.
If you go to the next one, because American officials who are briefed on the intelligence community's assessments told the Times that weapons will not alter the challenging situation Kiev is currently facing.
U.S. spy agencies have assessed that speeding up the provision of weapons, ammunition, and material will do little to change the course of the war.
You know, I noticed that, and I think it's interesting because we have a lot of criticism about our current group of people who are our spy agencies that want to give us good information and also protect us and that sort of thing.
But they're saying this is probably not going to help.
And I think they should, you know, we know the relative value of some of that advice, but I don't think that the people who are bugging for this or carelessly or lackadaisically allow this to happen should ignore this.
I think that has significance because what good is all this?
And it's an acknowledgement that, you know, they're just lining up where the borders are going to be before the peace is signed.
I hope we're getting there.
You know, we may be shocked next week and find out somebody really messed up and the thing turned around and it started escalating again and make it so the people who would like to stay out of it we just can't bear to do it now because now the American people are demanding we do something.
That so often is the problem.
And you have to deal with that.
It happens.
That's why, Daniel, maybe that advice we give it, just don't get involved to begin with.
It's hard getting out of here.
Here it is.
We said don't get involved in 2014.
How many years is that now?
It's a bunch of years.
And it's still a mess.
Yeah, and that's the lesson for the incoming Trump team.
You have to resist the temptation to embark upon one of these massive adventures that you think will change the world because it doesn't.
It just leaves the world in ashes.
But the one thing that I think from Kyle's article, and he's quoting the New York Times, that really has to be addressed is this issue.
And this is what Kyle writes.
The article, i.e. the New York Times article, continues, quote, several officials even suggesting that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Putin's Threat to Europe 00:09:25
Now, that is an oft-repeated fallacy because Ukraine never had nuclear weapons.
Those were weapons of the USSR.
Ukraine never had, Kiev never had operational control over those weapons.
They could never have launched those weapons because they didn't have the launch codes.
They were not Ukrainian nukes.
And this refers to the Budapest Memorandum, where Ukraine agreed to the removal of these nuclear weapons that they didn't control.
It'd be like if you had a gun but no bullets.
In exchange, Western countries agreed to not meddle in Ukraine's internal affairs.
And as you often rightly point out, 2014 was the chief example of the U.S. and the West meddling in their internal affairs and overthrowing the government.
Yes, and they've marched on and they always justify it.
But behind the scenes, there are that group of people, that dollar, you know, they have those glasses on with dollar signs on their glasses.
That's what I think of.
And also, we may be mentioning it today, that we're not the only country that's in the business of selling weapons.
You know, when we might not sell this many, somebody else might be lining up to do the same dealing.
Yeah.
Well, you know, the assessment over and over of the Biden administration is that Putin will do nothing.
Putin is bluffing.
He will do nothing.
Well, he's basically always done what he said he's going to do.
And so I think that's why this should be paid attention to.
This next clip is from a speech recently given by President Putin.
And here's what he said: Russia will target military facilities of countries whose weapons will be used against Russia.
He's reiterated again.
So when you look at the balance sheet, on one hand, it won't make a difference if we do this.
On the other hand, they promised to use weapons against us if we do.
It's again, it seems to be a no-brainer, you know.
And you know, the reliance on sanctions has been a real weapon, especially with the previous Trump administration.
And he may have changed because he is changing some of his policies and his tone.
But this, I hope this sends a message that you can't depend on sanctions because that was not a big benefit to that.
Because Russia adapted pretty well.
It probably made them stronger because they become more independent of the trade with the Europeans.
But the world would be much better if the international trade between Russia and Europe.
I still can't see that we want to change the policy where there's more activity with Russia, friendly activity.
But what about the people in Europe?
Can you imagine how we'd be shouting at them?
Why don't we make a deal with Russia and trade oil?
Instead of forcing on sanctions, then they have to retaliate and cozy up to Red China or someplace.
Well, the Trump team, and I wrote about it last night in an update to Ron Paul Institute subscribers, which you can subscribe free by going to RonPaulInstitute.org.
But the Trump team is a mishmash on foreign policy so far.
Now, we know what Trump says.
I'm not going to be the guy who starts wars.
I'm going to be the guy that stops wars.
And that's encouraging.
And I think that's why Biden's people are flipping out.
But there are some people that he's naming that we just kind of scratch our heads.
And we can only hope, we can only hope that it's kind of the put the scorpions in a jar and shake them up.
But I want to just put, no, if the idea is that we're not going to provoke Russia into war, this is what someone Trump announced over the weekend to be working as his counterterrorism advisor and deputy national security advisor in the White House.
And it's caused a lot of controversy over Twitter X. Let's watch this clip, this 20 seconds of this clip.
This is concerning if this person gets into power.
You might want to put your earpiece in, Dr. Paul, and listen to what this future potentially high-ranking official said just recently.
No sound.
Can we replay it with sound?
There we go.
I'll give one tip away that the president has mentioned.
He will say to that murderous former KGB colonel, that thug who runs the Russian Federation, you will negotiate now, or the aid that we have given to Ukraine thus far will look like peanuts.
That's how he will force those gentlemen to come to an arrangement that stops the bloodshed.
That's worrisome, because if they think they're going to bully Putin, if this person has any power in the White House, that's very dangerous because they're not going to be bluffed this way.
They're not going to be pushed around this way.
You know, if you look for a definition or understanding about the policy we talk about, non-intervention, just look at him and say that's the opposite, the opposite of what we think we should be doing.
Yeah.
Worrisome.
There are a few others, but we're going to hope for the best.
We're going to take him at his word for now, even though some people are mad at us for saying.
But it's not only Dr. Paul, the Biden administration, that sees the sands of time exiting the hourglass with the end of the Biden administration.
The Europeans are into Project Ukraine more than the U.S. because the U.S. has sacrificed.
But the average American doesn't necessarily see it.
It's all hidden through inflation.
But if you look at GDP throughout Europe, where they've sent everything possible, they have really taken a hit.
And now they're desperate.
And what are they doing when they're desperate?
And they know they only have a few weeks left until Trump comes in.
Well, this is from Le Monde.
And this is called Discussions Over Sending European Troops to Ukraine are Reignited.
And so Kara Stahmer, the Prime Minister of the UK, went over to France.
He was chatting with Emmanuel Macron.
And he said, I got a great idea.
Let's send some troops.
Go to the next one.
So this is discussions are underway between the UK and France on defense cooperation, particularly with a view to creating a hard core of allies in Europe focused on Ukraine and wider European security.
And just one more, Dr. Paul, this is the French foreign minister, Jean-Woel Barot.
And he said, when asked about the possibility of sending French troops into the field in Ukraine, he declared, this is the next one, actually, we do not discard any option.
But I think the other thing that they won't talk about, and yet it's involved, and that is if Trump follows up and fades away and doesn't send so much and spends so much, and we're not sending as many weapons there.
It looks like these other countries, I don't know how much they produce, but they talk about maybe they can sell some weapons.
They already do.
You know, the British makes a couple bucks on that.
So I think they're preparing to think that maybe Trump is serious and he's going to back off.
And the French and the British might just say, well, let's send him in.
Maybe we can make some dollars.
Because nobody can possibly.
Yet, I think I have to change my tune on that because at least I nobody, I was a nobody.
Nobody can conceive that people would contrive to have a war.
And then the more I read history, the more you find out many wars have been contrived for various reasons.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, I think what we talked about last week, which is the launch of this hypersonic missile that has never been seen before into Ukraine from Russia, if that was supposed to be a warning that stop this, guys, it's enough.
We have the ability to do very serious things.
They're obviously not listening to this, and they should be, but certainly these troops will be targets.
And I think that also raises the question of Article 5 of NATO.
Because Article 5, a couple of things about it, as you know, Dr. Paul, it does not obligate NATO members to respond militarily if one is attacked.
It just says they should respond with whatever reaction they deem appropriate, including military force.
They're not obligated.
And also, Article 5 is modified by Article 6, which points out if you go on an in-military adventure and you get smacked, you can't start crying for Mommy to come take you out.
You can't invoke Article 5 if you started it.
So if France and the UK want to go in, you know, go for it.
But don't call Uncle Sam and invoke Article 5 and have us come after you.
But the way the system works, the globalist system, there's such an intermixing there that somebody's going to come up with a reason and sometimes it'll be secret and who knows what.
But the points you make, I think, are crucial, at least for helping the American people to understand what's going on.
Yeah, maybe the Europeans will finally get sick of it.
Well, they probably are sick of their governments, but they're a little bit like us.
Either party, they're all the same.
Musk's Fury Over Media Perception 00:05:11
But we'll see what happens.
So dangerous couple of weeks ahead.
We'll keep our eyes on it.
But we need to end, I think, probably with something a little bit more lighthearted, if you're ready.
Have a little bit of fun with this because I was laughing last night when I looked at it.
I'm sure you were as well.
Hit this next one.
This is on Hedge, but it's also all around Twitter X. Poor Rachel.
Maddow hit with a $5 million pay cut as Musk and Trump Jr. joke about buying MSNBC.
Poor, I mean, she's going to, Dr. Paul, we're going to have to send some cash.
Her salary is going to reduce from $30 million to $25 million.
I don't know what she's going to do.
Well, you know, I think this is pretty unique that this is happening.
I wonder if we could work it out.
You know, we have some creative people working with us now.
Maybe we could get our program on there when the right people, maybe Musk could help us out.
Get our program on there.
And all of a sudden, that channel would change.
They're allowed to make some money.
Yeah, they will make some money.
But what would we do with Maddow?
Could we let her go down or just cut salary?
She could clean the latrines, maybe.
I don't know.
But there are a lot of great people if he did that.
And actually, here's the origin of the kind of semi-joke.
So here's with Donald Trump Jr.
He reposts something saying that the MSNBC looks like it's going to be set up for sale.
They are absolutely hemorrhaging money, hamorrhaging money, hamorrhaging viewers.
No one watches it.
I'm sure the Liberty Report has more viewers than the entire network.
I'm not even joking.
And so when they listed this and it's up for sale, Donald Trump Jr., who seems to have a great sense of humor, he tagged Elon and said, hey, Elon Musk, I have the funniest idea ever.
To which, go to the next one, Timitz, Musk replied, how much does it cost?
And I remember he did that with Twitter when people said, you should have.
They laughed at him.
Yeah.
They laughed at him.
And just think of how things have changed since then.
Yeah, since then.
Twitter has become massively more important, massively more popular.
And MSNBC, by sticking to those old shibboleths, by literally hating their audience, they treat them with disdain.
They go down.
I don't think MSNBC has ever taken one of my tweets and broadcast it around the country.
Not in a positive way.
A few times in a negative way.
Well, we've had that happen for sure.
But I actually wanted to do one more video, Dr. Paul, and this came up.
This is the, what's the fellow's name again?
Jim Vandenhey.
He was the founder of Axios and also a founder of Politico.
He was speaking at the National Press Club.
And he's furious that the mainstream media is getting overtaken by Twitter.
And let's listen to, I think I said 55 seconds of this.
Let's listen to him being furious that people aren't listening to the mainstream media anymore.
Go ahead and run this.
Matters.
Everything we do is under fire.
Elon Musk sits on Twitter every day or X today saying like, we are the media.
You are the media.
My message to Elon Musk is, bullshit.
You're not the media.
You having.
You having a blue check mark, a Twitter handle, and 300 words of cleverness doesn't make you a reporter.
Any more than me looking at your head and seeing that you have a brain and telling you I have an awesome set of tools makes me a damn neurosurgeon.
Right?
Like what we do, what journalists do, what you did in Mississippi, what Al Jazeera does in the Middle East.
You don't proclaim yourself to be a reporter.
Like that's nonsense.
Like being a reporter is hard.
Really hard.
He's talking about himself.
It's furious.
It's a meltdown, really.
I was looking for the tears, but he was with friends, so he wasn't about to cry over.
But he was crying.
He was crying.
He was desperate.
And the thing that I mentioned on X about it is, you know, they're angry, but they did it to themselves.
You know, they used to expose government lies, you know, expose all these things.
Now they're just carrying water buckets for the state.
And that's why nobody believes them.
They go nuts, you know, with the results of the campaign, you'd think, well, maybe we, and they talk about it, we have to reassess this.
Well, we really do.
And they reassess it, and they make it worse.
Yeah, they do.
They just, they don't get it.
And I agree with part of what he said, which is that, yes, people on Twitter are citizen journalists, but there is room for professional journalists out there.
And there are people like Glenn Greenwald, you know, that we know are professional journalists out there.
But if you're going to do that, you have to actually have your integrity and be a real journalist, which I'm sure very, very few of the people in that room were.
Running Out of Money 00:04:03
That's right.
Yeah.
So anyway, I'm going to close out our Monday show.
And we've got a good live audience.
We got, let me see here, we got a $20 donation from Conrail 2020.
People who encourage both sides to escalate with nuclear, non-nuclear weapons need to see a psychiatrist.
We agree with that.
But I will ask you to put up that last clip too and remind you on Monday.
It has been a wild ride for Bitcoin guys looking at it over the weekend.
It's licking at 100K.
If you have some Bitcoin lying around, we would love to have you donate it to the Ron Paul Institute.
Keep the Ron Paul Liberty Report and all of our great programs alive.
You can simply scan that QR code with your wallet app or you can go to ronpaulinstitute.org and make a donation online.
I have included a link in the description of the show.
We rely on you 100% to keep the voice of peace and liberty alive.
Over to you, Dr. Paul.
You know, once again, I will recite my conviction about a non-interventionist foreign policy because we've been talking about what is going on in Ukraine, and we blame NATO and the United States for getting things started, but you can't say it too loud.
They might say you're unpatriotic.
But interventionism is so sinister and so dangerous that we have to be aware of this if we can't, we can't wait all the time, years and years and money and deaths and all this goes on and on.
And once again, escalation is occurring again.
And maybe we see some signs since the elections that maybe things will change.
And that's why we're going to encourage the new administration the best we can to move in the direction.
And we've heard some good statements from the president to be.
And this is good that an individual flat out says, I'm here to stop wars.
I'm not here to start wars.
And so often, people in my lifetime, I can remember people running, both parties running, I want to be president because I'm going to stop this war.
Oh, sure.
Then they go in there and they increase the war.
So that to me is a real problem.
And I think we're in a transition period right now.
And although the 10 years has passed, the transition has always been there.
But generally speaking, it's always been escalated.
But they're running out of money.
We're running out of money as well.
And yet, we still hear signs that the Europeans will be there.
They'll send some troops if we don't do it.
We're going to take care of them.
It's sort of weird.
It doesn't make any sense.
So why do they do it?
Well, some want to make money and some people, I have no idea why they're doing it.
Because so often, the government actions have always tended, you know, to make things much worse.
There haven't been many wars that really produced more liberty.
Murray Rothbard, the famous libertarian economist, said that he thought that the only decent war where the people ended up to be freer than before was our revolution.
Boy, that's a tough thing to have to go back because it hasn't been long-lasting.
Because unfortunately, most of the people I met in Washington, the people in Congress, yes, they give lip service and they always take, everybody takes the same oath of office, but their dedication to the principles that were laid out in the Constitution and the Revolution, they're hard to find up there.
But I think they're alive.
Well, I think there's a remnant out there coming alive that people are sick and tired of it because they have to do something because it cannot persist this way.
And I think that was the frustration the American people felt at why the election came out as it did.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.
Export Selection