Russian Military Aircraft Violates Swedish & Japanese Airspace As UN Warns Of Increased NUCLEAR Threat
UN Warns Of Increased NUCLEAR Threat, Russian Military Aircraft Violates Swedish & Japanese Airspace. NATO Countries are providing full military support at this point in all but official declaration.
Russia's violation of japan's and sweden's airspace is a dramatic escalation but somewhat predictable as NATO is actively funding and arming Ukrainians and even their own citizens in the war effort.
Latvia has voted to allow their citizens to fight in Ukraine to stop Russia which is somehow not declaring war against Russia.
Russia again presses saying NATO could trigger WW3 and it will be nuclear war while failing to recognize they are the invaders.
#Ukraine
#Russia
#WorldWarThree
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The UN is warning of the increased nuclear threat, saying the potential for war is a threat to all of humanity.
And Russia's foreign minister has once again said that World War III will be nuclear.
But Russia has now violated the airspace of Sweden and Japan, escalating the conflict.
Meanwhile, NATO is doing the same.
Latvia is going to allow their civilians to fight in Ukraine, and we're seeing support, material, weapons, resources.
I don't see how NATO isn't involved.
In our next story, Russia scores a major victory by taking the city of Kursan.
Hopefully it ends here, but it is escalating.
In our last story, influencers in Russia are coming out against the war.
This is an example of Western propaganda working.
Russia is not good at fighting information wars.
If you like the show, give us a good review and leave us five stars.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Another dire warning has emerged over the threat of nuclear war following the invasion of Ukraine by Russia.
Speaking in Geneva, the UN Human Rights Chief warned that all of humanity is at risk over the increasing nuclear threat.
Now it's not all bad, there are discussions about peace talks resuming and hopefully that is the case.
If Russia stops at the river in Ukraine splitting the country, that's probably a good thing at this point, although the invasion itself is increasingly getting worse.
We can only hope that it resolves itself with peace talks and maybe where Russia currently is.
But there is reason to believe that Russia seeks to escalate the conflict, refusing to back down.
Now we can look at Russia and see they're engaging in a hot war, but the West is absolutely engaging in warfare as well.
It's just not kinetic.
There are sanctions, there's influence, propaganda, manipulation, and Russia is not going to back down.
In fact, backing them into a corner may only make things worse.
We're now getting reports that Russia has deployed warplanes that violated the airspace of Sweden, and a helicopter has violated the airspace of Japan.
People need to realize that Russia is massive, has around 150 million citizens.
And for the people who live in the United States who think it's some faraway land, I'll remind you that Russia is only about 50 miles away from the United States.
Now, of course, some people may say, oh, come on, but Alaska?
Yeah.
Alaska.
I mean, there are American citizens who live there.
What would happen if Russia actually made a move against Alaska?
More importantly, when we're looking at the Aleutian Islands, the U.S.
may actually be closer than that.
Russia is within the same distance to Japan.
It also borders NATO countries.
And Kaliningrad, in the Baltic Sea, is very close to Swedish territory.
Now, this could all be bluster.
It could all be saber-rattling.
But I worry that this will not just end where it is.
We have that map from Belarus showing Russia may actually move into Moldova, already occupying Transnistria, and maybe use it as a staging ground to take Kiev.
Speaking with a friend of mine from Ukraine, I was told that Vladimir Putin will not stop at the river.
It's not enough.
Putin will not be satisfied with just controlling the east of Ukraine.
He will need to take it all.
However, of course, my friend firmly believes in the resilience of the Ukrainian people to resist.
And it is true, Russia will struggle to maintain control of Ukraine amid resistance, fighting, and insurgency.
This could escalate, and hopefully it doesn't.
But there are more reports now that foreign fighters are joining the fray.
And technically, I think it's fair to say that NATO is already engaging in this conflict enough to trigger an escalation from Putin.
Perhaps that's why we're seeing him invade the airspace of Japan and Sweden.
The U.S.
is sending weapons and fighter jets, and there's some speculation that there may be NATO individuals providing more material assistance.
My question here is, what constitutes NATO involvement?
If Western nations are supplying weapons to Ukrainians and foreign fighters joining the fray, how is that not NATO assisting in the war effort?
Of course they are!
So where's the red line for Putin?
Is he gonna say, You can't set foot with NATO troops?
Perhaps.
But there's more than enough Ukrainians to take up arms granted to them by the West.
So is it just semantics, I suppose?
Is the red line really that someone from Poland with a NATO badge enters Ukraine?
I don't understand why people think that policy, law, and conventions matter when we're talking about war.
There are war crimes.
There's the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions.
Certain weapons are not allowed.
What about, what about Havana Syndrome?
Speculation about energy weapons.
These things aren't covered in these conventions, but why would Russia backed into a corner just to be like, okay, we're going to abide by these rules?
No, I don't think so.
I think we could be looking at a threat of nuclear war, and the UN certainly thinks that the risk is real.
Emmanuel Macron of France said that after speaking with Putin, he believes Putin's deluded, delusional, and won't stop until he takes all of Ukraine.
Let's read the latest updates on what's happening in the war and the potential escalation.
And I will stress, there are potential peace talks that could be coming.
I don't want to make it seem like the world is ending, but I hope people pay attention to what's happening because things could be getting bad.
Before we get started, Head over to TimCast.com and become a member if you want to help support the work I do, if you like these videos, if you like this show, if you like the work our journalists are doing, and you also want to get access to exclusive podcasts from TimCast IRL available only to members, become a member at TimCast.com to ensure we can continue in the face of censorship and manipulation.
Don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.
Let's read the first story from Daily Mail.
UN warns all of humanity is at risk from heightened nuclear threat levels amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Before I read the direct statements, this could just be more propaganda, a rallying cry telling people of the West, we need to stop Russia because he's evil and could destroy the world.
Russia has also issued similar threats.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that a third world war will be devastating and nuclear.
The West might use that to rally people to push back against Russia.
The UN Human Rights Chief slammed Russia's attack on Ukraine on Thursday and cautioned that heightened nuclear threat levels showed all of humanity was at risk from Putin's invasion.
Speaking before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Michelle Bachelet warned that Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine launched a week ago is generating massive impact on the human rights of millions of people across Ukraine.
Elevated threat levels for nuclear weapons underline the gravity of the risks to all of humanity, she added.
Her comments during an urgent council debate on the Ukraine conflict came after Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday ordered Russia's nuclear forces be put on high alert.
It's clear that World War Three can only be nuclear, Lavrov said in an online interview with Russian and foreign media.
I would like to point out that it's in the heads of Western politicians that the idea of a nuclear war is spinning constantly and not in the heads of Russians.
Could it be?
The narrative about nuclear war is just appearing in Western media so that we fear Russia, we take action against Russia, and you are convinced that intervention is the right move.
I'm not a fan of propaganda, but I do believe that a desperate Russia could use some limited nuclear weapons, be it nuclear artillery or Maybe it's naive.
Nuclear weapons are what's on our mind because it's what we know.
But what about the weapons we don't know?
If the U.S.
came out and said Russia had some kind of special weapon, people wouldn't understand or fear it.
But knowing the devastating impacts of nuclear weapons, Western forces, NATO, and the U.S.
can come out and consistently highlight this, seeding stories that even I would take the bait on to make sure you're scared and desperate to end the conflict before it escalates to this level.
I don't know if that's true, because conversely I can say, if we are pressed to intervene and invade Ukraine, in support of Ukraine, I should say invade to attack Russia, I mean that would just precipitate nuclear war.
So the threat of nuclear war could actually prevent us from stopping Russia.
I don't know for sure.
Fog of war and manipulation.
You'll need to decide where you think this goes.
Now we have this story From Reuters, from today, U.S.
warns Moscow and Minsk against deploying nuclear arms in Belarus.
There is a nuclear threat level increase.
Belarus is allowing Russia to stage nuclear weapons in its country.
The U.S.
is not happy with it.
They warned Russia and Belarus at a U.N.
arms control meeting on Thursday not to deploy nuclear arms in Moscow's neighboring ally following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The US has cancelled a Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile test in an effort to de-escalate nuclear tensions.
I think it's a sign of good faith?
I don't think it'll mean that much, but certainly it shows the U.S.
is willing to do something, even if it is symbolic.
And then calling on Moscow and Minsk to not deploy nuclear arms in Belarus, I think it's the right move.
As much as I don't like the Biden administration or the bureaucratic state, I do believe in many ways, not always, the U.S.
and NATO are on the right side of this.
Ukraine very much favors the West.
Russia couldn't compete.
That's Russia's fault.
Invading is wrong.
I do not believe that Putin cares for the collateral damage that he is causing.
The U.S.
is continuing to wage a propaganda war, and the Ukrainians are fighting on their own behalf for themselves.
unidentified
Hey it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
Not Russia's invasion, because he's upset about how gas deals are going.
And thus, we end up with this story from UPI.com.
Russian warplanes violate Sweden's airspace.
Now this right here.
Outright.
Could it be we are being lied to?
And we don't know why Russia would invade Swedish airspace?
Maybe.
I think it's more likely that Russia is pressuring other countries and effectively threatening them.
Russian warplanes, jets, fighters, had violated Swedish airspace, prompting the Swedish Air Force to respond.
And we also know Japan is saying a Russian helicopter violated their airspace.
This is escalation on the part of Russia.
UPI reports.
Four Russian warplanes violated Swedish airspace on Wednesday, the Scandinavian country's armed forces said, prompting it to deploy its own forces amid heightened tensions between Europe and Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine.
Sweden's Air Force dispatched JAS-39 Gripen aircraft in response to two Russian Su-27s and two Su-24s briefly entering its airspace east of Gotland Island.
Gotland, probably pronouncing it wrong, in the Baltic Sea.
The aircraft documented and photographed the incursion, the Swedish Armed Forces said.
Now, do you trust Sweden?
There's the issue.
They've reported it.
I don't see videos.
Quote, this demonstrates that our readiness is good, Air Force Commander Karl Johan Edström said in a statement.
We were on site to secure the territorial integrity and Sweden's borders.
We have complete control of the situation.
The incursion occurred a day after Japan said a Russian helicopter entered its airspace hours earlier.
Tensions between democratic nations and Russia have been climbing following the Kremlin's invasion of Ukraine last week.
In response, 38 nations have imposed flight bans on Russian planes, and Moscow has been repeatedly hit with sanctions.
Among those countries to take a stance against Russia was Sweden, Whose Prime Minister Magdalena Anderson announced earlier this week that she would be sending Ukraine 5,000 anti-tank weapons along with protective gear.
My question there is, how is this not the West entering the war?
Is it because a Swedish soldier isn't the one carrying the gear or deploying the anti-tank weapons?
That seems like nitpicking at this point.
Sweden has not done anything like this since the Soviet Union attacked Finland in 1939.
She said in a speech on Tuesday.
It also comes after Russia threatens Sweden and Finland of military and political consequences if they join NATO.
Now, of course, we have this story as well from UPI.
Japan says Russian helicopter violated airspace, scrambles fighter jet.
also for March 2nd. The helicopter crossed into Japanese airspace over waters off of the northern
island of Hokkaido at 10.43 a.m., the defense ministry said in a brief statement. Japan issued
warnings and sent an air self-defense force fighter to respond to the incursion, the ministry said.
Japan's military will continue to take all possible measures 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year to protect Japan's territory and the peaceful lives of its people.
Tokyo issued a protest with the Russian government through a diplomatic channel, Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirokazu Matsuno said at a press conference on Wednesday.
Matsuno called the incident extremely regrettable and said Japan would continue to monitor the situation.
The incursion came as countries around the world are on alert over Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine.
This context we do understand.
I want to make sure you understand the geographical consequences of what we're seeing and understand this conflict for those that are watching.
For those that are just listening, allow me to explain.
North of Poland and southwest of Lithuania is a Russian oblast known as Kaliningrad.
It is a heavily militarized area of Russia that sits on the Baltic Sea.
Gotland is an island just off of Sweden in the middle of the Baltic Sea.
This is where the Russian warplanes briefly entered Swedish airspace.
It is said that they came from Kaliningrad, grazed the island, and entered the airspace before leaving after Sweden scrambled its fighters.
This has been a fear we've been having some time about Kaliningrad used as a staging ground to escalate the war in Europe.
I warned my personal opinion, not some foreign policy expert, just someone who reads the news and reports on it.
I warned that Russia could stage from Kaliningrad first or Lithuania and Poland could be threatened by the heavily militarized Kaliningrad and try and cut them off first.
It seems that the first move has been made by Russia by entering Swedish airspace.
Hopefully that's all it is.
But this could be Russia basically trying to chest bump or saber rattle at Sweden because they're telling Sweden and Finland not to join NATO.
Sweden and Finland seem poised to do just that.
So of course, from Kaliningrad, we're seeing some action.
Now, if we zoom out here on Google Maps, I want you to see just how absolutely massive Russia is.
For people, I think most people know, but you really need to see it is a very, very large country.
Now, keep in mind, the projection used by Google Maps makes Russia seem substantially larger than it is, but Russia is large.
In fact, I think Russia has more land mass than Pluto.
I don't know how much that really matters, because what's Pluto relative to?
But I do want to point out a few things.
If you take a look at Alaska, which is a very large landmass.
Of course, it's a United States.
It's a state of the United States of America.
From Nome or Wales, Alaska, Russia's only about 50 miles away.
Now, it's not like that these territories are heavily populated to the extent where they're prime targets for war, but there very much could be conflict between the U.S.
and Russia.
And what if Russia were to say, we'll make an attack on Anchorage?
Alaska used to be Russia's.
How can the U.S.
defend Alaska effectively?
Not to mention, you have the Aleutian Islands, which stretch out very far and are probably much harder to defend.
But showing Japan I think people need to really, really understand this. The
distance between Sapporo or Hokkaido and Japan and Russia, they're very, very close.
It's the Sea of Japan.
And you can see, I wonder if we have 50 kilometers.
It looks like we're talking about a gap of maybe 100 to 150 kilometers from Russia to Japan.
In fact, if you look at this island here, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Russia, is probably only, what is this, 20 miles.
I'm sorry, not kilometers.
It might have been 100 miles.
Only 20 miles or so from Japan.
Russia and Japan are neighbors.
Russia and China are neighbors.
Russia and North Korea are neighbors.
Russia and Finland are neighbors.
Finland and North Korea are separated by only one country, a very massive Russia.
That means Russia is able to stage war on multiple fronts.
However, do they have the economy to do so?
I'm not entirely convinced.
We can see here the city of Vladivostok, right on the Sea of Japan.
It's neighboring North Korea.
In the Sea of Japan, it could reach South Korea.
It could reach Japan.
It can reach a lot of different countries.
And you know what's scary?
North Korea, South Korea, Japan are staring down China as well as Russia.
If this becomes a world war in which China backs Russia, well now we're talking about the dragon bear, as it were, controlling a massive portion of the world, East Asia, and being able to shut down and crush our Southeast Asian allies.
Taiwan will not be able to hold out.
Already we're hearing that in Taiwan there was a major power outage due to negligence, but if this was a cyber attack, how would we really know?
That's the scary thing.
Now, Emmanuel Macron believes that Putin is delusional and won't stop.
I don't know what's a belief.
I know that Russia invaded, so I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt.
From the Daily Mail.
Delusional Putin is intent on seizing the whole of Ukraine to achieve denazification with the worst violence yet to come, warns Macron after phone call with Russian leader.
Far be it from me to give the benefit of the doubt to people like Emmanuel Macron.
I don't trust these people.
I don't trust Joe Biden.
But I tell you this.
I trust Vladimir Putin a whole lot less.
Now, Putin, of course, has made good points because he's savvy.
Donald Trump called him a genius and savvy, and he was smeared for it, but the reality is Putin is a very intelligent man who has a plan.
He's come out and criticized the United States and the West, saying, oh, look, they've invaded Iraq, and they said, oops, bad intelligence.
They destroyed a whole country.
Vladimir Putin, he's right.
He absolutely can criticize the United States.
The U.S.
has no moral ground to stand on when Vladimir Putin invades Ukraine.
The fact is, however, the U.S.
was wrong to invade Iraq, they were wrong to invade Afghanistan, and Vladimir Putin is wrong to invade Ukraine.
Period.
Those of us, I suppose, of moral and principle do have the moral ground to criticize those
who invade other countries.
That being said, Russia's arguments with the West and the U.S., he's got points.
There's the Budapest agreement, the memorandum.
The U.S.
is arguably using influence in violation of it to a certain degree, but I think that's only a technicality.
There are arguments that the U.S.' 's influence campaigns and support of regime change are violating this kind of, like, hey, we're going to leave Ukraine alone.
But, if you look at the memorandum, it's like, well, we're not using aggression, we're using influence, which, again, in my personal opinion, I think it's much better than war, to basically just try and, like, invest in, fund, and convince.
What more can you do?
Now, regime change is underhanded, and that could be a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty.
But it is Russia who's directly violated the Budapest Memorandum by invading.
Now, apparently, we're obligated in the West to defend Ukraine.
And Zelensky brought this up, but he also pointed out there's no true defensive pact.
The issue was, if nuclear weapons were to be used against Ukraine, then the West would defend Ukraine, and there's no nuclear weapons being used here.
So I can certainly say this.
While the U.S.
is of limited moral ground to stand on, Russia's in the wrong here.
Russia, you want to criticize the U.S.
over Iraq and Afghanistan?
Yo, we got a whole plethora of anti-war activists and personalities in this country who agree with you and are quite pissed off over what the United States has done and is doing.
Now that doesn't mean a whole lot, because again, my taxes help pay for that machine, and I think it's gross.
It's one of the reasons why I decided to vote for Donald Trump in 2020, because he was trying to pull that back.
You want to hear something really funny?
The criticism they throw at Donald Trump, far from a perfect man with a lot of character defects, to put it mildly, Donald Trump kept the peace, to a certain degree.
No new wars.
There's a post that says, I can't remember what it's from, I tweeted about it, they said something like, Uh, you know, Donald Trump was appeasing Putin and, and backing away from NATO and Putin wanted all of this.
And I'm just sitting there thinking like, Vladimir Putin didn't invade Ukraine.
So what you're saying is Trump made some concessions that prevented war?
Why would I be mad about that?
You can see what the establishment wants.
These people want war.
They're mad that Trump was de-escalating things and focusing inward on the United States.
They're mad that he wanted to pull out of Syria.
They're mad he wanted to pull out of Afghanistan.
And thus, he had to be stopped.
And now they want to... It's just... It's infuriating that they try to spin Donald Trump keeping us out of war as a negative.
Quite amazing indeed.
In a phone call initiated by Putin today, the Russian leader reiterated his determination to neutralize Ukraine, whether diplomatically or by force, a senior aide to Macron said.
The expectation of the President that the worst is yet to come, given what President Putin told him.
There was nothing in what Putin told us that should reassure us.
He showed great determination to continue the operation, the aide continued, before adding that Putin wanted to seize control of the whole of Ukraine.
He will, in his own words, carry out his operation to denazify Ukraine to the end.
Now there's some truth here.
The Azov Battalion, not good people in my opinion.
There's a video that went viral that Twitter even shut down, showing someone from the Ukraine National Guard actually posted it, showing a man dipping bullets, I believe they were 7.62x39, collision of carve rounds, in pig's fat, making a statement about Muslims.
I don't see what that has to do with the current conflict.
There are certainly some despicable people there.
Now, I believe Vladimir Putin is using that as an excuse, to be completely honest, but I do believe there is some legitimate concern over Chechnya, Russia, Muslims in Russia, though I think it's certainly just an excuse to justify Russia's bigger concerns over their natural resources and their ability to sell natural gas and fuels into Europe.
Macron, in return, told Putin he was making a major mistake by invading a sovereign nation, that he was deluding himself about the government in Kiev, and the war would cost Russia dearly over the long term, and I think that's correct.
The French President also urged Putin to avoid civilian casualties and allow for humanitarian access.
Now, this is some good news.
We are hearing Russia has agreed to open humanitarian corridors for fleeing civilians.
Ukraine official.
It's good in only a certain respect.
It's bad that it has to happen, but at least civilians may be safe as they escape the country.
They shouldn't have to escape the country.
It's sick what's happening.
I feel bad for these people, man.
I got friends.
You know, I've mentioned it.
I try to keep the details a little bit vague and obscure them.
I want to make sure, you know, let me just put it this way.
I know people in Ukraine.
I talk to them regularly.
I keep much of the details a bit obscured for their safety and security and protection.
I know journalists who are on the ground and have... I know journalists on the ground in Ukraine.
I wish them nothing but safety and security as they cover this conflict.
I have personally covered conflict in Ukraine at the start of the Euromaidan protests, which led into regime change.
I was there.
I saw the statue torn down of Lenin.
Fragments being ripped off.
People stole his hand or something.
They were trying to sell this stuff.
I was there.
And it's one of the reasons why this conflict there matters to me.
I know people there.
I have a friend.
I want to keep the details vague, so I'll just say that.
I'm regularly in communication with people about what's going on.
And I want it to be over.
I want Russia ultimately to just back off, but it's not going to happen.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating and affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
From the week, 16,000 foreigners have volunteered to fight for Ukraine during Russian invasion, Zelensky says.
I want to be sure you understand, there's two points to be made here.
That it may be that foreign volunteers are coming to Ukraine and joining in the fighting, and we've seen photos of people claiming that's the case.
The second is Volodymyr Zelensky, the president, is just saying it.
Show me some proof.
Fog of war, man.
I don't know what's true.
Neither do you.
Nobody does.
We just want to hope for the best.
I can tell you a few things are true.
There are bombings, there are shellings, there are civilians losing their lives.
There are... I'm getting reports from my sources of civilian targets being hit.
Universities, malls, things like that.
A lot of it we don't hear in the media, but on the ground people are sharing this information.
That's why it's so important that we have reporters who can get this information out.
In a video shared on Telegram, the President referenced the international legion of 16,000 foreign volunteers he's asked to join the defenses of Ukraine, Europe, and the world, per the Post.
Earlier this week, Ukraine temporarily lifted certain visa requirements so foreign volunteers could partake in the push to hold back the Russians.
Now, here's some concern.
Majid Nawaz brought this up on TimCast.rl the other day.
Some of the people that are coming and joining the fighting are actual far-right, actual neo-Nazis, whatever far-right means, but you know, ultra-traditionalists, authoritarians, fascists, and they're coming to join the likes of the Azov Battalion.
After Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba initially called for foreign volunteers last week, countries like Latvia have voted unanimously to allow their citizens to fight for Ukraine.
How is this not NATO invading, it makes no sense.
Does it require a NATO commander to say, we're gonna fight?
What if the NATO commander says, any citizen of a NATO nation is allowed to go and fight, but I didn't tell them to?
You think Russia's gonna look at this and be like, NATO's not involved?
Or do you think they see this?
Latvia.
I mean, this is amazing.
Outright voting to allow their citizens to fight for Ukraine?
They may as well have ordered it.
It's such ridiculous posturing.
Well, we didn't declare war.
Don't look at us.
It's just our citizens.
It's remarkable.
Let's go back a hundred years.
I want you to imagine thousands of people marching to the border of a country, waving their flag, and then what would the country The country where they're marching to, what would they say?
Would they say, oh no, it's not an invasion.
You know, we're not being attacked.
It's just a bunch of the civilians from our neighboring country waving their flag as they enter the country.
What constitutes NATO involvement?
Do these civilians need to be carrying weapons from NATO?
The craziest thing about all of this is that it kind of exposes how it's not nation versus nation.
It's political elite versus political elite, and of course we knew that.
But if the civilians can be involved and it doesn't count as declaring war or fighting, I'm sorry, then it makes no sense to say that Latvia is involved, or the United States has an army.
The United States is not its people in this case.
Russia is not its people in this case.
Ultimately, it's just absurd, and it makes very little sense.
I think the expansion is here.
I think the escalation is here.
And I think it very well could get serious, and I hope it doesn't.
But Sergei Lavrov has repeated his warnings that this could become nuclear, and it could become World War III.
In fact, he said, World War III can only be nuclear, in his latest TV rant.
He said, Russia will not allow any provocations to throw us off course.
This will be interesting. Russia has invaded. Has anyone done anything about it? To an extent,
yes. The West is engaged in influence operations and sanctions. So,
war is here. And if that's the case, what do we really fear?
Do we fear collateral damage?
It's gonna happen.
I've been hearing reports on and off of potential cyber attacks that may be occurring, but we don't know for sure.
If we take a look at what's happening in Taiwan, let me see if I can find this one.
Mass blackouts affecting 5 million homes hit parts of Taiwan as authorities blame negligence at a power plant incident as Mike Pompeo arrived in to warn the island must not suffer Ukraine's fate.
Interesting, really.
A power outage?
A blackout affecting 5.5 million households?
Five million homes.
Sorry, I said people.
That I find truly fascinating.
Could it be negligence?
Yes, of course.
Could it be cyber war?
I believe so.
Slogging up someone's economy is a powerful tool in a war.
If Russia knows that we're going to be entering, and they can hurt our economy, which limits our ability to produce weapons, they'll do it.
And that means something as simple as shutting down our internet with a distributed denial-of-service attack or something to that effect.
But we don't know, and we won't know.
As members of the public, the fog of war is real, and it's hard to know exactly what is or isn't an attack.
Power plants blowing up, just an accident.
Power going out, just an accident.
Explosion, did you hear it?
I don't know, that was just a fireworks factory or something.
Even if.
Artillery is launched, and it slams into a school, someone can say, a propane tank exploded, if they don't want escalation.
Or, a propane tank could explode, and they could then just go on and be like, we got shelled.
It's really hard to know for sure unless you witness it.
These are truly dark times.
I want to make sure that we mention peace talks are a real possibility.
Now, Macron may come out and just say, you know, he's delusional and all that stuff, but opening up these humanitarian corridors, good news, and there's a potential for peace talks.
In this tweet from Richard Engel, NBC.
He tweets, in a small press conference with a group of reporters in Kiev, President Zelensky said he needs to speak to Putin, saying there is of room for compromise and discussion, but not about Ukraine's survival as an independent nation.
Many people have pointed to this tweet and said, he's losing.
Ukraine is falling.
Vladimir Putin is winning.
Putin doesn't need to do much to the Western nations that are joining in because he's winning.
Seeing Zelensky in what appears to be a cramped space, seeing him say he needs to speak with Putin, it's all indicative of Ukraine losing.
I like Zelensky, I respect him, and I wish for him the best, and I wish the best for Ukraine.
But these are dark times, and reality is, it's important.
We got to talk about what's really going on and not just try and mask it or hide it.
And the reality is that Ukraine is losing this one.
I hate to say it, but the sooner Ukraine loses this, potentially the better.
If Russia secures their position, and Ukraine just gives in, maybe not give in, but loses, then we'll see a de-escalation.
It'll become a tense standoff and insurgency, but I think that's all bad.
I think it's all bad.
Russia's not going to back down.
So think about it logically.
What is the best outcome at this point?
Russia, well the best outcome at this point would be Russia backing off and leaving.
It's not going to happen.
The best alternative then would be Russia gets what they want and they stop.
The fear is, what if they don't?
And why would they?
So I don't know.
That's the worrying thing here.
But I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
That'll be at 8 p.m.
Hope for the best.
Prepare for the worst.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
It is now being reported that Russian forces have seized the city of Kursan in Ukraine, in the south.
This is the first major city to fall to Russian forces as they continue to expand the war in Ukraine, and I think this shows Vladimir Putin wants more than many realized.
The other night when I was talking with Majid Nawaz, who is brilliant by the way, I think we had a disagreement about certain issues and I think I disagree with his assessment on what's currently happening in Ukraine.
The view, and forgive me if I'm getting your position wrong, Majid, but the general idea was that Vladimir Putin has already got what he wanted.
He's going to split the country in half.
He's concerned about biolabs in the east.
He's concerned about the expansion of NATO closer and closer to his territory.
I think there is a lot more at play here.
You can see here I have on Google Maps, I've Highlighted Kursan.
And you can see that this city is just on the other side of the Dnipro River.
Maybe I'm pronouncing that wrong.
And this does, this city being seized, does suggest Vladimir Putin wants to stop at the river.
He wants to control this area, effectively splitting the country in half.
However, I think based on information from the Belarusian president, We're gonna see something else.
Now, it may be still the case.
Vladimir Putin's goal is to enter into the east from Kharkiv to Kiev and take the whole eastern region of the country, splitting it down the river.
Kursan being on the river may just be strategic.
But there is this image that I believe is more and more coming true.
This image is of the Belarusian President Lukashenko, or dictator, whichever you prefer, I think he's called himself that, showing Russian attack points.
And we can see that almost all of the attack points have happened.
Now, when this was initially shown, They described it as such, Ukraine divided into four command regions, and of these, we can see these pink lines showing potential or current incursions, four of them had been correct.
Many had reported, this shows what is yet to come.
If that is the case, It seems that Vladimir Putin is not so interested in just splitting the country in half, but absolutely taking a substantial portion of the country.
It looks like there is no intent, if this map is correct, predicting the future, or showing their plans, to move into the western regions of Ukraine, or western region.
But it does show an attack on Moldova, Transnistria, the area that is currently occupied by Russian forces, about a thousand.
It may be that this is phase one of their plan.
We don't know what happens next, and I don't even think Vladimir Putin necessarily does either.
I'd be willing to assume they have contingency plans for what happens next, but you can see here there is the the eastern region Donetsk and Luhansk, which are heavily pink, implying Russian incursion, and then they move out.
We can then see they move towards, I believe what is Mariupol, probably pronouncing it wrong, but you can see right here, Luhansk, Donetsk, Mariupol.
It looks like that's the plan of attack in this area.
And then, of course, you can see that from Crimea, they will perform a pincer move coming from the eastern regions and meeting halfway between the Crimean forces, the Russians, and then we'll also see out of Crimea, they're moving westward towards Kursan, westward, and which they have now claimed If these are all true, and it seems they are, Russian forces will move in through the sea into Odessa and then move into Transnistria.
I don't know if that means or suggests, well, first of all, we don't know if it's true.
We don't know if this will actually happen.
In fact, it could be disinformation, an attempt to confuse and have Ukraine send forces to an area that they can't defend or send them to an area that is not in need of defense.
But it does look like, at least for now, it will be the case that Russia moves more troops into Transnistria, bringing a threat to the more western regions of Ukraine.
It could be that all Russia will do is stage troops in this area to help maintain control.
We don't know for sure, but they have seized the city of Kursan.
So, Kursan, we can see that right now Kiev is under heavy attack.
There is, in the map, Belarus, it looks like an attack moving, excuse me, from Belarus down to Kiev.
I'm not entirely convinced Vladimir Putin wants to stop at the river.
And more importantly, As uh, as Magid had stated,
That's what he believes, but more importantly, I believe that the response from the West could have a dramatic impact on what does happen.
You need to understand these sanctions hitting Russia are causing massive damage to their economy, to their people.
They're being cut off.
There's memes going around, I don't know how true this is, just something I've seen circulating, that they've seized a yacht from a Russian billionaire.
They've announced, you know, EA Sports is booting Russian teams from FIFA.
The Iron Man is banning Russian citizens.
So these sanctions are going after Russian civilians, blaming them for what's currently happening.
And many of these citizens aren't even in Russia.
It seems the goal is to put pressure on influential Russian personalities and athletes so that they come out on the side of the West.
And it may work.
Vladimir Putin seems to He seems to be really, really bad at information warfare.
I think anybody who's followed politics over the past ten years, I suppose, or maybe eight years at least, knows that Vladimir Putin is bad at information warfare.
We often hear about Russia Today, RT and Sputnik are Russian propaganda.
They're not all that influential.
I mean, RT does, you know, does well on YouTube, but it's just like leftist activists in the United States for the most part.
We hear about how they were trying to manipulate the elections in the U.S.
and the real story was like they paid thousands of dollars, literally thousands, to like some Facebook pages that had thousands of followers, ultimately having very little impact on anything.
I think it's fair to say Russia is struggling to maintain a narrative here.
And Ukraine is doing very, very well simply because the West is engaging in information warfare.
So I say the West because it's not just like one government.
I'm sure there's alphabet agencies involved.
But there are sock puppet accounts and psychological psyops.
People involved in PSYOPs and armed forces and corporations that seem to be engaged in trying to sow narratives like the ghost of Kiev, fake story, and Western journalists are debunking this stuff.
Snake Island, fake story.
Viral Time Magazine cover, fake story.
Now we're hearing, oh, you know, almost 10,000 Russian troops are dead.
Don't believe it, I really don't.
But maybe, I don't know.
We're seeing these videos of Russian troops, young, young men, 18 to 20 years old, crying, saying, we had no idea what they were going to make us do.
Oh, please.
Yeah, sure.
A captured POW crying on camera.
I'm going to believe.
Yo.
When these people are captured and you've got the Ukrainian command off, was it the Special Forces Command Office, outright tweeting, they will kill anyone they capture.
I think we know why they're doing that.
It's a threat.
You get caught, they're trying to break the morale of these soldiers.
So here's the point I'm getting at.
It may be that Russia's true intent was just to take the eastern region and stop at the river.
But we also, as I pointed out, the Lukashenko map does show an attack from Odessa into Moldova.
Now, fair point.
Transnistria is already occupied by Russia, so that may be the extent to which they're willing to engage in a military operation.
But the West has retaliated, and we're now seeing assistance coming from many countries, even countries that are not members of NATO.
This and the sanctions could back Russia into a corner, a nuclear one.
The foreign minister of Russia, Sergei Lavrov, has already warned NATO that a third world war will be nuclear and it will be devastating, as if to say, if you interfere, this is what you'll get.
I do not believe right now that probability favors this ending at the river.
I believe that right now probability suggests this will escalate and potentially spiral out of control.
I don't think that Vladimir Putin is a crazy person, but I do believe he's desperate.
You take a look at what happened in Ukraine over the past, what are we dealing with, eight years.
There was regime change in Kiev.
The more pro-Russian government, not completely, but Yanukovich, was ousted, and now you have a pro-West government.
Putin is obviously not happy with that, but he's not good at influence campaigns or psychological operations.
Eventually, it gets to the point where it's looking like Ukraine is going EU, and Putin says, you know what?
I'm not having this.
Putin views what happened in Kiev in 2014 as a coup, which was assisted by the West.
Vladimir Putin has stated that in Luhansk and Donetsk, where there are separatists fighting because they don't like the regime change, the West is providing weapons and resources to the new pro-West government.
These things are true, but how you frame them is important.
The point is, this is Russia's perspective on what's happening.
So they've decided they're going in.
It looks like Russia is winning.
Propaganda from the West and from the media is going to tell you that they're crippled.
It's not going so well.
Oh, it's not working out.
I don't believe that Vladimir Putin is a comic book villain.
I believe he's a world leader with intentions and an agenda, and I certainly think he's planned for what's going on, and he certainly has intelligence.
We're not talking about military intelligence, I should say, but I don't think the guy's dumb.
We're not talking about someone trying to invade a country on the other side of the planet.
We're talking about Russia literally on the border with Ukraine.
Vladimir Putin could very easily send intelligence officers all throughout the country and get his tendrils very deeply into the country to understand what's happening.
I don't think he has the capabilities of the influence campaigns like the West has, but I certainly think it's easy enough for him to have spies Or just feelers in general for what's happening in the country, where certain troops are being moved.
Look, in December, a viral video showed a Russian politician saying, February 22nd at 4am, mark my words, something like that.
I wish it would have been peaceful.
This plan has been in place for a long time.
And it looks like they stuck to their date for attack.
The US even said they had intelligence suggesting this was going to happen.
Yeah, they saw the YouTube video I saw too, I suppose.
I'm sure they know things I don't, absolutely.
I'm just some dude on the internet who's tracking the news, trying to figure out what's going on.
But I do not believe.
I'll put it this way.
It could stop here.
I believe it's possible that it continues because of Western retaliation.
The West is not fighting a ground war.
The West is fighting a psychological war and an influence war.
And Putin's only option was to retaliate with military force.
This could result, in my opinion, in Russia taking substantially more than just Ukraine.
Now, some people don't believe it.
And that's fine.
I'm not saying it's absolute.
I'm saying this is a possibility.
There's a viral tweet that's being heavily criticized.
Someone saying, if Vladimir Putin will not stop in Ukraine, if he's not stopped in Ukraine, he'll move to Poland.
If he's not stopped in Poland, he will keep moving.
That is extreme comic book villainy of Vladimir Putin.
But while it may be very simplistic, I believe it's not completely out of the question.
And let me explain.
It's clear that Vladimir Putin has an intent with Ukraine specifically.
Estonia and Latvia are NATO countries, and they are also on the border with Russia.
Vladimir Putin has not invaded Latvia or Estonia.
He doesn't seem to be all that worried.
It seems he's mostly upset about the 2014 regime change that occurred in Ukraine and the fact that Ukraine is a major transit point for liquid natural gas and other fossil fuels from Russia into Europe.
This is why Russia wants to build the Nord Stream 2 pipeline into Germany.
That was sanctioned by Donald Trump.
Putin did not move in to invade Ukraine, and probably because he felt his interests were still safe.
As they were currently in Ukraine, with Donald Trump saying he didn't want to be involved.
Now that the Biden administration is in, Biden removed the sanctions on Nord Stream 2.
And this was likely an attempt to, I think, appease Russia and give them something, because the US sought to reclaim Ukraine.
We ask, why didn't Vladimir Putin invade Ukraine under Donald Trump?
Trump was not interested in the neoliberal, neocon efforts in Ukraine.
In fact, he wanted an investigation into the corruption of Joe Biden in this country.
He sanctioned Nord Stream 2, but Putin said, well, Donald Trump, he's not going to be engaging in this warfare in Ukraine, the psychological warfare, so Nord Stream 2 isn't as important.
Biden removes sanctions on Nord Stream 2.
We said, why would he do something like this?
Well, it seems, at least in my opinion, if Russia is given a transit pass for their natural gas back into Europe, then that would ease tensions enough that Biden and the Democratic administration, the bureaucratic state in the U.S., could make their moves to claim Ukraine for the EU and NATO, and Russia would say, well, we do have Nord Stream 2.
But apparently it wasn't enough.
Vladimir Putin was not willing to tolerate this, and so he engaged in war.
The West now is retaliating, or escalating, their information campaigns.
There's some speculation that NATO actually is supporting the Ukrainian war effort, which is why Russia is having a harder time than many expected, though it does seem that Russia is winning this war, at least for now.
It's hard to know for sure.
There's some speculation that NATO efforts are currently ongoing in Poland, which are then being masqueraded as just Ukrainian forces staging in Poland, or Poland offering certain territories and spaces, uh, territory and spaces to, uh, Ukrainian forces.
It may actually just be NATO.
So let's talk about where this brings us and the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction.
If you watched the show, Tim Castellar, last night, Majid Nawaz and I had an argument.
And most of the people who were chatting disagreed with me and said I was wrong about the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Take the L, Tim.
You're rolling a one.
You are wrong.
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
By all means, agree to disagree.
I understand the doctrine of mutually assured destruction exists.
I understand it's an implied threat.
I know all about that.
I just think it was thought up by someone as a threat and it's never actually been put in practice.
And the idea that humans will behave rationally and that humans will behave uniformly to me is absurd.
The idea of Mutually Assured Destruction, if Russia fires a nuke, then another nuclear power will respond in kind with a nuke on Russia.
But Mutually Assured Destruction is limited in its scope.
Now, the issue I have with the argument is that when I bring up, I don't believe it will play out the way people... I don't know it exists, I just don't believe it'll play out the way they do.
It feels like everyone kind of retreats to this narrative of, oh, well, in order for there to be Mutually Assured Destruction, you'd have to nuke a civilian target.
Well, that was never the colloquial understanding of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Perhaps it's the true doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction.
The idea being that Russia sees they're going to lose, Ukraine will fall, NATO will press on their borders, they have no choice, but they're going to nuke Warsaw.
My point is, they won't nuke Warsaw.
It doesn't end the war.
Nuking London or Brussels or Berlin, it's not going to end the war.
So this idea that there would be a nuclear strike on civilian targets doesn't seem to make sense.
What would be more likely is Russia targeting key militaristic infrastructure with nuclear artillery or tactical nukes, which is to say...
The reason why I disagree with the colloquial understanding of Mutually Assured Destruction is that there are limited circumstances in which Russia can use nuclear weapons.
I'm not talking about megaton bombs or multiple independently targeting re-entry vehicles, ICBMs.
I'm talking about maybe a kiloton, a 500 kiloton bomb.
Substantial.
But on military installations, on more rural targets, on artillery, on aircraft, air bases, or airports.
If Russia uses a nuclear bomb of limited capability on a major military installation, I do not believe the immediate response from the West or any other country would be to then nuke Moscow.
Donald Trump has reportedly threatened, if you move in Ukraine, I'll hit Moscow.
Now that's interesting.
Under Donald Trump, it was entirely possible that He would go nuclear, for a lack of better term, figuratively, on a civilian capital.
And perhaps Vladimir Putin believed it was possible Trump would go after a civilian target.
I think in the issue of Ukraine, we can see nuclear weapons.
Majid Nawaz said he didn't believe it.
And with all due respect, absolutely, Majid Nawaz is brilliant and knows a lot about this, and I respect his opinions.
Humbly, I just disagree.
Respectfully.
I believe that we're dealing with a conflict where Russia is in Ukraine.
The West has not yet entered, though they are providing resources.
What happens if Vladimir Putin says, I will not allow Kiev to fall to the hands of the West?
The regime changed.
And uses tactical nuclear devices, strategic nuclear devices.
These are smaller.
Suitcase nukes, etc.
These are nuclear weapons.
When I talk about nukes, I am not talking about the movie depiction of all of these ICBMs flying through the air over each other and then bombarding all of the civilian capitals and wiping out the planet.
It will be a nuclear war.
It may spiral out of control.
Mutually assured destruction could be the end result.
But the point I am making is that Russia absolutely could use nukes strategically in Ukraine in ways we've never seen before.
It will not be.
So they talk about the legend of Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear device ever created.
I think it was like 500 megatons.
And that was only like a quarter of its potential nuclear capacity.
It was a gravity bomb, meaning it was dropped from a plane by Russia.
The test was a success, but the shockwave was so massive that the bomber jet actually got knocked out of the sky briefly.
And that was only a quarter of its capacity, so they say.
What if Russians were to use nuclear artillery?
That is, to fire nuclear shells of massive capability.
We're already seeing thermobaric bombs.
These are massive fuel bombs that use atmospheric oxygen for their explosion, so they yield massive heat and a massive release of energy.
We've already seen the mother of all bombs.
I believe that was in Afghanistan.
There are.
I think that was a kiloton bomb, I'm not sure, but massive.
We could see the use of nuclear weapons, but it's not the way people think.
And I think what frustrates me here is everybody assumes the use of nuclear weapons is going to be like a movie.
That the missiles launch from the silo and go up into the stratosphere and the ICBMs come down.
People think nuclear weapons are like, North Korea's launched a nuclear missile.
It doesn't have to be a nuclear missile.
The first nuclear bombs ever used were called gravity bombs.
They were dropped from planes.
It was the, what was it, the Enola Gay.
Was it Fat Man and Little Boy were the bombs?
These were, I could be wrong, but I think they may have been 500 kiloton bombs.
I'm not sure.
But these were gravity bombs.
The U.S.
has been working, I believe it was around eight or so years ago, there was a report, that the U.S.
had compressed and created a very small gravity megaton bomb.
It was really interesting, it was very compact, very powerful.
We have since developed very powerful nuclear weapons, but typically the view from most people is that nuclear bombs will always be in an ICBM, an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile.
Nuclear weapons could very much be much smaller and delivered in very different ways.
Russia could use a nuclear bomber that won't result in all of the ICBMs being launched from submarines.
Well, submarines would use nuclear payload.
I don't know.
I don't think it's ICBMs.
But it's not going to be like these big missile silos launching rockets into the stratosphere.
That is television.
That is movies.
That is war games.
That's G.I.
Joe.
For real, in G.I.
Joe, you see all the lines from all the missiles flying in the air.
That is, the television perspective of Mutually Assured Destruction.
The idea of Mutually Assured Destruction is a threat.
That if you nuke us, we nuke you.
But it doesn't take into consideration all of the developments in nuclear capabilities and technologies, like a nuclear suitcase, as it's been described.
Small nuclear bombs that can be planted, timed, and detonated from afar, but delivered by human And if that does go off, we won't even know who did it!
The idea, man, this is what frustrates me so much about people saying you're wrong about mutually assured destruction.
Myopic.
If Russia launches an ICBM from a missile silo, of course the U.S.
is going to be like, sir, we've detected a missile launch from Russia.
It's the end of days and all the missiles fly in the air.
But what happens if a nuclear detonation occurs in Ukraine?
There's no missile launch, and they just say, this was Russia.
It had to have been Russia, perhaps.
Or what if it's any other power, country, seeking to make things worse?
Entirely possible.
If something does detonate, it could be Russia.
But you need to understand, there could be substantial dirty bombs, nuclear weapons.
So of course, okay, hold on.
People would say to me then, this is what frustrates me again, the retreat to the more specific definition of mutually assured destruction.
That is the launching of ICBMs.
Sure, as we mentioned on the show the other day, say Iran, if they saw nukes coming their way, they'd be like, if they had nuclear weapons, they'd be like, you know what, we're done, wipe them out because it's ideologically driven.
They wouldn't care if they kill civilians, they view them as evil.
But the issue I'm bringing up is, The use of nuclear weapons is possible.
It will not be immediately known how, how it happened, what happened, who did it.
The idea, I understand, about launching a nuclear warhead.
But there are ways to deliver nuclear payload that exist outside of the colloquial understanding of what a nuclear weapon is.
And there are probably things we don't even realize.
And more importantly, nuclear weapons, my friend, we are talking about the 40s!
Since the 1940s, there have been tremendous developments in nuclear technology, nuclear weapons.
We went from, I believe, the current iteration, and this was actually like six years ago when I was doing the research on this.
I was doing a news report for Discovery.
The power of modern nuclear weapons is about 1,000 to 1,250 times more powerful Then the bombs dropped on Japan.
Since then, there have been tremendous developments.
But the idea that Western powers, that Russia, that China, that Japan, well, we can leave Japan out of it, I suppose, because they're, you know, demilitarized for the most part.
But that these countries, because I think Japan contributes, mind you, technologically, just not holding the weapons themselves.
The idea that they'd be like, well, we built these powerful ICBMs in the 1980s, 1970s, we're good.
That's absurd.
You ever hear of rods from God?
This is the idea of satellites in orbit that drop giant tungsten rods.
Once again, watch G.I.
Joe.
Because in G.I.
Joe, what happens, the movie, all the nations are tricked into launching nukes at each other.
It starts with the U.S., but it's actually Cobra.
I can't remember the guy's name who did it.
It starts with a Z or something.
He launches nukes, so then everyone else launches their nukes.
Mutually assured destruction.
He then, the president, fake president, then says, I'm self-destructing all of our nuclear weapons.
And says, there you go.
You guys can be responsible for the destruction of the Earth.
It won't be me.
I just self-destructed all of our missiles.
So then one by one, all of the countries destroy all of their nuclear weapons.
And they say, you're insane.
And he's like, well, I just denuclearized the planet.
Then, he drops a tungsten rod onto London, blowing up the whole city.
It's a ridiculous movie.
The point is, not that I think rods from God exist, they've been theorized, but that it is absolutely, probably, There are weapons beyond nuclear capabilities.
Now, psychological warfare is probably the better route.
If you can win a war without firing a bullet, you're better off because you retain more of the resources you're trying to control.
If I'm trying to gain control of Ukraine to sell or transfer oil or gas, I don't want to blow up these cities.
I need people to live and work to transport the oil and gas.
So taking control of a country without using force, using mind control, psychological manipulation, is always better.
Vladimir Putin is fighting a third-generational war against a fifth-generational technology.
I don't know if he can pull it off because demoralization and international manipulation can be more powerful than a ground war.
But, ground wars can be surgical.
It's much, much harder to gain influence than it is to just storm in and take something.
Less effective for Putin, but if he's losing, what's he gonna do about it?
Now let me mention, the first time we used nuclear weapons in Japan, nobody knew about it.
It was speculated, there was research in Germany, people were trying to figure out how to use these understandings of science to do something extremely dangerous.
But the Manhattan Project was compartmentalized and no one knew exactly what they were building.
My understanding is, I could be wrong, it's been a while since I've read about this, 300,000 or so individuals working on the Manhattan Project and none of them knew exactly what they were building.
Nuclear bombs!
Some of the most powerful.
And it required basically small cities to construct such powerful weapons.
Now, do you think you know the weapons that Russia, China, NATO, the U.S., you think they know what they have?
They did not tell you about nukes until the cat was already out of the bag.
So, when we talk about what we know about nuclear weapons, we're probably limited in our understanding of the capabilities of nukes as it is.
Not to mention, since then, the U.S.
and other powers have likely been working on weapons capabilities that well surpass the power of nuclear weapons.
You know, one thing people don't understand, too, is that nukes typically detonate in the air, not on the ground, because they want the shockwave to spread out further than it would if it was on the ground.
It comes from above.
A lot of people don't understand what nuclear weapons are.
So let me say this.
In the instance of a country firing ICBMs, I agree there is a strong possibility that people would abide by the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine.
That is to say, if you fire the nukes, we'll fire them back because we have to.
That I get.
And U.S.
troops did drop nukes on civilian targets.
People will do it.
The point I'm making is, I'm not convinced that it will play out the way people think it will, because that would be to imply that humans act in a uniform way.
No, humans can be erratic.
So if Russia did fire an ICBM, I'm not convinced other countries would act the way you could predict them, the way you want to predict them to act.
I don't believe the doctrine is absolute.
I think it's mostly wrong.
And the other issue is, colloquially, nuclear weapons can be delivered in ways that are not detectable.
In which case, how do you respond with mutually assured destruction?
You nuked us, I think.
Yo, I've been playing Civilization, the video game, for my whole life.
Amazing game.
In Civilization II, from back in like 1994, in the game you're building cities, you could send a spy into a city to detonate a nuclear device delivered by a human being.
This concept has been around since at least the 90s, I guess.
Probably sooner than that.
If a nuclear device were to be detonated, and this can be, it's reasonably a megaton bomb, You wouldn't even know where it came from!
Now, if it was a dirty bomb to spread nuclear waste all throughout the city, making it uninhabitable, and we're talking about massive destruction, casualties, severe genetic damage, and mutation, and just chaos, you wouldn't even know who to respond to!
So, when I talk about mutually assured destruction, for sure, fire an ICBM, and you are likely to see retaliation.
My point there?
We don't know how humans would respond.
They could panic for all I know.
Some people may retaliate, a lot of people probably would, but it will not play out the way people think it will like a movie, where everyone just does it, and it wipes the planet out.
I believe Russia, right now, has the capability, and many countries do, to use nuclear capabilities, and you'd be like, we think it was Russia, but we don't know.
And if you don't know, do you say, let's kill 10 million civilians?
Or maybe not 10 million, but what, Moscow's 3 million, 2 million?
Do you think someone in a NATO nation, they'll see a detonation, and they say, we don't know what just happened.
We have to respond by nuking Moscow.
Do you think, the likelihood in my opinion, I think there's a fair chance a soldier would be like, you got it boss, fire away.
But I also think, there's going to be commanding officers, there's going to be people who say, I cannot retaliate without knowing who did this.
And there's hypersonic missiles.
There are ways to deliver weapons.
You think you know, you don't know.
I don't know.
And so that's the issue to me.
Without evidence, without any real world circumstances, people believe the world will play out as mutually assured destruction.
And I'm just like, it's never been tested.
It can't be tested.
I mean, it can, and then we all die.
And it's very, very assumptive and speculative.
It's a threat.
It's a Mexican standoff.
You fire, we fire back, everybody loses.
And Mexican standoffs are a real thing.
However, in a Mexican standoff, the person who fires last wins.
The idea of a Mexican standoff is you have three people standing around each other, and they're all pointing guns at each other.
You know, I'm pointing a gun at him, he's pointing a gun at him, he's pointing a gun at me.
If I fire first, Then, the guy in front of me fires back.
Now we're both dead.
It's something like that.
Whoever makes the last move typically is the person who ends up winning.
Because I fire first, and the guy in front of me is now down.
He doesn't fire.
Then the guy to my right fires at me, taking me out, and he's the last one standing.
Mutually assured destruction may be a Mexican standoff, as some have described it as.
But think about what this means.
There's two things I want to say, because I don't want to go too long on this.
Russia has already invaded Ukraine to almost nothing.
No threat of force.
Sure, the sanctions are damaging and backing them into a corner.
There is warfare currently happening outside of just physical war.
It's hitting all fronts.
Fourth, fifth, it's third, fourth, fifth generational warfare, all of them.
Physical invasion, manipulation with insurgent groups, resistance, sanctions, and fifth, psychological warfare.
But seeing what's happened with Russia's use of force, I believe it is a fair assessment to say that Russia could escalate and we would still not see NATO intervention.
And it's because, as Majid pointed out, of mutually assured destruction.
If that's the case, it means that Russia can do what they want, take what they want with no resistance militarily.
They're just going to go to them and say, well, you can't buy or you can't sell and trade and we're shutting you down.
And Russia says, it's cool.
We got trade with China.
We'll be okay.
And we can take what we want and you will do nothing to stop us.
Because they're scared of nuclear weapons.
And if that's the case, Russia's already won and they'll take whatever they want.
If they do retaliate, it won't be ICBMs.
I mean, eventually, maybe.
We'll see.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out and I'll see you all then.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is hope that this war may end sooner than we realized.
The hot babes of Instagram in Russia, like not a group, but like various hot babes,
have taken to Instagram to denounce the war and say, enough.
Thank you to these hot babes for having the courage to say things that most people don't
have the courage to say.
Well, in all honesty, most people are condemning the war.
There's a lot of protesters in Russia that are opposing this war, and all bits aside, you know, it is good that they're speaking out against the war because Russia invaded, and it's wrong, and it's deeply complicated.
But what we're seeing here with the rebellion of rich kids of Russia, the story, is U.S.
propaganda working.
To convince the people of Russia to oppose Vladimir Putin, and I believe it's one of the reasons Vladimir Putin is actually engaging in the war.
Yo, Putin sucks at influence war.
This is a guy who's waging a ground war in Ukraine because he doesn't know how to use fifth-generational warfare.
Now, of course, Putin has engaged in fourth-generational warfare.
Let me slow down there and explain to you what's happening.
Third-generational warfare is like World War II.
It's conventional, uses very powerful weapons, airplanes, codes, things like that.
You have the invasion currently underway in Ukraine, and that's effectively third-generational war.
Boots on the ground, tanks, etc.
Fourth-generational war was Vladimir Putin and the West staging protests or supporting separatist groups, basically getting insurgents to fight each other on your behalf so you can deny involvement.
When that wasn't working for Vladimir Putin, he stepped it up Then went to third generational warfare.
Meanwhile, the West is using fifth.
Fifth generational warfare is things like this.
Convincing the children of your elites to protest against you.
To get the rich kids, the Instagram models, the hot babes, to stand up and tell all of the people who follow them that what Vladimir Putin is doing is wrong.
Now truth be told, I prefer this substantially over shelling civilian targets.
I think influence wars are substantially better and preferable to hot war and insurgency.
Granted, I still don't like influence campaigns, but what is it really?
I mean look, what am I doing right now as I go on the internet and try and give you my perspective?
It's influence building.
And that's everything now.
Whose culture will succeed?
In the U.S.
we have the culture war.
People speaking online trying to push ideas or spread ideas or defend their ideas.
In the international conflict scene, foreign policy, we have the same thing.
And when it doesn't work, you end up with the next stage.
First the U.S.
engages in manipulation tactics.
They can use influence, they can use bribery.
When that doesn't work, you get protests, like we saw in the Arab Spring.
I'm not saying that was necessarily fomented by the U.S., but the U.S.
certainly supported it when these people were being removed from power.
When that doesn't work, it escalates beyond there.
This is where we are right now.
Let me read you the story from the Daily Mail.
The rebellion of the rich kids of Russia.
Oligarchs' kids, including Sofia Abramovich and the daughter of Putin's spokesman, share Instagram messages against the Ukraine invasion.
Now, why did they do this?
Because they have influence, they have followers in the West.
These are people who may have hundreds of thousands, maybe they have millions of followers, maybe not, maybe only tens of thousands.
But many of their followers may be from other countries and they're worried.
If I get banned from Instagram, who's going to click the like button on my photos?
So of course, the hot babes gotta step up and make sure they don't lose their industry.
The Daily Mail reports, Comments show how the next generation of Russia view the ongoing conflict.
It also suggests some gap between Putin's government and younger people living in the country.
Ksenia Sobchak, a socialite and former Russian presidential candidate, has led the condemnation and urged peace.
The presenter who has denied being Putin's goddaughter said on Instagram,
the main topic, a real conflict with Ukraine in which no one, including me, believed until the
last. I mean, I didn't believe it either, to be honest.
When Russia recognized the self-proclaimed republics of Donbass, it seemed that this
was already kind of intermediate finish.
So this photo right here is Roman Abramovich's daughter, Sophia, 23, who regularly shares snaps
of her lavish lifestyle online she posted against the war.
Now, Abramovich, her father Chelsea, owner, her father Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich is currently attempting to sell the club for $3 billion amid fear of sanctions.
So you have a lot of high-profile Russian oligarchs and elites.
Who, uh, there's one story we have.
France sees the yacht of one of these guys.
They're trying to shift their wealth back into Russia, somewhere where it will be protected.
Sofia Abramovich said, Now, I will point out, when the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, we had the same means.
I think it's meaningless.
of Kremlin's propaganda is that most Russians stand with Putin. Now, I will point out, when the United States
invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, we had the same means. I think it's meaningless. I don't think Vladimir Putin or
NATO or any government cares what these people have to say.
By all means, they can save face. Oh, Oh, don't blame us, the Russian people, but let's be real.
The American population's taxes were used to finance the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Granted, there's other things involved, like the petrodollar, the World Economic Forum, the International Monetary Fund, etc., etc.
The civilians of Russia can speak out all they want, and I respect it, but it is the work they do that funds the war effort, and that's just a reality.
I'm not blaming the Russian civilians or the American civilians for anything.
I'm just saying, Civilians are a component in the machine.
Quote, it was the very beginning the military conflict began.
Shares have collapsed.
The EU is preparing sanctions.
Arrests for anti-war pickets have begun all over Russia.
The RKN promises to punish the media that, quote, an unofficial point of view.
What's next?
How will at least today's endless day end?
It's impossible to calculate.
The only thing known for sure is that people are dying.
Sobchak is known to have flown to Turkey with her young son.
So, uh, she did, she did so as tens of thousands of Russians are leaving amid fears that draconian martial law will be imposed in the near future and their concern over war.
I want to just make sure we're being careful here.
Propaganda?
Perhaps.
When we see these beautiful women posting on Instagram, I mean, look, she's got her
strap falling down on her her arm or whatever.
A very promiscuous pose, as it were.
I mean, this is very beneficial to the Western efforts stopping Russia from engaging in this
conflict.
And when they come out and they say they fear that Putin will crack down and arrest them
all.
It's also propaganda.
The West is very good at information and influence warfare.
I'm not saying it's not true.
It may be true.
I mean, I've certainly seen photos of people being arrested, but I've also experienced these protests, and I see how these activists lie to try and gain power and push their way.
Do I think Vladimir Putin is a comic book villain who is going to just arrest all of the protesters?
I don't.
In New York, they arrested hundreds of protesters during Occupy Wall Street.
Are they the comic book villains?
Well, they do it too.
During the Iraq War, we saw the same thing.
During the Afghanistan invasion, protesters get arrested.
So we see it.
It happens everywhere.
But they want to come out and make it seem like Putin is this demonic oppressor.
Yo.
Countries have agendas.
Now, Vladimir Putin is in the wrong on this one.
He was losing the influence battle and that's just too bad.
If we make cool stuff and people in Ukraine want to support the West and be involved in what NATO and the US are doing, too bad for Vladimir Putin.
But of course, he's unwilling to let it go, so he resorts to an invasion.
I've been reading more about the Budapest Memorandum, and it's not technical.
Some people have said that the West is in violation of the Memorandum by not intervening to help Ukraine.
But my understanding, after a cursory glance, is that it specifically relates to nuclear weapons.
Long story short, I believe it was Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine The idea was Ukraine and these other countries would give up all of their nuclear weapons if these other countries promised not to invade, not to attack them, not to aggress against them, and not to use nuclear weapons against them.
Talk about stupid.
Sorry, it's just a reality.
I mean, it may be better for the world that less people have nukes, but they returned their nuclear arsenal to Russia, and now Russia's invading them.
The issue was, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia controlled the nuclear weapons, but Ukraine controlled access to them.
And as such, it was kind of a stalemate.
Ukraine could have held them.
They couldn't really do anything with them.
Why would you agree to give up your weapons and give them to someone else who is your enemy is beyond me.
That's what they did.
Well, now what we have are these claims among these models and influencers that Russia is this evil comic book villainy or whatever.
We have this post from Maria Yumesheva, daughter of government advisor Valentin Yumeshev.
uh... has also shown her support for ukraine on instagram occur if i'm wrong but i think luke was saying this that
you must have us as the a at at the ever name at the never name in her dad doesn't
cause like a male female thing like luke was saying i know this
that's on in poland all of it has to be a change
If you're a dude, your name would be like Rutkowski, like his.
And if he marries a woman, her name would be Rutkowska.
Because it's like... I don't know.
Weird to me.
You know, here in the West, we just share the same last name and they're not gendered.
She's also a prolific poster on her social media, and has scores of pictures on her public Instagram feed.
So, the reason I'm highlighting this, for one, I do think there's some humor in a throwback joke to the Australian hot babe propaganda.
This was when, in Australia, they were setting up these COVID camps, and they had all of these hot babes posting photos like they were just absolutely loving being in this camp.
And then, of course, I was criticized.
And then this particular individual was like, look at all these hot babes, you know, enjoying their stay at the Howard Springs quarantine facility where they're not allowed to escape.
They'll be hunted down.
Yeah, I think the use of hot babes for propaganda is kind of obvious.
And this is something that I think the West is absolutely bet upon.
TikTok is controlled by China.
No surprise, TikTok is gaining influence.
Donald Trump wanted to ban it.
I don't think he was wrong.
You see, on Instagram, they would love it if Russians and Chinese influencers were on their platform, because then they control the perspective of these individuals.
If you're a Russian youth or a young woman with a million followers or whatever, and you're making money selling ads and you're living a good life, you don't want to lose it!
And of course, we're seeing the West ban Russian citizens from apps like this.
Of course, they will come out and say, no.
This is Elizaveta Peskova, daughter of Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, posting her own take on the conflict online.
So you have all of these people who are the daughters or family members of high-profile Russian government officials, and they're against what Putin is doing.
This is a problem.
Because with influence came... It's a problem for Putin, mind you.
It's good for us.
The problem for Putin is that if enough Russian civilians are rallied.
That's it.
Now take a look at this story.
Putin cracks down on anti-war protests in Russia with more than 6,500 arrests.
I don't necessarily believe it, to be honest, but I don't disbelieve it.
I'm just concerned about Western propaganda.
They say demonstrations have taken place in more than 100 Russian cities since Vladimir Putin sent his forces to attack Ukraine, according to the OVD Info Project, an independent Russian human rights monitoring group.
It's possible.
When the U.S.
invaded Iraq, we had massive protests.
In fact, we had protests all over the world.
I would not be surprised if there were thousands of arrests across the country.
But again, you gotta be careful because, you know, we're in this era of misinformation, disinformation, and that's true.
But now I'd like to highlight this interesting story for you.
Medusa in English.
This is breaking news in Russian, investigative reports.
Verified on Twitter says Russian lawmakers have put forward legislation that would conscript into the military anyone prosecuted for protesting the invasion of Ukraine.
Now in reality, the stupidest idea I have ever heard.
For its more surreptitious manipulation, maybe a little bit smart, but let's read.
In this post, LDPR lawmakers put forward legislation that would conscript anti-war protesters into the military.
Lawmakers from the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia have submitted a draft law to the state Duma that would conscript into military service anyone prosecuted for participating in unsanctioned protests opposing the deployment of Russian troops abroad.
What's more, The bill suggests sending prosecuted protesters for military service on the territories of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics in eastern Ukraine.
They'll never do that.
It's the stupidest thing you can do.
But I think they're trying to scare these people.
You've got people who are going out and protesting and Russia's basically trying to manipulate them into not doing it.
Or these politicians specifically.
I don't know about Putin.
You know why this is a bad idea?
Well, Vietnam, for instance, drafting people to go fight in a war that have no interest in it, have not volunteered to do so, creates very serious skill and morale problems.
In this instance, sending 6,500 people who've been arrested, let's say they're all prosecuted, and it's like, alright, here's your gun, go into this region, Listen, depending on the level of radicalization for some of these people, you may end up with them actually fighting on the side of the Ukrainians, or taking up the Ukrainian offer for 5 million rubles if they surrender.
Truth be told, I don't know if 5 million rubles will be worth all of that much money in the near future due to the market collapsing.
But I think this is Putin's, I don't want to say his last stand.
I believe it's a strong stand, and we're seeing a dramatic escalation of what's happening.
I did want to keep this one focused on the internal happenings of Russia and the peripheral crackdown, but there is a lot of breaking news about the expansion of this war, which I'll be getting to in the next segment.
Take a look at this.
France seizes yacht linked to Russian oligarchic Mediterranean port.
The vessel linked to Igor Sechin, taken as Hamburg authorities deny confiscation of Alisher Usmanov's $600 million superyacht.
They're coming for you, baby.
They're coming for everybody.
When they say the West isn't involved in this war, that's a lie.
The West is just playing 4D chess and Putin is forced to engage on the ground.
He doesn't have the influence campaigns or the reach to do anything about what's happening in Ukraine.
But I'll tell you, man, I've got, I'm talking to some people in the region, I'm talking to friends and contacts, and it really does seem Putin has no thought for the Ukrainians.
This is about taking the land.
It's about maintaining control over the natural resources that are sold by Russia.
I can certainly understand and respect a leader's desire to make sure he can provide for his people.
But at the expense of the Ukrainians is absurd.
When you lose, you lose.
Fight better.
And what I mean by that is fight smarter.
What Putin is doing is making everything worse for Russia.
He's even got the young people in Russia posting messages in support of the West.
It's a mistake.
What Putin did was a mistake.
He could have gone out.
I'll tell you what the weirdest thing is to me, and I'll tell you, people don't understand the mentality of Vladimir Putin and the Russians.
I've told this story before, but I remember seeing these movies when I was little, where it was like, watching a story about the Crusades, and there's like, you know, a Christian guy, and he's like, got a sword to the Muslim guy, and he's like, renounce your God, and the guy's like, never, and then he gets slain or something.
And I always thought to myself, Why wouldn't you just say what you need to say to survive to make sure you win in the future your ideas persist?
I certainly now understand though with the culture war and the depravity of the cult and the woke cult Why someone would just say never I won't do it.
I will stand on principle I believe there's strategy issues there and sacrificing your life to say a few words, but I certainly understand the sentiment.
Vladimir Putin is a man of that sentiment.
He is sacrificing everything because he refuses to back down.
Think about it.
Russia could very well have just aligned itself with Europe, worked on agreements, and been very agreeable with the glowing global influence.
And I don't mean like the evil globals.
I mean like the trade agreements and the Schengen zone and parts of the EU.
I'm not a big fan of the EU.
I'm not saying the man should just bend the knee, because that's unreasonable, but he certainly could have just said, let's make accommodations and work out treaties, and he could have negotiated things that probably would have greatly benefited Russia.
But Vladimir Putin views Russia as the inheritor of a great empire long lost, in which case, in order to rebuild it, he must stand, he must fight, and he must assert.
He doesn't want to be beneath.
I get it.
But now I feel Vladimir Putin has just condemned himself to the sewers of history.
He's not going to win this one.
I mean, look, he might win Ukraine.
I think I think Russia is winning.
I think they're winning this war.
But I believe he will not win history and he will not win beyond just taking Ukraine.
Maybe that's it.
A bucket list move.
It really does feel like it's some old dude.
He's 70 years old and he's like, man, you know what I've never done?
I've never taken a sports car across the the country and then so he goes and takes a big chunk of
his retirement and buys like Dodge Challenger limited edition stick shift and then goes
and drives across the country to to live out his his his lost youth.
Vladimir Putin is nearly 70 years old and it feels like he's just saying I got one last
ride in me and I'm not going to back down.
But this is having negative consequences on the Russian people, many of whom don't want the war, many of whom are already siding with the West.
The Western influence and cultural expansion is happening.
No, I'll tell you, it's scary.
It's scary because companies like Instagram and Twitter and YouTube, they're censorious.
I'll tell you, man, you wanna know what's really crazy?
You guys know Lee Camp?
Lee Camp is a lefty.
He is not right-wing.
Spotify has taken his podcast down.
Anti-war leftist.
Why?
He works for RT.
Man.
Not a good place to be.
Personally, I don't want to take any money from Russia, and I wouldn't.
I remember I told this story at DEF CON about how RT was trying to buy footage off me from Sweden, and I just said, no way, I'm not doing it.
I'm never going to walk into that.
I don't know what Russia's on about.
I don't want to be involved in that.
Not interested.
Don't need Russian state media money.
For that matter, the BBC is the same.
I don't want to sell anything to anybody.
You know, but there have been agencies who have bought my footage.
I don't know where it ends up.
But I'm not interested in doing that stuff.
But to ban the podcast of an American citizen, Lee Camp, a good dude.
He's a good dude.
He really is.
I've known him for a long time.
Anti-war, anti-authoritarian.
I mean, it's just, it's outright insane.
And what's he supposed to do?
Should he quit RT and go independent?
Maybe?
This is where things are going, and this is why you see stories like that.
This is exactly why these Russian models are posting messages.
I don't think they know or care.
I think they probably care a little bit, but I think they're more concerned with themselves.
This is why you see people like Chris Ragon.
He deleted the Punch a Nazi video.
He removed it.
I believe he did that because he was scared about being on the quote-unquote wrong side of history or having his accounts banned.
I believe that Ethan Klein came out and went from being edgy and even liking Jordan Peterson to going woke and supporting the establishment because they're scared of being banned.
I'm not scared of anybody.
You know what I'm scared of?
Giant hornets, I guess.
Although I don't know if I'm actually scared enough to actually say it's something to be afraid of.
I just, I don't get it, man.
I don't get it.
The other day I put up a video on YouTube.
It took 3 hours to process.
And I reached out to YouTube and they were like, can't help ya.
And then I tried uploading the video on other channels, it wouldn't go up.
The video of course was about statements made by Sergey Lavrov in World War 3.
This morning I was having the same problem.
Something was jamming up the publishing of my videos and I don't know what.
My video went up like three, went up two hours late.
Because I uploaded it, I put it up at three and that took two hours and 47 minutes to process before it was able to go live.
As soon as I tweeted out the problem was happening, the videos just magically went live.
It's almost like they were held.
Several years ago, maybe eight years ago, Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change noticed ads were being pulled off of all of his YouTube videos.
There wasn't a such thing as demonetization, they were just turned off.
So Luke went in and started turning the ads back on, which worked.
This was before demonetization.
But yes, people at Google were removing advertisements from his channels.
It was only later they decided to create the automated system of demonetization to make it easier.
Now it shows you with a yellow dollar sign you've been demonetized.
At the time, the only options they had was add-on, add-off.
So they would go to Luke's videos and say, add-off.
And then Luke would go in and turn it back on and they couldn't do anything about it.
Because I'm not scared to call out Western propaganda.
But you know what, man?
The censorship is annoying.
Y'all should not have banned Lee Camp.
Lee Camp opposes war.
He's not a fan of what Russia is doing.
He's not a fan of U.S.
intervention, and maybe that's the case.
Maybe they want U.S.
and NATO intervention in Ukraine, but they need public support first, and thanks to the likes of anti-war populists, be it Lee Camp, me, or anyone on the right, We're blocking them by calling this out.
I will call out propaganda from Putin, from the left, all day, every day.
I don't care.
Tell the truth.
But I'll tell you this.
Putin invaded.
He was wrong.
He's violating, to a certain degree, the Budapest Memorandum.
He's in the wrong.
He is killing civilians.
He is wrong.
He's losing.
He's losing the influence war.
And his only option was military.
He may be winning.
I believe he is winning from the military fight.
But I think it will be a stake in the heart of Russia.
He can take Ukraine, fine.
But good luck.
Good luck.
Maybe China will back him, and maybe we'll get World War III, and is that what this is really about?