Scott Ritter: NATO is FINISHED
via
Scott Ritter: NATO is FINISHED
(https://www.youtube.com/live/v1zM9CHsDTQ)
Transkripzioa:
0:05
Hi everybody. Today, Wednesday, August 27th, 2025, and our friend Scott Raider
0:10
is back with us. Welcome back. Thanks for having me. Let me start with one of the most
0:18
fundamental and basic questions when it comes to the conflict in Ukraine. I don’t know if the Russian president
0:26
talked about it during the meeting that he had with Donald Trump. which is the case of sending more weapons to Ukraine.
0:33
Here is what Donald Trump said. They didn’t pay the two and they paid
0:38
the five. So, and as you know, we are selling a tremendous amount of equipment to NATO. We’re not spending any money.
0:46
We’re making money, but I don’t want to talk about making I want to talk about we’re no longer uh involved with funding
0:54
Ukraine, but we are involved with trying to stop the war or the killing in Ukraine. So, we’re selling missiles and
1:02
military equipment, millions and millions of ultimately billions of dollars to the uh NATO people. We’re
1:10
very friendly and we have great relationship, but that was an amazing trip. So, they’re funding the entire
1:16
war. We’re not funding anything. I think it’s an important point to make because a lot of people don’t understand that.
1:23
I don’t see Europe needing any sort of weapon. They’re not
1:29
fighting anything. He knows these weapons are going to Ukraine if they get
1:34
these weapons, Europeans. and he concerned he he somehow he confessed
1:39
that he’s concerned about the his concerns of what’s going on in terms of casualties. How how how is that possible
1:47
that you send more weapons and you are at the same time concerned of what’s
1:52
going on there? Nemo, you’re going to go gray trying to
1:58
um imagine rational thinking with Donald Trump’s Ukraine policy. It’s impossible. It’s a
2:05
mission impossible. Um, Donald Trump, this isn’t about national security
2:10
policy. This isn’t about foreign policy. This is about domestic policy. Donald
2:16
Trump is trying to appease a domestic audience and several domestic audiences
2:21
at the same time. Um, he has his base who says they’re tired of American money
2:26
being sent off to fund Ukraine. Um, and then he has his political opposition or
2:33
uh what I would say the um the traitors among us, those who claim to be
2:39
supportive of Donald Trump but who actually vehemently oppose um any policy
2:44
that would bring an end to this conflict on terms acceptable to the Russian Federation.
2:50
And so he has to go through, you know, these very complicated machinations. Um
2:58
it he doesn’t care about the dead because he doesn’t know how to count the dead. Uh he just repeats numbers that
3:04
are given to him by people. If he cared about the dead, then he truly wanted to know what the reality is and understand
3:10
whyity matters. Um he lives in a fantasy land where Russia is losing more
3:15
manpower than Ukraine, where the Ukrainians are losing manpower at a sustainable rate, meaning that Ukraine
3:22
has the potential of continuing this conflict. Russia according to his numbers is not uh able to sustain this.
3:29
Therefore um the concept of continuing this war to put pressure on Russia uh
3:35
seems to make sense uh to him. Um but the fact of the matter is we we now know
3:41
that 1.7 million Ukrainians are dead or or missing. I think there’s a couple
3:47
hundred thousand of those who could be missing but they’re probably dead. um that number is going to go up because if
3:53
you know according to the same leaked data out of the uh Ukrainian Ministry of Defense um 625,000 of those dead/missing
4:03
are this year alone. That’s 90,000 a month and that number is going up higher
4:08
because Russia’s just dominating. So this means that every month another 90
4:14
soon to be 100,000 Ukrainians are dying or disappearing. Um, that’s a those are
4:21
big numbers. Um, if Trump cared about Ukraine, he’d say, “We have to bring this war to an end because those numbers
4:27
are only going to get worse.” Russia’s numbers are big, but not that big. Uh, right now it’s estimated that, you know,
4:33
Russia’s losing, you know, one dead for every 10, 13, 15 Ukrainian debt. So, you
4:40
know, the Russian numbers are far less than the Ukrainian numbers. Still big numbers. I mean, not I’m not saying
4:46
Russia’s having a cakewalk here. This is hard fighting. This is some of the most high intense combat um that’s been seen
4:52
since the Second World War. At least Donald Trump gets that aspect of it right. And he’s starting to understand that it’s a new kind of war. He spoke
4:58
the other day about drone warfare and the reality of drone warfare. But you
5:04
know, he he can’t allow himself to be painted into a corner, meaning that he
5:10
caved into Russia. So he has to say stupid things and do stupid things. This
5:17
is why the other day he posted on social media about uh Ukraine needed to have had the ability to to attack Russia.
5:23
Nobody ever won a war by on the defense, you have to have the ability to attack. He coupled that then with an
5:29
announcement that the United States, it was reported in the Wall Street Journal, is going to sell 3,000 some odd um
5:36
extended range, you know, attack missiles or I don’t know what the A stands for. Um uh to to Ukraine. Um, and
5:45
on the surface of it, you say, “Well, what?” Because wasn’t it Donald Trump who realized back in December of 2024
5:52
that the B administration’s greenlighting of use of attackums missiles uh for streets targeting the
5:58
Russian strategic debt brought us to the brink of nuclear war. Trump recognized that then. That’s why he said, “I won’t
6:03
continue that policy.” Now he’s doing that policy, just using a different weapon system. Um, but let’s parse this
6:10
out because that’s what he said. He’s posturing right now so that nobody can say, “Oh, you’re not supporting
6:15
Ukraine.” He said, “No, no, no, no, no, no, no. We’re just not paying for it. But NATO is paying for it. Remember
6:21
those 10 Patriot batteries that they were going to provide the full compliment?” I mean, I love that term, the full compliment. It just it’s so
6:28
wholesome. It makes you feel really good and safe and secure. Um, and now I guess we’re providing with the full complement
6:33
of ERAM missiles, uh, too. But those Patriot batteries will never be
6:39
delivered to Ukraine. First of all, they have to be produced. You have to get in line. There’s a lot of people looking
6:46
for Patriot batteries and Patriot missiles. Uh, you know, Israel used a whole bunch of them. Needs replacements.
6:51
Um, the United States doesn’t have any left. We need to beef up our forces. So, once we start producing them and we and
6:58
we get them to Europe so they can transfer to Ukraine, we’re talking 2027, 2028.
7:04
Uh, there won’t be a Ukraine by then. it’s it’s not going to last much longer.
7:10
Um the ERAM, it was a system conceived in 2023. It didn’t exist. In fact, it
7:18
doesn’t exist. I mean, they’ve spent two years developing it. I think it might have passed its last trial, but it’s not
7:24
in serial production yet. That means that if you’re building it, you’re building oneups for testing purposes.
7:30
They’re not designed to be given to Ukraine yet. And yet, in six weeks, Donald Trump says he’ll begin delivery. That means that let’s assume to make
7:37
that announcement, the system now has passed its final, you know, evaluation.
7:42
Um the maximum output that the United States will have with everything going
7:48
full speed is a thousand missiles a year. Um that means that to get to what
7:54
Donald Trump is, we’re talking at least three and a half years down the road before that full complement gets there.
8:00
But some missiles may be delivered, a handful, um, a dozen, um, starting. But
8:07
then there’s the fine print. Ukraine can’t use these missiles without America’s permission. Only America gets
8:13
to designate the targets. And if you think Donald Trump is going to allow the United States to designate targets for
8:18
the ERRA of missiles, knowing that in doing so, you close the door on any peace possibility because you become a
8:24
direct participant in war. That isn’t going to happen. everything gets pushed off six months. I think Donald Trump is
8:31
hoping that in six months there will be a new reality on the ground. One that um compels the Ukrainians to accept the
8:37
Russian terms without compromise that can bring this war to an end. Otherwise,
8:43
you know, this war will continue until Russia accomplishes all of its objectives. And unfortunately, to get
8:49
those objectives, uh Russia will be called upon to destroy the Ukrainian
8:55
army. There’s 800,000 of them in there today. I think Russia by the time this is finished will end up killing another
9:01
250 300,000 Ukrainians. Um that’s just the way this cookie crumbles. That’s the
9:06
way war goes. Uh so, you know, this is the reality. Donald Trump is saying
9:12
things, but the reality is nothing of substance is going to be delivered. Um Donald Trump has bigger fish in mind. He
9:18
has a strategic nuclear treaty he’s trying to revive with the Russians. She’s trying to come up with, you know,
9:24
profitable uh joint enterprises, joint exploitation, exploration of the Arctic. Uh I think it was Chevron uh just
9:34
basically was green lit to go back into the Russian oil business. Um you know,
9:39
Trump said, “Yeah, we’re we’re friendly to that.” That’s, you know, billions of dollars and after Chevron will come
9:46
other uh American u energy giants that’ll get back into the Russian market. This is what Donald Trump cares
9:53
about. He doesn’t care about Ukraine. In fact, today or I think yesterday, he said, you know, what did Ukraine expect
9:59
going to war with Russia? They got they got their butts kicked. He recognizes that reality. It’s just a political game
10:06
that’s being played right now because there’s a tremendous amount of opposition inside the United States in
10:11
Europe and colluding between Europe and the United States to um prevent Donald
10:17
Trump from having better relations with Russia. And unfortunately, these people
10:22
who oppose better relations with Russia are willing to sacrifice Ukraine uh to achieve, you know, their their outcome.
10:29
And when I say sacrifice, I mean literally sacrifice Ukraine. They’re they’re they’re destroying the genetic
10:35
uh pool of Ukraine. Uh soon they’ll be sending 18 year olds to the front line. And when they do that, that’s it.
10:41
Ukraine’s finished as a race because you’ll have a bunch of women and you won’t have any men left and that that’s
10:48
it. You said decision on the part of Ukrainians, but who’s going to decide
10:55
about that? Is that all about Ukraine or you’re talking about Europeans and the
11:00
establishment in the United States? Well, I mean the Europeans and the
11:07
establishment of the United States believe they’re going to be the ones making a decision, but they’re not. The
11:13
only person making a decision is Russia. Russia’s in complete control of this narrative here. Russia’s not budging.
11:20
Russia offers um cosmetic compromises. Um but also Russia understands that even
11:26
the cosmetic compromises they they are putting on the table Ukraine won’t offer won’t accept and you know so now Russia
11:34
look at Steve Woodoff uh in the White House uh you know yesterday uh with the
11:39
assembled cabinet saying you know Russia has made concessions Russia’s ready to concede Russia’s ready to work with us
11:47
Ukraine’s not but he views that as a posit because the Russians are making concessions so you know at the end of
11:53
the Hey, it’s not going to be the Russians that are going to be called upon to make dramatic. It’s going to be the Ukrainians who will be called upon
12:01
to accept a unconditional surrender. And right now, Zilinski is incapable of um
12:08
agreeing to this, which means this conflict will continue. Every day this goes on, it gets worse and worse and
12:13
worse for the Ukrainians. There’s no good news coming out of Ukraine. None.
12:19
And unfortunately, I I don’t know if you saw the interview, Scott Besson talking about the frozen Russian assets and he
12:25
said they can Europeans can use them as a leverage on Russia. Here is what he
12:32
said. Scott million dollars that is Russian assets sitting in European banks right now. I
12:37
know it’s frozen and the EU has said that they’ll use the interest on that money to to rebuild Ukraine. But
12:44
shouldn’t all of that money go toward rebuilding Ukraine to ensure that Putin doesn’t get his hands on that money
12:49
anymore on the frozen Russian assets? I think that’s all part of the negotiation with
12:55
President Putin. So I don’t think we should seize them immediately. I see.
13:00
And you know they it it is a chip on the table during this big negotiating
13:07
process and we will see whether part of that goes part all uh goes to the
13:13
Ukraine rebuild. How do you see this big negotiating
13:20
table that he’s talking about? What is the big is is it all about Ukraine or
13:27
you think that he’s some he’s talking about something bigger than that? Oh, no. This if he’s talking about the
13:34
seizure the potential seizure of Russia’s, you know, sovereign wealth that was illegally frozen by the West
13:41
and they’ve been illegally skimming off the interest. Um, we’re talking about a very small table called Ukraine. Um,
13:48
Russia’s not going to play this game. I mean, this Scott Besson has to understand that um Putin’s just not
13:54
going to play that game. U so whatever you think you’re going to have with
13:59
Russia ain’t going to happen if you seize their money. Sorry, Scott. That’s just the way the cookie crumbles. Um you
14:07
and Europe recognizes that. You just saw um I think the the head of the Belgian government say we’re we’re not seizing
14:13
their money. We can’t because once that happens begins this uh catastrophic uh chain reaction that ends with the
14:19
destruction of the western financial system. Um and Scott Besset knows that
14:25
he’s just playing stupid games. Again, he’s one of the guys that stabs Trump in the back because this is not the kind of
14:31
advice that’s conducive to um an outcome that’s positive. This is the kind of
14:38
Scott Besson is a, you know, russophobic uh guy who thinks in cold war mentality.
14:43
He’s not a problem solver. He’s not trying to help solve this problem. Um he’s he’s like Marco Rubio sitting there
14:51
pretending to be sitting next to Donald Trump and helping Donald Trump but stabbing Trump in the back when it comes to achieving better relations between
14:58
the United States and Russia. the the notion that Russia’s sovereign wealth
15:05
could be stolen and not create um insurmountable problems with Russia.
15:12
It’s just absurd in the extreme. Um the good news is the world knows this.
15:19
Uh the bad news is it it just creates confusion where there shouldn’t be confusion because should we should be
15:24
talking about the big table. The big table is where we can be talking about strategic arms reduction. We can talk
15:29
about Arctic uh you know joint Arctic exploration exploitation. We can talk about the return of the energy giants to
15:36
Russia. We can talk about investments, lifting of sanctions, normalization relations, all the good things. Uh but
15:42
you’re not going to get to that big table as long as the United States is holding hostage hundreds of billions of
15:48
dollars of Russian sovereign wealth. Do you think that they talk about these
15:55
things that but they’re not publicly announcing it?
16:00
Well, they can’t take the money. I mean, I Besson doesn’t even knows how how he would begin to do that. It’s against the
16:07
law. It’s against everything. Um, and when you’re talking about banks and financial institutions, this stuff sort
16:14
of matters because a lot of it’s based upon confidence. Um, the the the quickest way to lose confidence in the
16:20
dollar, lose confidence in the Western banking system, is to start seizing sovereign wealth assets.
16:26
then nobody will want to deposit their money in western banks. Um and that’s the end of it. And for countries like
16:32
Belgium, Luxembourg and others who have uh you know part of their economy is dependent upon banking um it would be
16:39
the end of them. So I just I have to say there’s a couple people when they open
16:44
their mouths I I listen but I I don’t I don’t overreact. Um you know Keith
16:50
Kellogg, who cares? Um, Scott Besson, who cares? You know, Lindsey Graham, who
16:57
really cares? No, but I mean, there’s there’s there’s a number of them when they speak, you’re just like, it doesn’t matter because they’re so far removed
17:04
from reality that their opinion no longer matters.
17:09
Russia, you Scott, you’ve been to Russia and you you saw what’s going on there. the mindset
17:16
of these people there, do you think that they really care about how how sensitive
17:22
does Russia feel about America, the United States sending weapons to
17:27
Ukraine? I want to know that because in the meeting Putin had with Donald
17:33
Trump, I don’t know if they talk about these things, the intelligence and the
17:38
weapons that the United States is trying to provide. They may talk about NATO, but it’s all about Ukraine. It’s not
17:45
about NATO. Look, Sergey Lavrov and other Russian diplomats have said it straight up. They
17:51
know what’s going on. They know the United States continues to provide weapons. They know the United States continues to provide intelligence. They
17:57
understand this. Um it’s just the reality that they’re in right now. Um it doesn’t change
18:04
anything. It doesn’t change, you know, the what’s going on on the battlefield isn’t impacted by this. It’s just a
18:10
reality. But the Russians have said that there can’t be a lasting peace with Ukraine so long as the United States
18:15
provides intelligence, weapons, etc. That in order to get the peace that Donald Trump claims he wants, the United
18:21
States will have to stop doing all the things they’re doing now. But Russia’s been dealing with this for over three years now. And they’re winning. So from
18:28
the Russian perspective is they’ll just deal with it a little bit longer. Um, now that’s the Russian government.
18:34
They’re very pragmatic. I’ll tell you, the Russian people are furious because our weapons are killing Russian
18:40
soldiers. Um, you know, there every day there’s a mom, a wife, a daughter, um, a
18:47
sister who’s lost a loved one and
18:53
they’re being killed by American provided weaponry. And the Russians have a hard time squaring the notion that the
19:00
United States is trying to pursue peace at the same time providing Ukraine with the resources that enable them to kill
19:06
Russian soldiers. Um that doesn’t mean Russia’s going to quit. Just means there’s a lot of bitterness now in the
19:12
hearts of the Russians. Um and they don’t necessarily
19:19
buy into the notion that Donald Trump is a good guy. Look, the Russians want peace. They made that point over and
19:26
over again. But they also said it’s peace through victory. Meaning that you
19:32
can’t have peace without victory. Victory comes first, then peace. And
19:38
that’s the mindset of the Russian people right now. They want this war to come to an end, but they’re not willing to um,
19:45
you know, make the concessions that would deny them the victory that’s been earned by the blood of the Russian
19:50
soldiers who’ve been killed by the American weapons. Lav said that they didn’t talk about the
19:57
meeting between Vladun and Zalinski during the talks and what it was when
20:04
you look at the United States and the admin the Trump administration somehow Donald Trump came out saying so we’re
20:10
done with the talks with Vladimir Putin next time we’re going to have Zalinski
20:17
talking to Vladimir Putin they may invite me if they want me to be there I
20:23
I wouldn’t I would be there. And so when they didn’t talk about how you can offer
20:28
that in the aftermath of that meeting, well, let’s put it this way. Um,
20:39
Donald Trump came into that meeting with a certain list of expectations.
20:45
They didn’t talk about any of those. They talked about the ones Russia wanted to talk about. Um, but that list still
20:51
exists. that list still influences um you know Trump’s you know policy
20:57
options and so it’s you know it’s the equivalent of me saying okay Nean we’re going to meet and
21:04
when I meet we’re going to be talking about things you’re going to be meeting with you know I’m going to make you meet with McGregor you’re going to meet with
21:10
him face to face you and McGregor are going to meet you know that’s going to happen and we’re going to do this that and the other thing and then you and I
21:15
get together and I don’t mention McGregor at all you don’t mention McGregor we don’t mention anything but when the meeting’s done I come out I go
21:22
I had a good meeting with Nemo and uh you know I think the next time he’s going to be meeting with McGregor and we’re going to and you know that’s
21:28
because it was on my piece of paper. It was on my agenda. I didn’t talk about it. It’s still on my agenda. I’m still going to talk about it. But you’re going
21:34
to sit there and go we didn’t talk about McGregor. It didn’t come out of my lips.
21:39
That’s that’s what’s happening here. You know Trump wants a meeting with Zalinsky, wants Putin to meet with
21:45
Zolinsky. The Russians are like no. I mean, I guess we could say uh in
21:53
theory, but we can’t have an agreement with him. He’s not a legitimate president, you know, and that really
21:58
just really gets under the skin of Trump. You saw that the other day in that thing, you know, ah
22:04
They’re going to accept it. No matter, excuse my language, but you know, the president said it, why can’t I? Um, but
22:10
yeah, he just lives in a fantasy world. This is where he really needs highquality people around him. Um, you
22:18
know, I’m not saying that I have all the solutions, but I I am working with a group of people that we call the the
22:25
Pakitzy Peace Initiative, and we’re putting together what we call a civilian engagement team, and we’re offering our
22:31
services to the president because we’re saying, you’re getting the world’s worst advice about Russia. Please give us an
22:38
audience. At least listen to us. um bring in your team, your your your team A, and we’ll bring in team B, and we’ll
22:46
call it the Super Bowl of ideas. And I can bet you at the end of the day, team B trounces team A because your team A
22:53
does no clue what they’re doing. And you’re the president who claims he wants peace. I mean, this is how bad it gets.
22:58
He’s just getting horrible advice, horrible advice from people. People who have an agenda that isn’t the
23:04
president’s agenda. And I wish he could see this. You know, he was blind to John Bolton, Mike Pompeo when they sabotaged
23:10
his efforts to bring about the denuclearization of North Korea. And today, I think he’s blind about, you
23:16
know, Marco Rubio. He’s blind about Scott Besson. He’s blind about Keith Kell. These people don’t want peace with
23:21
Russia. It’s the last thing they want. They’re going to sit there and say all the nice things behind it, but then
23:26
they’re going to turn around and they’re going to be pushing, you know, these these fundamentally flawed narratives, these fact-free narratives. the
23:34
president deserves better, especially if we the people want him to succeed. So,
23:39
we’ll see. I don’t know if we’ll get an audience. I don’t know, you know, what’s going to happen, but I can damn sure
23:45
tell you we’re going to try because, as you yourself have pointed out, the
23:50
inconsistencies of the president’s uh policy approach is manifest. It’ll drive
23:55
you insane trying to figure it out. what I see in the United States that
24:01
these people are somehow managed to buy time for their agenda for the agenda of
24:07
establishment in the in Ukraine. They did that before during the Russia gate
24:12
that that sort but they have managed somehow to come out with some sort of
24:18
it’s not that much strong in the media but they have managed Donald Trump so far the way that they want him to be and
24:26
it’s not just Go ahead. Yeah. No, I agree with you. They’re they’re and they did it that first term.
24:33
Russia Gate tied his hands like you wouldn’t believe. Uh guess what?
24:39
Russia Gate’s over, man. Not only is it over, it’s becoming a criminal offense.
24:44
People are being arrested. People will be arrested. People are being charged. Um, the people that embrace that
24:50
narrative are out of power and soon to be out of society. Uh, I don’t know if I fully endorse this. Um, I I’m not a fan
24:59
of polit politicized witch hunts. Um, but the point is the russophobes have
25:04
been neutralized. Uh, two, um, there was
25:09
no conflict the first term. There’s a conflict. Now, what are you buying time
25:15
for if you’re the Europeans? For Ukraine to get their asses kicked. Okay,
25:20
Russia’s ready to play that game. As I told you, the casualties are unsustainable. 90,000 a month soon to go
25:26
up to 100,000 a month for Ukraine. A month
25:31
can’t sustain that. So, what are you buying time for? It’s not as though there’s a, you know, rainbow. You’re
25:37
going to hit a pot of gold here. There’s No, it’s a disaster. There’s just a bridge collapsed in a cliff and you’re
25:43
going down into hell. Um, that’s the ride they’re on. So, all they’re doing
25:48
is killing more Ukrainians and they don’t care about that. But they’re also bankrupting Europe. I mean, come on, Nemo. You’re smarter than I am. I know
25:55
it. That’s why I come on your show because I learn a hell of a lot more from your questions than anybody learns from my answers. Um, you know what’s
26:02
going on in Germany right now. You know the state of their economy. You know the French government’s about to collapse,
26:08
literally. I mean, it may not last a month and the month’s almost over. Um,
26:13
and you know, when when the French government collapses, Europe’s already said the next government will, you know,
26:19
when Mcronone goes, he may go. Um, they said it’ll be the Putinists. The
26:25
Putinists will be in Marie Le Pin and all that. Um, well, there’s the end of France and guess what else is going to
26:31
happen? AFD is the most popular political party in Germany today. And I think they’re uh they’re their the lady
26:38
who runs it came out and said, “Yeah, when we win, we’re out of the EU. We’re done. Finished. Goodbye.” Sayanara.
26:45
That’s the end of Europe. If France and Germany drop out of the EU, Europe
26:50
doesn’t exist anymore. Unified Europe. It’s finished. It’s gone. And then you’ll see a fracturing like you’ve never seen before. Um,
26:59
so what are you buying time for? People have to understand the more time you buy, the more you sustain this
27:06
absolutely insane failed process that’s captured Europe since the beginning of
27:12
2022, the more you guarantee an outcome which is very good for Russia and very
27:18
bad for Europe. And it’s not good for the United States. I mean, we need
27:23
stability. I mean, I’m an American who doesn’t believe in the European Union. I really don’t. I don’t. I I think it was
27:30
a failed experiment from the get-go. But I’m also an American that says it’s in our best interests. You know, you know
27:37
that I’m sympathetic to the Russian point of view. I believe history’s on the right side of Russia. But
27:45
I and I ask the Russians this all the time. Is it in your interest to see
27:50
Europe collapse? Is it in your interest to see NATO fail? And the Russians are
27:55
like, “No, we sort of like stability. We don’t want Europe to go away. We don’t want NATO to go away. We just want them
28:01
to leave us alone. Maybe learn to live in peace and harmony.” The last thing Russia wants is chaos in Europe. That’s
28:07
not good for Russia. Chaos is bad. And yet, this is what the people who are
28:13
opposing a Russian victory and dragging out this war in Ukraine by, you know,
28:19
playing the delay game with Donald Trump. They’re just guaranteeing a really, really bad outcome for Europe. A
28:25
really bad outcome. The end of the EU, the end of NATO. Uh, and this is the
28:30
scary part because we don’t know what’s going to happen. But we have some hints. You know, the whole idea of the European
28:36
Union was to make sure that there were no more, you know, largecale ground wars in Europe
28:43
anymore. Well, they failed. We got one going on in Ukraine right now. But you do know that within the NATO alliance,
28:49
you know, Mark Rut, it’s the strongest alliance, it’s never been stronger. I mean, my god, it is so strong. I’m so
28:56
impressed. We can bench press more than the mayoral candidate of New York City. But that’s not saying much since he can
29:02
only bench press 135 pounds assisted by. So anyways, let’s take that out of the way. Um the point is you know within
29:11
NATO right now in the center of Europe you have a mini two mini NATO showing
29:17
up. Yeah. Yeah. One mini NATO that is uh I think it’s Kosovo,
29:23
Croatia and um Albania. I think Croatia and
29:28
Albania have that NATO membership thing going for them. Kosovo doesn’t. It’s not
29:34
a NATO state. So they’ve created a military alliance, a security framework
29:40
that’s outside of NATO with two NATO members. In opposition to them, we get
29:46
Hungary, Slovakia, and Serbia, not a NATO member, and
29:51
they’ve created an alternative, an opposing military block. So when Europe falls apart, and it will,
29:59
we’re going to see wars on Europe. We’re going to see wars that are going to be horrific. wars are going to rival what’s
30:05
going on in Ukraine in terms of death and destruction. Europe’s condemning itself to another hundred years of
30:11
conflict and the conflict won’t be limited to these marginal states. Um
30:17
we got Poland right now making some harsh rhetoric against the Banderists.
30:22
Um, and you know, if you listen to Narishkin, uh, the head of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, one of
30:28
Russia’s objectives might be to rid itself of the Banderas cancer by somehow
30:36
having Western Ukraine fall under Polish control. There will be a purging like you haven’t seen. There will be a
30:42
retribution. It will be ugly. Um, but if Poland regains its eastern territories,
30:51
what are the Germans going to say about Cissia and Pomerania and East Prussia, which they had to give to Poland to
30:56
compensate for the land that was taken by the Soviet Union? You think the Germans are going to sit there idling
31:02
and go, “Yeah, that’s all right.” No. So, now we’re looking at what, a German Polish war. Who’s going to side with the
31:08
Poles? The Balts? Who’s going to side with the Germans? I don’t know.
31:14
Maybe France, maybe not. Maybe France won’t. So now you got a war against France, Germany, although I find that unlikely, but that could happen. The
31:21
British, they’re everywhere causing trouble. They’ve signed an agreement with Poland. They’ve extended their nuclear umbrella to Poland. So now if
31:28
the Germans, the Poles starting to get in a fight over Cissia and Pomerania and East Prussia. Where is the UK going to
31:34
come in? If the UK jumps in, France sort of extended theirs, too. So now Germany’s going to turn around and say,
31:39
“Well, we need nukes. either develop themselves or hey Russia we’d like to talk a little bit. See this thing Europe
31:46
will what we conceive Europe of being won’t be anymore. It’s over unless they
31:54
stop this insanity right now. Stop it right now. I’m not saying the EU
32:01
deserves to exist. What I’m saying is Europe doesn’t for the betterment of mankind. Europe doesn’t need to slip
32:07
into chaos and anarchy. It’s already got so many problems. The immigration problem. Um I mean if Germany was
32:14
invaded today, 16% of the male population said they’d be willing to
32:20
give their lives in defense of Germany. That’s if Germany was invaded, 16%.
32:26
What happens if Germany follows through on its uh promise to go to Ukraine? How many what percentage of the German
32:32
manhood is going to say, “Yeah, we’re going to go die in Ukraine.” None. Nobody in Europe wants to die in
32:39
Ukraine. And yet NATO and Europe are are are crucifying themselves on that cross.
32:45
Um anyways, that’s that’s the Russians don’t want that. The Russians don’t want that kind of instability. Russia likes
32:52
predictability. Russia likes to know what’s going to happen. It’s easier to formulate policy that way. It’s easier
32:58
to allocate resources if you have a good idea of what the future’s going to be. So the the idea that Russia’s gloating
33:04
over the collapse of Europe and the collapse of NATO is just an absurd notion. You know, Russia prefers stability.
33:11
Russia pre preser prever Russia prefers um predictability. And
33:17
right now we have nothing but instability and inpredictability, unpredictability. My English language is
33:23
horrible. I apologize. Too many syllables.
33:28
Yeah, Scott. When it comes to NATO, I think the crucial point about NATO is that
33:34
NATO is not a defensive force, is an offensive force. This is
33:39
the problem with the strategy of these endless wars that NATO is pursuing. This
33:45
is the problem when it comes to Russia and right at border of Russia. You come
33:51
in close so close to Russia at doorstep of Russia, how you can imagine Russia
33:56
would not react to you. And on the other hand, I I don’t see if if the United States
34:04
decides to keep NATO as a defensive force, nobody would have any sort of
34:09
problem with NATO. Nobody would attack Germany. What is in it? What’s in it for
34:15
Russia to attack Germany? What do they want from Germany? Russia wants a better
34:20
relationship with economic ties with Germany. They don’t want war with Germany.
34:26
This is what Russia is fighting for in my opinion. Look,
34:32
now we get into sort of a sensitive topic. Um, but Russia has a demographic problem. You see Russia passing laws
34:39
right now to encourage child birth amongst the Russian people because
34:44
they have a declining population. Um, and because of the conflict in Ukraine
34:52
and because of the expansion of NATO, Russia’s had to increase the size of its military. Now it’s up to 1.3. It’s
34:59
probably going to get up closer to 1.6 by the time the expansion is done. 1.6 million underarms. Um, and this takes
35:07
people out of the workforce. So you see Russia now, you know, talking about, hey, can we bring in Indians? Can we
35:14
bring in, you know, outsiders into our workforce? Um,
35:20
the Russians would love nothing more than to have NATO just
35:26
say, “We’re a defensive organization again, back to our roots.” Um, you know, and we will, you know, behave
35:33
accordingly. I I think you’d see Russia start dropping the size of its military
35:39
quickly because then it can take those mana that manpower and put it back into
35:45
the workforce. The workforce then that will be well paid. What happens when you have a well-
35:50
paid workforce? They get married. You know, give a guy some money, he finds
35:56
himself a pretty girl, and next thing you know, he has a house and some kids. And that’s what the Russians need. They
36:01
have these great family values, but it’s hard to raise a family if you’re in the military. That’s not the best place in
36:08
the world to raise a family. Maybe as an officer, a senior officer, but if you’re an enlisted man, if you’re out there in
36:14
the ranks, no, it’s disruptive as hell. And the Russians are moving away from a conscript system to a contract system.
36:21
So, we’re talking about long-term, you know, contracts. We call them enlistments here in the United States.
36:26
Um, but again, you’re going to be in the business of preparing for war or training for war. You’re not home
36:32
raising a family. You’re not producing anything. So, anybody who sits there and says, “No, the Russians want to really
36:38
build up their military and really do.” They don’t understand Russia. It’s not what Russia wants at all. It’s the exact
36:45
opposite of Russia wants. Russia will do what Russia needs to do to protect itself. There’s no doubt about that. But
36:50
the Russians would prefer that rather than expanding their military by 600,000
36:56
um to have those 600,000 in the workforce and have that workforce gainfully employed, making things that
37:02
are good for Russia and good for Russia’s economic partners, earning a good solid income, paying taxes, you
37:09
know, and uh and then getting married and raising kids, lots of kids because
37:15
the Russian needs kids. this this whole war thing, this whole
37:20
war footing, it’s not good for the health of a nation, the economic health,
37:25
but also the demographic health. Europe’s going to seeing that problem. You see declining birth rates
37:31
everywhere. This is sort of the danger of immigration. Uh, you know, because now you’re injecting
37:37
um non-traditional values into um you know, societies that are defined by
37:43
traditional values. uh it dilutes the
37:48
unique character of you know nations. Russia has spent 25 years rebuilding
37:55
what it means to be a Russian. You know there was a time when Russians were ready to abandon Russia. They were abandoning Russia. They didn’t believe
38:02
in Russia. They had lost faith in Russia. Not today. I have to say. I mean I’m deeply impressed with the Russians.
38:08
Not a perfect society. Nothing is. Nothing’s perfect. But they’re pretty damn good. I mean, these are people that
38:15
are by and large happy with who they are. Happy where they are. Could things be better? Sure. Are they working to
38:21
make it better? Yeah. Um, but you know, the the the Russians like being Russian.
38:28
They’re proud of being Russia, and they have a lot to be proud of. I think Russia would like the Europeans
38:33
to be proud of being who they are, too. The Russians don’t, you know, hold it against me for being proud American. I
38:40
mean, some of them scratch their head and say, “Well, what are you proud of?” And I, you know, say, “Well, the potential. I think America has more
38:46
potential than any place in the world.” Uh, because we’re not trapped by our history. We’re we’re, you know, we live
38:53
in a prison of ideas. And if we could just live up to those ideas and those ideals, we could we could be pretty damn
38:59
cool. Um, but we’re not doing that. So, yeah, you know, we’re But I love the potential of America. The Russians are
39:05
like, “Cool. Love a guy who loves his country.” The Russians love a person who loves their country. They will never
39:11
hold it against you for saying, “I’m a proud American or I’m a proud Iranian or I’m a proud Brazilian or I’m a proud
39:17
Canadian.” They’re like, “Good. You’re proud of your country. So are we. And therefore, we have a lot in common. You
39:22
love your country. I love my country. Let’s get along.” The Russians are are great about this. Um Europe, not so much
39:29
anymore. Um and it’s sad. It’s sad. I lived in Europe. I grew up in Europe. I
39:34
grew up in Germany. Um, and I traveled extensively, you know, back in the 80s.
39:39
I got the year the year rail pass, you know, and you throw a backpack on the back and you just go. And for two
39:46
months, I just basically caught trains and camped out and saw all of Europe.
39:51
Um, and you could drive places, uh, you know, drive my parents every time they
39:56
took a vacation, we’d go to a different place in Europe. Um, just fantastic. I I I loved Europe. I loved every aspect of
40:03
Europe. I I loved crossing the border. I loved going from Germany where I had my German marks and I had to go into Italy
40:10
and get the Italian lera and then you know one of the first things you do to get the train station is you go in and you exchange your money and you get the
40:16
other money and now you’re like in Italy and I really know I’m in Italy because I have I have lera you know not today it’s
40:21
all euro and they’ve sort of erased the borders and I know it’s supposed to be convenient but it’s sort Europe’s lost
40:28
its allure um lost what it means to be European. Anyways, I babbled on too far
40:35
about that. Do you feel that,
40:40
let let’s let let’s put it this way, can the former AustroHungarian states together with Serbia
40:47
realistically form a counter coalition to resist NATO’s forever war strategy?
40:55
Is that possible? You know,
41:03
if Europe was healthy and NATO was healthy, it’d be almost impossible for that to happen. But when we start
41:10
talking about collapse, and we are going to see collapse. Um, anything’s
41:16
possible. What will happen is that Europe will break up into different factions. And you just identified one,
41:23
which is the former AustroHungarian Empire. Um, it’s amazing how people forget their history and thank you very
41:29
much for bringing this up. Thank you for bringing this up because I, for instance, in Turkey, you know, people
41:34
are all talking about Turkey and I’m like, you guys, you guys do know that it’s just like just a little bit more
41:40
than 100 years ago that, you know, there was a a caliphate in Turkey,
41:45
the Sultan. Um, you know, the Ottoman Empire was there. When we talk about
41:51
Syria, we’re literally saying a 100 years ago it was, you know, was the Ottoman Empire. Um, Turkey, you know,
41:58
Iraq, the whole thing. People are just like, nah, 100 years isn’t that long ago. I mean, you know, we’re talking
42:05
about, you know, 1925, if I talk about American history, oh yeah, you know, you know, the the flappers, you know, the
42:11
roaring 20s, uh, you know, my grandparents were alive in the roaring 20s, you know. Okay. So you realize
42:17
there’s direct connectivity. But somehow when we apply it to the other part of the world, it’s like no uh no no that
42:24
Austro why you mention AustroHungarian Empire because it existed. It was real. And we’re talking about people’s
42:30
grandparents or great-grandparents. Um people are alive today who know people who were alive during the
42:35
AustroHungarian Empire. There’s a direct connectivity of you know of of historical transfer of uh you know
42:42
emotions and and knowledge and information. uh and so it’s not gone.
42:48
And so when people are looking when they look at the failure of the European state today and people are going to be
42:55
looking for alternatives, you can be damn sure that there will be people who say, “Hey, the core of the
43:01
AustroHungarian Empire, you know, we should like come back together and uh
43:07
and and you know, work with one another um to be allies.”
43:13
Yeah, you could definitely see that. And that’s what we sort of see with Serbia, um, uh, Hungary and Slovakia. That’s
43:21
sort of a that’s like a a core, the Slavic core of, um, of the Austarian
43:28
Empire. Not total Slav. The Hungarians aren’t Slavs, but, you know, it’s a it’s
43:34
a it’s a core that, uh, they have common values, common history. Um,
43:40
and they definitely have opponents in in Europe, the Croatians, the Kosvars, the
43:47
Albanians. Um, and who knows, maybe maybe Austria will, you know, join their
43:52
ranks. You never know once Europe starts to fall apart. Um, anything’s possible.
43:57
Sky’s the limit. Scott, do you feel that the Trump administration somehow is trying to
44:04
normalize the extreme violence and genocide in
44:10
Gaza? I don’t know if they’re trying to normalize it. I think they’re ignoring
44:16
it. Uh because they know it exists. They’ve they’ve facilitated this. Look, Donald Trump,
44:24
you know, I got to when when I’m wrong, I’m wrong. When I’m wrong, I’m wrong. you know, when when Donald Trump came
44:29
out and said, uh, you know, ah, you know, depopulation of Gaz and all, I you
44:34
talked with you about I said, he can’t really mean that. This has to be a ploy. And then, of course, when there was a
44:40
counter offer on there, I went, ah, see, it’s he put an offer. He didn’t really want it to happen. There’s a counter offer out there. Turns out he wanted it
44:47
to happen. Turns out he wanted it to happen. This is Donald Trump’s policy. that’s
44:53
happening today, the slaughter of the people of Gaza, the genocide. We have to
44:59
use that word. People don’t like to use that word. They get in. No, use the word because it literally fits the
45:04
definition. Look it up. Article two of the Geneva Conventions defines what genocide is. I forget what the American
45:11
law is. Section 1081 or 1089 of 18 US code. I don’t know. I’m not a, you know,
45:17
lawyer. Uh, but, you know, we define it. We know what genocide is. Hell, we could
45:23
just use our own president, you know, because the United States going, “Well, it doesn’t meet the category of genocide.” What were the standards for
45:29
the ISIS genocide against the Yazdi? The exact same standards that exist today in Gaza, except Gaza’s by an order
45:37
of magnitude greater. The inconsistency of America is is crazy. Um, but
45:44
inconsistency is one thing. Criminality is another thing. We are literally war criminals here. you know, they they um
45:51
when when the whole world is debating the issue of genocide and stuff, um you know, international lawyers were and and
45:59
and other concern people were quick to say genocide’s bad, but there’s there’s worse things than genocide.
46:05
Um you know, war crimes and massive human rights violations uh can operate
46:12
on a scope and scale that um far exceed the harm being done by genocide.
46:17
Genocide has specific legal terms that have to, you know, that have to be met to get that term there. But there’s bad
46:23
things that can happen, too. And however you cut Gaza, it’s it’s a war crime.
46:29
It’s a massive human rights violation. And I believe it readily fits the definition of genocide as put forward by
46:36
both the Geneva Conventions and US US law. Um and
46:42
by US precedent, you know, the standard we ourselves have set for defining
46:47
genocide is easily surpassed in Gaza.
46:52
So yeah, I mean gosh, here we are. On
46:58
the one hand, I’m trying to say I’d like to create a civilian engagement team to
47:04
work with Donald Trump to promote good relations between United States and Russia. And I and I do I do. But on the
47:12
other hand, I have to recognize that Donald Trump is one of the greatest war criminals the world has ever seen
47:17
because he not only is facilitating Israeli war crimes, he’s an architect of these war crimes. They are they are
47:24
implementing his plan, his strategy. He’s guilty. If there were ever a Gazin
47:30
Nermberg trial equivalent and there was a court of jurisdiction and Donald Trump could be bought before it, you’d be
47:36
found guilty and hung by the neck until dead and so would a whole bunch of other Americans because what we’re doing is
47:42
unforgivable. And for the American people, you know, I I’ve sat there and I you’ve you’ve heard
47:49
me say it, scratch a German, get a Nazi. I don’t forgive the Germans for what they did in World War II, and I never
47:55
will. Um, I’m just that way. I I I can live in
48:00
peace with them as long as they recognize who they are and what they were, you know, and and make sure that
48:05
they guard against ever going back down that path, which they’re not doing right now. Um, but my god, what are we? We the
48:12
people of the United States of America. We have embraced Zionism,
48:17
and Zionism is the modern day equivalent of Nazi ideology.
48:22
It’s literally about imposing genocidal policies on a people. The eradication of
48:28
the people of Gaza, the Palestinians of the Palestinian state, this targeted eradication, this the wholesale
48:34
slaughter. I mean, what’s going on in Gaza City right now is the equivalent of what the Nazis did to the Warsaw ghetto,
48:40
you know. Um, and yet nobody wants to acknowledge those parallels. Oh, how dare you? Blood liable. No, no, no, no.
48:49
I’m actually being nice. If I say, “Oh, all you’ve done is the Warsaw Ghetto. I’m being nice because what you’re doing
48:54
is worse than the Warsaw Ghetto.” Um, and and the American people are complicit in this. And every American
49:00
has to look in the mirror and say, “I am a war criminal. I am the equivalent of the good German. I’m the person that sat
49:07
by and let this happen. I’m the person that walked the streets and had the ash come on my shoulder and I brushed it
49:12
away and pretended it didn’t happen. I knew what was going on down the road there, but I just closed my eyes to it.
49:18
my neighbors who you know you know used to do this that and the other thing disappeared and uh then I watched people
49:24
come in and steal their property and I said nothing. We’re standing by while the United
49:29
States is facilitating the mass murder of Palestinians. Truth is now a a a
49:37
death sentence. Journalists telling the truth and Gaza now being killed because the last thing Israel wants is the truth
49:43
to be told. You have Benjamin Netanyahu coming out just admitting that they’re losing the narrative. Therefore, uh, Israel must find a better way to alter
49:50
the algorithms and to do this. No. And to kill journalists. Any journalist that dare stands up and says, “You are
49:56
committing genocide gets killed. If I went to Gaza, they would kill me in a
50:01
heartbeat instantly. Anybody who went who goes to Gaza has a it’s a death sentence, you know. So,
50:09
that’s where we are right now. I mean, we we can’t sugarcoat it. We can’t pretend it’s not there.
50:15
How do we chew gum and walk at the same time? And what I mean by that is I mean I struggle with this every day because
50:22
um people hit me all the time. They say, “Scott, why aren’t you focused more on Gaza? That’s why I’m trying to stop a
50:27
nuclear war between United States and Russia.” I’d like to think that that’s sort of like a big deal. And that’s
50:33
where my skill set is. You know, about, you know, 70 to 80% of my skill set is
50:38
there. Yeah, I got a lot of experience in the Middle East. A whole bunch of experience in the Middle East. And I’ve got a lot of experience in Israel.
50:45
I’m learning about Palestine. It never was my cause, but my god, it’s become my cause today. Um, but when I look at what
50:52
I can bring to the table, I’m more efficient dealing with the Russia question than I am the Gaza question.
50:59
But man, it’s hard. Man, it’s hard because it’s just there. Mass done in my
51:06
name, my taxpayer dollars. And then I sort of feel guilty because I’m so
51:13
focused on trying to prevent a nuclear war with Russia that I don’t
51:20
spend the time that I should on what’s going on in Gaza. And I have to admit I I’m tired of looking at the pictures.
51:26
I’m tired of looking at the pictures. It breaks my heart to see, you know,
51:33
these these dead children, these dead mothers, these dead civilians, people just trying to live, starving to death.
51:39
Mass starvation. What the How can that happen today? How can that happen today?
51:47
Today in this day of mass information where it’s there right in front of your eyes. It’s not like you’re reading a
51:52
newspaper about the starvation of the Indians in World War II, reading a story that’s three months old. No, it’s
51:58
happening right now. And what are we doing? What are we
52:04
doing? Ah, man. I’m going to go crazy. I mean, this is this is this is the kind of
52:10
stuff that just drains your soul. But we got to soldier on. I mean, that’s the
52:16
whole thing, you know. Um, you can’t win every battle. You got to win the ones you you got to fight the ones you can
52:21
win. Right now, I’m dedicated to the Russia thing, and I’m not getting off the Russia thing. But it breaks my heart. It
52:27
drains my soul because every morning there they are, dead children, dead
52:33
parents, dead civilians, and the Israelis just gloating over them. And we’re backing the Israelis and we
52:38
somehow pretend that this is normal. We pretend that Israel is a normal functioning state. It’s not. It’s a
52:45
cancer to the world. It’s a cancer to the soul of humanity. I’m not advocating
52:52
the annihilation of the Jewish race. No, this has nothing to do with religion. Although
52:58
increasingly it does because what’s happening is the Israelis are using, you know, religious themes. Amalecch, why
53:06
have we forgotten this? the repeated invocation of Amalch, you know, the the
53:11
the this the creation of a subhuman um you know, identity uh for the
53:17
Palestinian people that justifies their annihilation in the name of the Jewish faith. We can’t forget this. Do we know
53:24
that there’s battalions of Talmetic scholars specifically recruited into units who are going in there and
53:30
carrying out these horrific crimes? They believe that they’re permitted by God to rape Palestinians to death. And they do
53:36
so. They have no qualms about killing killing women and children because they
53:42
believe God wills it. I mean, there is a religious aspect to
53:48
this. And this is where I condemn American jewelry. I’m sick and tired of walking down my street saying we stand
53:53
with Israel. That means you stand for genocide. You stand for mass murder. We stand for Israel means we support
53:58
murder. That’s it. You can’t support Israel. You can’t stand with Israel and not realize that you’re supporting
54:05
murder. And the American Jewish community, they deserve all to go to hell. Now, I
54:11
know there’s a handful of them out there doing this, that, and the other thing. Maybe more than a handful. I’ll give them credit. But collectively, the big
54:17
Jewish organizations, they if you stand with Israel, you stand with the devil. That’s just there’s no
54:25
other way to put about you’re on the side of Satan. Don’t tell me you’re on the side of good. Don’t tell me you’re God’s chosen people. You are literally
54:31
doing the devil’s work because that’s what genocide is. And I’m going to get in a lot of trouble for this and I don’t want to get your channel banned on
54:37
YouTube for my emotional outburst. So, sorry about that. I think the last
54:44
targets when you go and fight something like the way that Israel is killing
54:50
people is attacking hospitals and journals because this is the last thing
54:55
that you would attack. These people, they don’t do anything to you, fighting you. They don’t do anything. They’re
55:03
literally doing nothing but helping the people who are damaged, who are suffering and the lives that the Here is
55:11
what is Israel has attacked a hospital in Gaza. And then the journalists went
55:17
there to see what has happened and they attack again and killed journalists. And here is what the Israeli government
55:23
spokesman said. Let’s go. Noble profession. But many journalists
55:30
who have reported from Gaza, so-called journalists, are simply terrorists with
55:36
a press vest on. His British accent is somehow amazing to
55:42
hear that and the way that he’s trying to say his point of view. And here is
55:49
what we’ve seen in in the media. Scott. Many people may wonder what is this?
55:55
This is the UK spy plane just gathering
56:00
information on July 28th and hand it over to Israelis to attack people in
56:07
Gaza. Yep. And at the same time they’re trying to say that we condemn what’s going on in
56:14
Gaza. I think the British we can I think what’s going on with the
56:21
British government, the mindset, their strategy, the sort of manipulation in the Middle East is unbelievable. Any
56:28
case, I I I’m I’m not ignoring the case of Ukraine. I put the case of Ukraine in
56:33
the same scenario. It’s all about the British and the way that they’re thinking of these things that are
56:40
happening. Yeah. Look, it’s it’s it’s the British trying to hold on to relevance. Um, it’s
56:48
the British stepping into a leadership vacuum by the United States. You know,
56:54
we used to be able to control the British because we worked very closely with them and we subordinated them to
56:59
our will. Uh, but now that we’ve created opportunities for
57:05
um gaps to appear in the relationship, the British have have stepped up to
57:10
that. there there is no moral um look as as bad as the United States is and we’re
57:17
pretty damn bad. There are, believe it or not, you know, moral barriers. There’s there’s there’s
57:23
things that, you know, we say no, enough’s enough for the British. There’s no such thing as enough is enough. The
57:30
British are the is the worst nation in the world when it comes to this sort of thing. They truly can embrace policies
57:37
that cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of millions and they won’t even blink an eye. Um, that’s just who
57:43
they are. Their intelligence services um have no soul at all. Um, you know, the
57:50
CIA has done horrible things. I’m not going to pretend they haven’t, but I will say at the end of the day, you
57:56
know, there’s a reason why CIA officers all end up alcoholics because at the end of the day, they know what they’ve done
58:01
is evil and they they’re ashamed of what they’ve done. Um the the British,
58:07
there’s no shame there. They all go out and get their nighthood and they’re they sit there and they retire and they, you know, they have their little posh
58:13
parties and they all chuckle and chart and laugh over the stuff they’ve done, the crimes they’ve done in the name of,
58:20
you know, her majesty or his majesty the king, you know, and so no, the British, they’re out there playing games of
58:26
empire right now. That’s what they’re doing. They’re trying to manipulate behind the scenes. They’re everywhere. Everywhere you find death and
58:32
destruction, you find a British hand.
58:37
Before wrapping up this session, I want to play a clip in which it’s a tragedy
58:42
in my opinion, but here is what’s going on in the mind of the president of the United States.
58:49
Russia, Ukraine, Iran, Israel, Hamas. We’re having meetings all this week on
58:55
all three of those conflicts and we hope to settle them before the end of this year. Your team is nothing short of
59:02
incredible. And there’s only one thing I wish for. That that noble committee
59:07
finally gets its act together and realizes that you are the single finest candidate since the noble piece this
59:14
Noble award was ever talked about to receive that reward beyond your success
59:22
is gamechanging out in the world today. And I hope everybody one day wakes up and realizes that.
59:28
It seems somehow we are living in different time and universe.
59:38
I mean it’s shameful first of all uh for a president is supposed to be make America great again. um to be pursuing
59:48
this narcissistic egotistical goal of having some award issued by a Norwegian,
59:57
you know, group of elitists. Um award that has lost its meaning, become so
1:00:03
politicized down the road. I mean, they gave it to Barack Obama for noon doing nothing, nothing. And they sit back and
1:00:10
they don’t look at the people actually promote peace. They just hand it out for political reasons. Uh, actually it wasn’t for nothing. It was
1:00:16
for bombing Yemen. For bombing Libya. Sorry. Well, yeah. Well, actually, they gave it
1:00:21
to him before he bombed Libya, though. Before. Yeah. Yeah. He should have turned it in after he bombed Libya. He should have
1:00:27
said, “I haven’t lived up to the uh to the values that are that are put in here.” But um you know, at least he got
1:00:33
it for the potential. You know, Trump, what war has he stopped?
1:00:40
What war has he stopped? You know, India, Pakistan, he didn’t stop that. They stopped it.
1:00:49
Cambodia, Thailand, there’s still some tension there. He didn’t stop it. They say he just sticks his nose into
1:00:54
everything. Says, “There, I touched it. I stopped it.” Armenian Azerbaijan, man, that could actually the Zangazar
1:01:00
corridor could actually turn into a major war because of his meddling. Uh, he didn’t solve any problems there. He’s
1:01:07
not here. Here I am. See, I’m trying to get a meeting with this guy and uh I want to, you know, say, “Hey, I’m here
1:01:13
to help you on Russia.” So, I have to It’s time I start behaving a little bit more politically and diplomatically, but
1:01:20
he’s not smart enough to know any of the nuances of these details. The reason why we’re trying to engage with him on Russia is that he’s advised by complete
1:01:27
imbeciles. I mean, with all due respect to Steve Wickoff, he doesn’t know a damn thing about Russia. He has good
1:01:33
relationships with Kuriel Demitriv, but it’s a relationship that’s only brought about by the fact that Trump, you know,
1:01:39
has sent him and and Vladimir Putin has empowered Kurill. So they they have this relationship, but you just listen to
1:01:45
Wickoff. He doesn’t know anything about what he’s talking about. Nothing. Keith Kellogg is 100% a Ukrainian shill. Hell,
1:01:52
they just gave him a medal before for being such a good Ukrainian shill. That’s all right, Keith. Good job.
1:01:58
You’re But at least admit what you are. Don’t pretend to be some sort of uh unbiased envoy looking for peace. You’re
1:02:05
solidly on the side of Ukraine. That’s why you got a medal. Um you know, Marco Rubio is just a wararmongering hawk who
1:02:12
hates Russia. Just go back and he’s never said a nice thing about Russia in his entire life. Hates hates communists,
1:02:19
hates the Russians, the whole words. Pete Hagath isn’t smart enough to, you know, lead a box of bricks, let alone
1:02:26
the Department of Defense. apparently the Department of War soon to be. Um these are the people that advice Scott
1:02:31
Besson. We’ve already talked about just the imbecilical approach he has towards this this Russia issue.
1:02:38
There’s no peace coming out of any of these policies um with Russia. This is why we’re trying to put together this
1:02:44
civilian engagement team. Um I may be excluded because if I were Donald Trump, I wouldn’t let me anywhere near the
1:02:50
White House after what I’ve said. But I’m sorry. I’m not going to apologize. It’s the truth and it has to be said.
1:02:55
Um, but he’s he’s he’s supposed to be America first.
1:03:02
Why is it that he puts so much credence into this bobble from a Norwegian group
1:03:08
of elitists? Um, it tells you he’s not America first, he’s Donald Trump first. This is make
1:03:15
Trump great. That’s it. That’s the That’s the movement. And
1:03:22
no, that’s not good for America. if he really wanted peace, he could
1:03:27
solve the Russia problem today. Just pick up the phone and tell Zilinsky it’s over. Call up the Europeans and say,
1:03:33
“Nope, we’re done. We’re not playing stupid games anymore.” Um, but he won’t.
1:03:40
Instead, he’ll facilitate the continuation of this conflict with the promise of American weapons. This thing
1:03:46
will go on for more months. Look, we’re talking 90 to 100,000 dead Ukrainians a month. Okay? You got September, October,
1:03:53
November, December. That’s four. I’m telling you right now, that’s 400,000 dead Ukrainians by the end of the year.
1:03:59
In addition to what’s going on, that’s in addition to 620,000. That’s more than a million dead Ukrainians this year. If
1:04:06
the conflict goes over into next year, the death rate’s going to go up even higher. So, you’re going to talk by June, if this war goes on for another
1:04:13
year, another million and a half. So, two million more dead Ukrainians.
1:04:19
That’s what Donald Trump’s given. You want to give him the Nobel Prize for that? Are you crazy? And then we get
1:04:25
into Gaza. What he’s done in Gaza alone is disqualified. Disqualify. Finished.
1:04:31
You It’s like giving Adolf Hitler a uh a Nobel Prize because he um you know,
1:04:37
evacuated troops from, you know, some corner of the world. No, but you you
1:04:43
committed the Holocaust. You invaded the Soviet Union. You allowed the commasar order. You carried out mass crimes. We
1:04:49
can’t forget that Donald Trump is the total package. And right now, the total package is indelibly corrupted by what’s
1:04:56
going on in Israel. There’s no forgiving this and there’s no redeeming this. Yes, we can try and prevent a nuclear war
1:05:02
with Russia and we must, but that doesn’t absolve Donald Trump of the crimes that he’s committed with Israel
1:05:09
at all. And the fact that he doesn’t see that and the fact that he thinks this is a selling point
1:05:16
just shows two things. one that he truly is a narcissist blinded by his own
1:05:21
egoomania and you he’s an irrational player at this point in time and two the
1:05:28
American people are truly the dumbest people on the planet because we’re buying into this because we’re nodding
1:05:33
our heads and saying oh yeah I mean his base come on guys do better really
1:05:40
you say you believe in American values but yeah I mean now we’re going to get you now we’re going down a different path but you know flag burning I love
1:05:48
the flag. I got one above me. That flag flew in Vodkkins. That’s why I have it there. That’s the flag that flew over the Vodkkins headquarters while I was in
1:05:54
Vodkin. Um, and I I I I love it. Um, I love the American flag. I former, you
1:06:00
know, Marine officer um officer of the day. I had to read the flag manual, know the laws, know how to treat the flag,
1:06:06
how to handle the flag, how to raise the flag, how to lower the flag, how to fold the flag, all the things. Uh, it’s the
1:06:11
living emblem of our country. The living emblem of our country. I didn’t say that. That’s the flag law. Um, and yet I
1:06:19
will defend somebody’s right to burn this living symbol of America because the Supreme Court has deemed that to be
1:06:25
constitutionally protected free speech. And I love my country so much that I’ll
1:06:30
stand by with tears in my eyes as you burn my flag and and say you have a right to do that. I disagree with you. I
1:06:38
resent you, but you have a right to do that. Um, but no, not in Donald Trump’s America. You know, we have a third
1:06:45
amendment that prohibits the quartering of soldiers in people’s homes, which means that it’s reflective of the notion
1:06:50
that we don’t want to live in a militarized society. Yet, Donald Trump now is sending troops into the major
1:06:56
cities of America to fight crime. But as Benjamin Franklin said, if you’re willing to sacrifice liberty for, you
1:07:04
know, security, then you deserve neither. And that’s where we are today. and the cities he sent him to aren’t
1:07:09
necessarily, you know, you have to be suspicious because they’re also the, you know, the heart of
1:07:17
the political opposition. So, he’s literally sending American troops to occupy cities where the greatest
1:07:23
opposition to Donald Trump exists. We live in a dictatorship. I mean, the
1:07:30
Constitutional Republic’s on the verge of being destroyed by this man who claims to be all about making America
1:07:37
great again. But the only thing that makes America great is the Constitution. We are a constitutional republic, not a
1:07:42
Trump dictatorship. Yet, this is the direction we’re headed down. I may get the FBI to visit me again because of
1:07:48
this, but so be it. There are things we’re dying for, and one of those is the Constitution of the United States of
1:07:54
America and what it means to be an American. And today, sadly, the American
1:07:59
people are a drift. You know, my wife, when she came here, had to take a test to become an American citizen, a test on
1:08:06
civics, on the Constitution. And the only pass, the passing grade is 100%. You’re not allowed to get any wrong. I
1:08:12
will tell you right now, if every American citizen took that test today, natural-born American, I dare say over
1:08:18
95% would fail. We don’t know what it means to be an American. We’ve lost touch with who we are, what we are.
1:08:25
This is why we get these policies that we have because real Americans would never support what’s going on in Israel. Real Americans who believe in human
1:08:32
rights, who believe in the dignity of mankind, all men are created equal.
1:08:37
You ever thought about that? So anyways, there’s that’s where we are. Sorry about it, man.
1:08:43
Tough topics. Yeah, it was amazing. Thank you so much,
1:08:49
Scott, for being with us today. Great pleasure as always talking to you. Okay. Thanks a lot. Have a have a great
1:08:55
week. Great. Bye-bye.
ooooo
@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu
Ritter’s Rant 046: Do better, Matt
https://open.substack.com/pub/scottritte
Ritter’s Rant 046: Do better, Matt
(https://scottritter.substack.com/p/ritters-rant-046-do-better-matt?r=1vhv3f&triedRedirect=true)
Aug 27, 2025
Matt Tardio served his country with honor while in uniform. Today, however, he is a disappointment.
Transkripzioa:
Hello and welcome to this edition of Ritter’s Rant. Today’s theme is Matt, Matt Tardio, a medically retired U.S. Army Green Beret, spent a number of years in the Green Berets, a couple deployments in combat, one deployment to Ukraine. Today he postures himself as a an expert on Ukraine, on military matters, and I’m not doubting his credentials
The man has a record of honorable service to his country, a service that includes combat time. And during this service, he received injuries that, you know, the accumulation of which caused him to be medically retired. The man deserves nothing but respect of his fellow citizens.
the admiration of a nation that doesn’t always treat its veterans the way we should. I have no problem, Matt, in terms of his military record. Matt and I had a little bit of a heated debate yesterday about Ukraine, about Gaza, and I respect people who have differing opinions.
I respect people who operate from a different set of facts. I don’t respect these people that, when they’re not prevailing in their argument, turn to personal attacks. And that’s what Matt did. And it diminished what could have been a very fruitful discussion. Not because, frankly speaking, what Matt brought to the table represented anything where
remotely near the truth. I mean, this is a man who, again, despite his background as a special forces operator, somebody who should know the difference between fact-based reality and fantasy-based fiction. It brings forward anecdotal evidence to make his point, a video of a lady collecting water in Donetsk to show that there is no water in Donetsk,
or a prisoner of war interrogation report or video, I guess, of how the Russians are so low on ammunition that they have to cannibalize mines to create explosives for their drones. I mean, it’s his story. He gets to tell it any way he wants to.
But the fact of the matter is Matt’s so far removed from reality, it’s not even funny. And this is why I really enjoyed the opportunity to have this discussion with him. And I think one of the first things I want to do is apologize to everybody who watched it. Because, yeah, I lost my temper.
I’m sort of a short fuse at times, and I use language I probably shouldn’t have used. Mario, I apologize for that. I won’t apologize to Matt. Matt, you’re a military man. You know that had you said that to my face, the outcome would have been far different than simply me putting bad language at you.
It’s the kind of stuff that you lose your teeth and require facial reconstruction surgery over. You know this. You know, you’ve been in this group. You know what it’s like to insult people like that at this level, and you know the price you would pay. So I don’t apologize for my language to you,
but I do apologize for my language to the broader audience. You don’t deserve that. You shouldn’t have to hear it. But, Matt, you brought it on yourself. I mean, come on, man. If you want to engage in a debate, a discussion, a dialogue, stick to the facts. Stick to your narrative.
But, you know, when you’re getting beat down with reality, to sink to the level that you did is, first of all, it’s not becoming somebody with your resume. I don’t think this is how you win arguments in the teams, is it, Matt? I imagine if that’s how you approach the team discussion,
you wouldn’t have been in the teams very long. You’re in the big boy world right now. We’re dealing with adult reality, this conflict in Ukraine. You owe it to the American people to be more assiduous in your facts. We are in a position right now where decisions have to be made.
Our government is putting forth policies, policies that you may agree with or disagree with. And it’s incumbent upon people who engage in relatively high-level discussions, public discussions about this issue that we are fact-based. You may not like my facts. You may disagree with my facts. But you need to come up with facts of your own.
And when you’re resorting to trivial anecdotal evidence or you’re simply parodying the information given to you by sources who are parodying the information given to them by sources who are parodying the information that they collect from the Ukrainian side, that’s not really the kind of information that helps push forward the empowerment
of the general population with knowledge and information necessary to hold their elected officials accountable for what’s being done in their names. You need to do better, Matt. And I guess that’s what I’m encouraging. I’d like to have been able to continue this conversation on X. After all, we were having a debate on X through Mario Nafal.
I guess it was shown on YouTube as well. But, gee, Matt, you blocked me. I wonder why. I wonder why you blocked me. We know why you blocked me, because you can’t defend your argument. You’re incapable of, you know, standing up and… and taking on the hard truth, the hard reality.
And if you disagree with me, then unblock me. We can continue this discussion on X for the whole world to see. But you’re not going to do that argument. No, that’s all right. We had our show. We had our moment. And now it’s part of the public record. In the world,
we’ll be able to see who brought the facts to the table, who didn’t, who tried to keep the conversation professional, and who didn’t. Matt, I want to applaud you for your service to your country. I want to applaud you for your record. I want to applaud you for honorable performance under stressful conditions.
But, Matt, I need to condemn you as a citizen. Do a better job, Matt. Stick to the facts and get the facts before you represent yourself as an expert to the American people. You did a huge disservice to the American people you once served honorably. Your job today is to be sort of a symbol of reliability, credibility.
and the information you were drawing upon is not reliable, and you’re not credible. Shame on you, Matt. Anyways, that’s my rant. Next time a thought crosses my mind, I’ll be sure to let you know.
oooooo
@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu
The Man from Lugansk
The Man from Lugansk
(https://scottritter.substack.com/p/the-man-from-lugansk?r=1vhv3f&triedRedirect=true)
Aug 28, 2025
In this episode of The Russia House I speak with Spiridon Kilinkarov, a longtime Ukrainian political figure from Lugansk who was forced to move to Russia in the aftermath of the Maidan events of 2014.
Transkripzioa:
Welcome to this special edition of the Russia House. We’re carrying out what we call People Diplomacy. I want to thank TASS for providing us this wonderful studio in their headquarters in downtown Moscow. And I want to thank the National Unity Club for helping organize it. And I want to thank Spyrdan Kalinkaro for coming back.
And this is the second time we’ve had, actually, it’s the third time. I guess we were on a roundtable the other day. What I’ve learned in talking with you is that you are a very powerful speaker, and that power comes from the strength of your belief, and that you fight for what you believe in.
It was very interesting to watch you in the round table defend your position. And I guess I’ll just open it up with a general question. And if you have any questions of me, feel free to ask. There’s a meeting tomorrow in Alaska. Will there be peace? Won’t there be peace?
You know, it’s always too easy to say the truth. When you are assured about what you do, it’s easy for you, because you understand that the truth is on your side. So I could be emotional somewhere, but it’s truly from my heart, understanding the situation, because I evaluate them out of the possibilities that I have.
I greatly respect your position, and I always wanted to ask you a question. You are an emotional person or not? How emotional you are? I’m very emotional. How emotional you are? I’ll tell you why I asked this question. I know that long time you were UN inspector on Iraq weapons. I know your positions.
You probably were one of millions or the only one that there’s no mass destruction weapon in Iraq. But I want to ask you, at that day, when you found out that Saddam Hussein was killed, what did you feel? What internal emotions you had because he was executed? You understand who was behind it all? You’re American.
I remember everything about it. Look, my job isn’t to defend Saddam Hussein or defend his government or defend his regime. My job was to carry out inspections inside Iraq per the mandate given to me by the Security Council of the United Nations. The problem is a member of that Security Council was the United States, my government.
And they helped pass a resolution that said they wanted to disarm Iraq. Okay, so be it. That’s my job. But it turned out they had a second agenda, and it was to remove Saddam Hussein from power. That’s okay. That’s their business. My job is to inspect. They do their business. Never the two shall meet except they met.
When I first started my work as a weapons inspector, you asked me if I’m emotional. I’m extraordinarily emotional. I have to fight to control my emotions because I’m an honest man. And I believe that when you give somebody your word, you have to keep your word. And that’s important for people. It’s important for nations.
When I first started my job, my background is an intelligence officer. In the intelligence business, sometimes you do things that people may not understand. I know their games are played in the real world. I’m not a child. I live in the real world.
And so when they told me I was going to be a weapons inspector in Iraq, I immediately left New York and went to Washington, D.C. And I met with the State Department. And they brought the CIA, they brought the Defense Department, they brought everybody in. And I said, OK,
if I’m going to go to the United Nations and run their intelligence program for the weapons inspections, who do I work for? I’m an American. Do I work for you? Or you’re sending me to the United Nations. Do I work for the United Nations? Do I work for the executive chairman?
And they said, without any question, we’re sending you to the United Nations. Your mandate is the Security Council. That’s the law. And your boss is the executive chairman, a Swedish individual. And I said, OK, but are there any hidden games here that I need to be aware of?
Because if you tell me right now that I work for the United Nations, then I work for the United Nations. I’m giving my word that I work for the United Nations. If you’re telling me that I am going to work in the United Nations, but I work for the United States,
then you need to tell me what it is you want from me. They said, no, you work for the United Nations. That was a lie. Because as my work went on, they kept telling me, you’re an American. You’re a Marine. You’re an intelligence officer. We want to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
We want to use the inspection process to get rid of Saddam Hussein. And I struggled because I’m an American and my government is telling me they have a policy. But I was also ordered to work for the United Nations. And so as an individual, I studied Saddam Hussein. I studied Iraq.
I studied who Saddam Hussein was, why Saddam Hussein existed. And you come to the conclusion that Iraq was an artificial country created by the West. Lines drawn on the map at the end of the First World War, a mandate given to the British that brought Shia, Kurds, Sunni together in an artificial manner.
And that Saddam Hussein was part of a Ba’athist revolution that wanted to end the concept of imposed colonialism, which is what the Hashemite Kingdom was, and create the reality of Iraq. But what is Iraq? You have to create an Iraqi national identity. And that was Saddam Hussein’s focus. That was his job.
Every document I read, everything I studied about him, and the West ignored this. They just called him a brutal dictator, an evil man who did this, that, and the other thing. He was an Iraqi leader. He believed in Iraq. And the other thing is I went to war against Iraq in 1991 during the Gulf War.
I fought in that conflict. The Iraqis were my enemy. When I went to Iraq as a weapons inspector, I viewed them as the enemy initially. But then you meet with them. I spent seven years in Iraq, and you can’t meet with the same people over and over again and not view them as human beings.
You talk to them. You realize they’re married. They have children. Sometimes we do inspections, and I’d see that my counterpart was sad. I said, why are you sad? He said, well, today is my daughter’s birthday. And I’m like, ah, man, I’m sorry. You know, you feel for the guy.
I started, I never once let it interfere with my job. I’m a professional, so I carry out my job. But I began to feel for the Iraqi people. I began to feel that my government was doing the wrong thing, that why were we seeking to remove Saddam Hussein? He wasn’t an evil man.
He was the leader of Iraq. And in fact, he was the only hope Iraq had. During the Gulf War, when it ended, we had a plan to continue to go to Baghdad. And we turned that plan, it was called the Arnold Plan, named after the general who planned it.
We turned that plan down because, not because we were afraid, we’re not afraid of anything. Because what do you do when you win? What happens when you remove Saddam Hussein? And we realized in 1991 that if we remove Saddam Hussein and we don’t have a plan for what comes after Saddam Hussein, Iraq falls apart.
And then we have a tragedy. And yet we went to war in 2003 to get rid of Saddam Hussein. For why? For what reason? because of a fake assassination attempt that never happened against George H.W. Bush. George W. Bush, the president said, he tried to kill my father. No, he didn’t. It’s a CIA made up story.
The CIA made up so many stories. The CIA made up the lie about weapons of mass destruction existing after I destroyed them. They existed. I and other inspectors destroyed them, we accounted for them. 96% we could say definitely what happened. 4% we don’t know but we bombed the hell out of that country so it could be anywhere.
You asked me how I felt when Saddam Hussein was executed. I felt that I had betrayed the Iraqi people because he was executed because of the lies of weapons of mass destruction. Now I told the truth about weapons of mass destruction. And maybe I’m too hard on myself, but I was empowered with the truth.
I did that job for seven years. I knew the truth better than anybody. I tried to tell the truth, but I wasn’t able to convince enough people. So I take personal responsibility. If you’re given the truth, You have to do a better job of telling the truth.
And for whatever reason, no matter how hard I worked, and trust me, I worked very hard. I made a movie. I’m not a filmmaker, but I made a movie. I wrote books. I went to Iraq. I went to speak to the parliament. I’m the only foreigner ever to address the Iraqi parliament, an American.
And I sent a message to Saddam Hussein about how to bring to avoid this invasion. My government stopped me. There’s a pattern here. But the point is, I tried everything I could, but it wasn’t enough. And I take that failure personally. Why? Because I’m an emotional person.
Because I know what the truth is, and I know what the consequences of doing something. I did an interview earlier today with a former, with a deputy, a current deputy, a beautiful lady, Yana, a defender of children. And she told me the stories. Now I’m a marine. I’ve been to war. I’ve seen death.
I cried because I’m emotional. When people get me angry, I yell because I’m emotional. I don’t yell because I want to fight you. I yell because I’m defending the truth, because I feel you’re insulting the truth. So yes, I’m an emotional person. I fight to control it. It’s a constant struggle because sometimes people misunderstand when you’re emotional.
And sometimes if you’re too emotional, it impacts the quality of your message. I am an emotional person, and the day Saddam Hussein was killed, I viewed it not only as a tragedy for the Iraqi people, a tragedy for the American people, because we’re responsible for this, but I also blamed myself,
because had I done a better job at telling the truth, Saddam Hussein would not have been hanged by the neck.
I think you don’t have any base to blame yourself, because you’re honest, you were honest, object position you were sharing about Iraq, and I think it’s just you’re feeling You’re not satisfied because you were not able to carry the position to the leadership of your country. That’s where the problem is. Why I ask you this question?
Because one of the meetings I’ve said that maybe the problem of wars in the world comes out from not knowing and not respecting the sovereignty and independence of the countries coming out from the United States of America. You can say that about Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, same thing.
Don’t you think that when we remember Iraq, maybe you can correct me, I remember one politician I’m very negative to the political elite of Great Britain.
about liquidation of Saddam Hussein. He was the only one who said that it was a mistake. That whole period that we were watching what took place in Iraq said that, indeed, it was a huge mistake that still is not recognized by the United States of America. They don’t think it’s a mistake.
They think it was right towards Iraq or Syria. or Libya, or any other country. I don’t remember one precedent where Americans would say, we’re sorry. Where Americans would say, hey, we’re sorry for what mistake they did. Don’t you think it’s a position of a weak leader and weak country? Because when you say that I am guilty,
President Trump Well, I agree that accepting mistakes, taking accountability, for your actions is a sign of strength. It’s a sign of integrity as well. Everybody makes mistakes. None of us are perfect. But for America, we have been blessed with a history that has given us unmatched resources and unmatched power.
But unfortunately, that history brings with it unmatched arrogance. This arrogance goes back to the very beginning of our country. I mean, George Washington, the first president famously said, avoid foreign entanglements and just focus on America. But every president after that got involved in foreign entanglements. And when you look at the United States, we, you know,
manifest destiny was God wills us to move across the lands, conquer the Indians, take the lands, etc. We always believe that we’re the exceptional people, that we are Americans. We’re better than everybody else. We’re not. We’re human beings, just like everybody else. And we need to respect the fact that our history is our history.
But that doesn’t give us any right to impose our will on Russia, to impose our will on Iraq, on Syria, on Libya, on Iran, on other people. This is the arrogance. I don’t call it weakness because I don’t see America being weak, except maybe from a moral standpoint because your word is your bond and we sign treaties,
we withdraw from treaties, but we do it because of exceptionalism. We believe that we alone know best and that we can do things and not worry about the consequences because after all, we are exceptional, we are the natural leaders. We are arrogant people and we need to learn humility. And the moment we learn humility,
in order to be humble, you have to respect the humanity of others. And we don’t do a good job at that. We need to do much better.
If you don’t accept your mistakes, that means that in the future you will do more and more mistakes. Absolutely. Conditionally speaking, so if you don’t have the ability that you are guilty that you didn’t make a mistake, if you look at the results or what has happened after the political decision,
that means that you will make those mistakes again and again and again. But I think it’s for today, will bring United States to the point where this injustice towards other countries, other nations, it would call certain level of negativity.
be honest, it would be like many countries were opposed to the United States. You know, some people really don’t take, many countries don’t take the hegemony of the United States of America, that America’s not ready, that the world has changed. America’s the same as you described, just the world became different. And they don’t want to understand that,
they don’t want to accept that they still think they still have a right to make a decision for any other nation.
They’re part of the new centers, and the United States doesn’t notice that. You know, sometimes it’s funny to look more in relationship, in an attitude towards India that shows great growth. That’s most dynamically developing country today. Donald Trump says that they are like a whatever country.
Maybe not half, but 3.5 billion people. How can you disrespectfully speak about those countries? I think that
If America wants to keep her leadership, it has to demonstrate to the whole world that it is able to be rational, make quality political decisions coming out of the interest of many countries, very serious political players of the world. And I think that you are not ready to accept the fact that one parlor,
again, not taking the reality, gives a foundation for Americans to think that you can bring back everything to the zero and continue to live just like we lived before. But we can’t live like we used to live. The world has changed. Is there in the United States of America that people that understand that?
And just like you, they just can’t carry that information to the others. that you need to understand how the world today is, who are Chinese, who are Indians,
what is the situation with the East? All this, how do you think is adequate, is evaluated from the point of view of today’s political elite of the United States, of the deep state? How real do they evaluate the current situation in the world? And how ready are they to change, accept it?
We’re not ready for that. We continue to view ourselves as the exceptional nation. Look, there’s two kinds of leaders. They’re the kind of get in your face and yell. and scream and bully you. And there’s the leaders who are experts, who know their subject, who are calm, who make rational decisions. When they give orders,
they explain the reason behind so people understand and they carry out the orders. Right now, America is the first kind of leader. We’re bullying. We’re shouting. People won’t follow that for long. We need to transition into a better kind of leadership. We keep talking about this meeting that’s going to take place on Friday between Trump and Putin.
And we spend a lot of time here talking about Putin, talking about the Russians, talking about this. I think what we’ve had here today is an invaluable conversation about American leadership and the fact that if America is going to be a leader, it’s going to have to go through, I think in the old communist days,
they called it self-criticism, a self-evaluation, a self-examination. And that’s what we’ve done here. We’ve engaged in a bit of American self-criticism, an absolutely necessary part of the conversation, the larger conversation. And I want to thank you very much for taking me through this self-criticism. I think it’s invaluable for the audience,
not just the American audience who hopefully learns from this, but the Russian audience to see that the American people are capable of learning from our mistakes. So I want to thank you very much. I want to give you, as a token of my appreciation, a copy of my book.
It’s about the dangers of nuclear war and the necessary, the absolute necessity of negotiations. Negotiations involve conversations, difficult conversations like we had here today. Thank you very much.
And I want to thank you, the audience, for joining us here today. I want to thank the National Unity Club for helping make this happen. And I want to thank TAS for giving us this wonderful space. And once again, I want to thank my fantastic guest, Spielberg.
Thank you.
oooooo
The View from Academia
The View from Academia
(https://scottritter.substack.com/p/the-view-from-academia?r=1vhv3f&triedRedirect=true)
Aug 30, 2025
In this Episode of The Russia House I interview Maxim Suchkov, the Director of the Institute for International Studies (IfIS) at MGIMO, Russia’s elite foreign policy university, where the next generation of Russian diplomats are trained.
Transkripzioa:
Welcome to this special edition of the Russia House. We’re here in downtown Moscow in the historic TASS headquarters. We’re here also because of the National Unity Club, which has organized this visit to carry out what we’re calling People’s diplomacy. It’s part of a larger project of capturing the Russian voice and bringing it back
to the United States as an antidote to Russophobia, so that the American people can think more clearly, honestly, and openly about Russia, U.S.-Russian relations, and hopefully moving forward in a positive direction. I also want to thank my guest today who’s joining us, Maxim Suchkov. You are the Director of International Studies at Mgimo,
which is basically the elite Russian… My brother-in-law graduated from Mgimo back when it was Soviet times, but it’s like the Foreign Ministry’s preparatory school. This is where the diplomats come from. And you have a focus on the United States. I couldn’t think of a better person to have here to talk about what’s going to
happen later on today in Alaska. Your president and my president are getting together in a summit. Ukraine will be on the plate, but so will the larger framework of US-Russian relations. Give us, if you would please, the Russian perspective of where U.S.-Russian relations are and what the Russian expectations are for this summit.
Thank you very much for the invitation. Glad to be here. I think the expectation from summit I can formulate as a carefully optimistic. Why? Because this meeting can potentially… take the eyes of very important parts of the international cooperation, which in last years, lately, about starting from 2014, they were frozen, all these relations.
And this is not normal. This is not okay on the relationship between two great countries, no matter that. The character of this relationship has been as a contest, in a way. carefully optimistic because for these years over then ten years, there’s a lot of, as they say in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
that there’s a lot of chaos that blocks good relationship, good cooperation. And to clean up these ways, these rocks, it’s a problem on every side. And I think that on the character of the delegation on the Russian side, we see the potential areas where We can speak about an anchorage at summit. That’s economical partnership. That’s military questions.
I – all these questions, all these issues during the last seven, eight years while Mr. Trump was in the White House, we already discussed that. And we see that when Mr. Trump came over between Musk and Washington, there’s a great intensive diplomacy. Presidents have spoken over the phone. They’ve met a few delegations of different platforms, different questions,
including Ukraine and economy. And a special person visited Moscow, Mr. Witkoff, with this type of diplomacy. And on some questions, Arctic and what Mr. Putin said on the agreement of the rockets of the far distance and other economical partnership sanctions, probably they will have tight discussions.
As they say in America, a 40-foot guerrilla is the Ukrainian conflict in the room. So my phrase is to be careful concerning being optimistically careful. That’s about Ukraine. Both Kyiv and EU, they make everything possible, even at this minute as we speak, to bomb any possible agreement between United States and Russia that can hurt the agenda
Thank you for that. You paid attention to the delegation. And then you listed off the various topics that they could be discussing. But let’s look at the delegation for a section. You said the 40-pound gorilla or the 400-pound gorilla or the big gorilla in the room is Ukraine.
But when I look at the delegation, we have your president, my president, the top. We have your economic minister and our secretary of treasury. There’s some economy. We have Steve Witkoff and Kirill Dmitriev. They’re the dealmakers. I mean, they’re the guys that made this happen. They’re getting along and talking. But that’s economic framework.
Then we have, of course, Sergei Lavrov and Marco Rubio, secretaries of state. So far, everything matches. But Ukraine’s about the military. It’s a war. Russia brought their defense minister. The United States brought J.D. Vance, the vice president. Where’s Pete Hegseth? Why isn’t he there? My perception is that Ukraine has stopped being a military issue for the United
States and has become a political issue. J.D. Vance has played a very important role in dealing with Europe, dealing with Ukraine, and dealing domestically. What’s the Russian perspective of the analysis of the lineup? How do you feel about J.D. Vance sitting in for Pete Hegseth? Does this de-emphasize the military aspect of it,
You know, I should answer this way, that myself, I’m curious about United States. I study United States. This is my study. It’s happy to see J.D. Vance, an American delegation, he himself and the movement around him that was formed as greatly a future of American politics or its conservative part. So we are speaking about not only
just a conversation or regulation of the ukrainian conflict during trump’s administration but we keep in mind a certain horizon in the future so in in from the russian side there were a lot of uh you know when there there was when they started intensive diplomacy meetings in the conversations
there’s a lot of careful evaluations if we have an agreement with washington then another administration would come in then we will lose the leverage on ukraine and we won’t get anything back from the united states so the advances uh presence is give a light hope that the obligations that United States can pick up, they will be followed,
they will be continued, because J.D. Vance has a great, as you can say, perspective in American politics. I don’t know what would take place, but we see that they count on him from the Republican Party. On the other side, answering your question, indeed, The question on Ukraine became military and political. And Moscow, I think that they understand,
and then Trump said that a few times himself, that at least there is a maximum to get detoxicated from Ukraine. Ukraine is a toxic topic for him because it’s Biden’s words he mentioned many times. He wants to get out from the conflict. But there is an understanding, even if it’s a war of Biden,
The consequences would be on his administration and on his name. So his administration needs to deal with it and face it. So they want to avoid that Ukraine will become for him a success, to find a way, a path between the flows, to walk the edge, right?
It would be difficult. In a way, if you listen to what Mr. Putin said yesterday, as a sign that the United States is ready for a certain military participation could be SNV treaty to continue on. These questions are not connected indirect, but these issues were placed on the path to continue with the treaty, because this,
to continue this treaty, has to be the presence of the American inspectors at the certain Russian militant objects that in the case when the United States is participating at the war Against Russian Ukraine. It’s definitely would be the wrong thing to do, but if President Putin was speaking about this Possibility and this is important for United States.
It would require a certain not a fool a stop of participation of Americans with Ukraine, but definitely a great cut, a great cut, especially in intelligence exchange, because without that, giving the American specialists access to Russian objects is wrong. It’s against the defense interests, so safety reasons.
You have to be very careful about this topic and participation of Russia, the military minister, it’s, it’s, this is why he’s there. I don’t know why Hexton is not there. I think you probably have the better version than I do.
I, I, first of all, thank you for that. I don’t. I mean, I have speculation and such, but it’s just that. But it’s interesting that you bring up the, the the New START Treaty, the last remaining arms control vehicle between the United States and Russia.
And I also just want to point out when you speak about the inspectors, you know you’re speaking to a former inspector who implemented the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. So I absolutely agree with you. If there’s going to be a successful treaty, treaties only work based upon mutual respect and mutual reciprocity. The treaty has to be mutually beneficial.
The INF Treaty, when it was implemented, was the gold standard. It was the gold standard of arms control treaties. where the reciprocity aspects were absolute. I know there’s political surrounding the collapse of the Soviet Union and what happened afterwards, but the treaty as designed and implemented was perfect. We can’t say that about New START.
I’ve spoken to Anatoly Antonov, who was the negotiator for New START, and he says that He was betrayed by the American negotiator, Rose Gutemuller, who, he says, played games in the negotiation. And the Americans would claim one definition for a certain set, but then in implementation it had another meanin
And it was designed to give America the advantage. And yet that’s the treaty we have. It expires on February 4th of next year. At the time when Russia has totally modernized its nuclear arsenal, I mean, the weaponry that Russia has is mind-boggling in its sophistication and lethality. The United States has, in contrast, an aging nuclear arsenal.
Our main bomber is the B-52, which is older than me. The Minuteman III is likewise almost as old as I am. And the same, you know, the Ohio-class submarine and the Trident missiles, it carries are likewise aging out. For us to modernize our arsenal and bring it up to the level of the Russians will
cost hundreds of billions, perhaps many trillions of dollars. And yet it’s something we have to do. But if it’s done unconstrained of the caps that are placed on, we find ourselves in an arms race. And you combine that with Donald Trump’s desire to build the Golden Dome. You know, people forget history.
There’s a reason why we had the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, because to create a missile defense, even in theory, generates an impetus for an arms race, the necessity for missiles to penetrate, et cetera. And then you brought in Ukraine. And this is an essential element, because one of the foundational concepts of the Ukraine conflict
as articulated by the former Secretary of Defense of the United States, Lloyd Austin, was to achieve the strategic defeat of Russia. And just so the audience understands what I’m saying here, this isn’t just a military aspect. Sanctions were designed to destroy the Russian economy. The destruction of the Russian economy was designed to generate societal unrest and collapse,
which in turn was designed to bring down the government of Vladimir Putin. That’s what the strategic defeat of Russia is. The only thing besides Russia’s inherent resilience that would ever prevent that from happening is Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal. It’s the ultimate deterrence. As your president has said, a world without Russia isn’t a world worth living in.
What is Russia’s need for an extension of the New START? What’s in it for Russia? Because it’s sort of a poorly designed treaty. Russia has the strategic advantage. Why not just let the treaty expire, let America bankrupt itself, building new strategic arms and a golden dome that won’t work?
Thank you very much for the details that you have mentioned. You need to emphasize that in American strategic society, the people that are speaking like you do, that Russia is not clear and maybe not necessary to have that treaty. So there’s a lot. Yes, we do have such opinion in Russia also, too,
that to continue with this treaty is not necessary. I have never dealt with this question professionally, and I think that this is a certain one of the elements of the diplomacy that the militants of both countries would discuss. And out of these discussions, we’ll see the prospects of discussion.
And we understand the policy of Russia and the United States. Out of what you said, When this agreement was discussed,
that was seen more as an element to create European system of safety. And in the Cold War, there was a feeling for Europe that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, it’s a Europe’s nightmare. It’s a nightmare. I think that has changed. Europeans now are the first ones to have this conflict,
because for European elites and some Eastern elites, the conflict with Russia is like point number one, how I survive, that without that conflict they will not be able to live and be in power. This element can be in Russia accepted as an attempt that together with Americans we can make a safety system for transatlantic system of safety.
But you have noticed very well that the treaty itself is problematic. Yes. And as I said, this condition for such thinking, they have changed. So in this way that J.D. Vance, as a person who has a great strong perspective on how Europe should look or shouldn’t look,
it would be good and sobering element for Russian delegation because I can tell you correct me if you disagree with me that probably first time starting from 1980s we have a situation where There is no understanding of the collective West. What Europe wants now about Russia is different from what American administration sees. And probably first time,
starting from the 40s, the relationship between United States, there’s more perspectives than with Europe. So I think that the reason for that is that European colleagues, they fully have no feeling of a strategic thinking and strategic agenda, where are they leading their own countries? Where United States with Mr. Trump’s administration and the new qualities,
not like it was in 2016 with new people, they have an understanding that United States are in a very uneasy state situation, and they have to urgently change something relatively to the inner things in the country and with the enemies or the opponents better to say so if
america wants to keep playing great games in the world so that’s a problematic situation but that could be like a certain element of a conversation on huge questions when this they will refuse from this treaty and think about something better because during a ukrainian conflict the modernization and had huge steps
Let’s go back to the composition of the delegations. You study diplomacy. And I’m not a student, I mean, I’m not a diplomat. I carried a diplomatic passport at one time, but that was an accident of history as opposed to any actual diplomatic skill on my part. We know how negotiations work, I mean, especially complex negotiations. They’re done,
your foreign ministry, our state department, experts, expert groups working together and all this on economic issues. Your economic minister, our secretary of treasury, expert groups working together. J.D. Vance is stepping for headset, but normally it’s our military, your military doing strategic arms control. And then we have Steve Witkoff, personal friend of Donald Trump.
And we have Kamil Dmitriev, sort of this guy running out running a Russian fund. And yet they’re the heart of this whole thing. They’re the engine. They made it happen. Just briefly, if you can, what’s this dynamic about? I mean, because it seems to me that’s sort of like the secret sauce of this meeting, that, you know,
we can’t look at this meeting traditional connectivity. We’re looking at something different. Isn’t this a new kind of diplomacy? And shouldn’t we be spending more time on why Whitcoff and Camilo Dmitriev are present?
Yes, thank you for this interesting question. On one side, both Putin and Trump belong to the generation that, in theory, should be respected. They should respect the traditional ways of diplomacy because they’re people in age, they’re more classical politicians. At the same time, both Russian President and American President,
they’re still leaning to the conversation on a more of a I can’t say it’s an unofficial conversation, but they’re leaning towards deal-making. And it’s in the character of both presidents,
bypassing the bureaucracy. It’s like a president would speak on their own. But even when you speak on the phone, you have a lot of advisers and ministers. There’s a certain protocol of a conversation. There’s two people meeting from, you know, Kirill Dmitriev spent a lot of time in the United States.
He understands the business-making, deal-making in the U.S. Of course, he understands the mentality of such big whales in business like Steve Witkoff, and they formulate those requests that Russian President stands on a normal, regular American language. In Russia and America, they have the same outlets, and they’re different in other countries. So Witkoff and Dmitriev,
these are the little things, little plastic things, that one outlet goes to another outlet in a right language, in a right form. So in some ways, it shows the requirements also of the time, because time runs quick, And I think I would say maybe Gary Kissinger wouldn’t be successful in our time as
he was successful in his time. That because before he went from Kaya to Tel Aviv, everybody would be already in repost and everything else. They would know what they have done. had discussion with. So this old diplomacy, we cannot use with the old methods. There’s always a request for such special people,
especially in a relationship between Russia and the United States. There’s a lot of number of sanctions, prejudices, informational campaigns where people don’t have direct access to understanding what is going on and how it’s supposed to work. These people on a certain thing, they are not They don’t have government power. They’re not elected by American people.
That could be a problem, right? Then why they have the mandate, but they have a mandate from the President himself. So these people, they get this possibility to carry the message directly to the position of the countries. So this channel is very effective. Even though with this,
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the main body to coordinate all this foreign policy, and Mr. Putin is the person who will make the key decisions in a foreign policy by himself. So this many branches system of communications allows at the same time to provide different points of incoming United States and Russian
This is fascinating. You know, when we speak of what’s going on in Alaska, this summit coming up, It’s sort of in the context of the United States and Russia repairing their relationship. You remember the infamous reset button. It seems the United States and Russia are relying on traditional methods of interaction.
We build things that keep breaking and they need to be repaired. So I find it sort of heartening that we have this different approach this time because Maybe they can help us build something that lasts, that survives, so we don’t have to break it and rebuild it. That would be nice.
But this has been an absolutely fascinating conversation. I am deeply grateful for your coming. Director of International Studies in Gimo, Premier Foreign Policy University in Russia. And I’d say given the quality of the Russian diplomats you produce in the world. Thank you for joining us. This has been the Russia House.
I want to thank TAS for providing the setting. I want to thank the National Unity Club for organizing. I want to thank you for being here. And I want to thank the audience for joining. This conversation we had here today is unique. You’re not going to find it anywhere else. This is what people’s diplomacy is about.
We’re capturing a Russian perspective on something of importance to the American people and giving it to the American people. You know, there’s a blowback on that, too, because there’s a Russian audience watching this as well. And I think this informs both audiences. It’s been invaluable. Thank you very much.
oooooo
@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu
The Journalist
oooooo
The Journalist
(https://scottritter.substack.com/p/the-journalist?r=1vhv3f&triedRedirect=true)
Aug 31, 2025
In this episode of The Russia House I interview Abbas Juma, a renowned Russian journalist who covers the Middle East, and get his perspective on the events that have recently transpired in that troubled region.
Transkripzioa:
Hello and welcome to this special edition of the Russia House. Here we are in downtown Moscow in the headquarters of the TASS News Agency. I want to give a thanks to the National Unity Club for putting this together. And I want to give a special thanks to my guest today, Juma Abbas. You’re a journalist. independent journalist,
but when I look at your resume, you’re not like one of these guys that just do a small little podcast. You work for RT, you work for Press News in Iran, you work for a number of agencies, and you’re not an idle journalist. There’s a lot of people that get online and call themselves journalists for doing a
podcast here. You’re a war correspondent. You report on important issues of the day. So basically, you know, you’re a world-class journalist, but you’re also a member of the National Unity Club. How did you come about to be a member of the National Unity Club? What attracted you to the National Unity Club?
Yes, thank you very much, colleague. Quite nice to hear coming out of your mouth because I am looking up to the people like you. I don’t think myself as a war correspondent or journalist as a classical meeting. It so happened that I connected my life with the region where the war takes place.
It’s a Middle East region, right? But yes, you’re right. I am working on the ground. At maximum, I try to dedicate most of my time to where I work on the ground, to speak about something I haven’t seen or anything like that, not try to repost or peek out from here and there.
But naturally, just like you did, you came to Russia. You came to our country to take a look, to discuss, to take a look around and make your own conclusions. And based on your conclusions, you can carry you to American society, me to Russian society, of what we carry, the information that we count to be the truth.
Plus, we work with People’s Unity Club, yes. It’s people’s diplomacy. It’s the power from the bottom, initiative that comes from the bottom. When you can offer, where you have to offer, And that’s about friendship. That’s about unity. It’s about being in the same union, being in the same alliance, and finishing the war sooner or later.
It will be finished. And you’re going to have to leave somehow. But how can you leave? How can you speak with people? that we were fighting with for a long period of time i was in different uh i was at
karabakh and i was at syria i was in libya but what i have seen in ukraine it’s a shock to me it’s the most bloodshed war that there can take place starting from the World War II or what we call a great war for Russians.
So what we need to do is establish a conversation and have a communication. So that would be the objective for many, many years and generations. I do believe that the club would play a certain key role here.
Well, thank you for that and thank you for your work with the club. I agree with you completely. The work the club is doing is absolutely essential. The beauty of people’s diplomacy is normally people think, well, who am I? I’m just a simple citizen.
I’ll sit at home and wait for the government to tell me what to do. And sure, you can trust your government. I think Russia has better cause to trust their government. In America, we’re a little bit more critical. But what happens is that there’s two things. One, you disenfranchise yourself.
And two, the government misses out on the power of the people. I’m not talking about revolution. I’m talking about capturing the intellectual and moral power of your own citizens. The government should take cue from its citizens. The government should listen to its citizens, what the citizens want. And an ignorant citizen
can’t be a good model for the government to take their cue from. So you need to empower the citizens. And that’s what the National Unity Club is doing. I’m deeply honored that your club invited me here because this is the work we’re doing, is empowerment of the citizens, citizens diplomacy. people’s diplomacy. It’s a very powerful thing.
So why don’t we help the people understand some of the issues of the day. We spent a lot of time already talking about the summit that’s happening today, but let’s talk about what’s happening on the periphery of the summit, things that will be addressed. You’re half Syrian. I believe your father is Syrian. Your mother is a Russian.
You were born in Russia, but you have deep connections to Syria. I mean, Bashar al-Assad, the Assad regime, the Assad government family ruled Syria for so many years that they became synonymous with Syria. And yet, last December, seemingly overnight, the Assad government collapsed and a new government came in, the Jolani government.
Russia had intervened decisively on the side of Syria, I believe, in September of 2015. Russian forces were there. There were Russian bases in Syria when it collapsed. Can you give us a rundown of what’s happening with Russia and Syria? How is Russia dealing with this new situation? Are they normalizing relations with the Jolani government?
Yes, deep question and a complicated one. I try to give my answer. Russia, indeed, came to help Syria in 2015 when Syrian people asked about this help. And I want to say this, speaking that Russia coming to help, I’m not meaning that the decision of the Soviet Union,
It’s just the people wanted to help, not just the Union Federation. They understood what was taking place, and they wanted to help.
It was a help in every possible military, social, economical. Starting from the 2015 till yesterday, Russia held a lot. We have sacrificed with the Russian blood.
Syrian people included. Though I think that undoubtedly the fight against international terrorism in the Arabian-Syrian Republic was with a terror on the far, far borders. They were going after Iraq and Iran and Russian Federation, and this is not something I came up with. They were speaking about it directly. Today, Iran
Next is Russia, and they call us the cross-holders, Crusaders. That’s what they call us, you know, Russia and United States. They were not enemies. They were not speaking about jihad against United States or Israel. And you have seen to the last moment they never shot against Israel, though. There’s a full
But they don’t like Russia strongly, and I think that now they’re kind of trying to get along with the real situation, which speaks that without Russia, we still can’t go on. It’s a paradox, you know. People came to power. in Syria, and they’re still trying to get along with Russia as a strong stability factor.
It’s a guarantee of stability. There’s Russia base, there’s safety, and they see that we’re still there. And a lot of people think that they would kick us out as soon as the terrorists would come to power. And the representatives of the new regime, they came to Moscow. They saw it. They talked. They discussed.
I often ask a question, does my heart hurt? Yes, my heart does hurt, undoubtedly. But it’s politics. And due to real politics, we could not get into this process, which was really ready, because Syria was truly tired. And due to real politics, Iran couldn’t get in. Iran also had a lot of problems.
Iran was also in a difficult situation, which I forecasted years before it came and started the 12-day war. And I think it’s just the beginning. There’ll be another round. Syria is left on its own.
I compared it to the situation Syria with a person who was in comma. And he’s connected to different machines. And his life is supported artificially, heart, lungs, liver, kidneys. And these machines were… Russia and Iran. At one time, these machines were turned off, and the body couldn’t stay alive for a long time.
So somebody might say that Bashar Assad ran away. He betrayed. Well, I think that he did what he did. I’m not going to judge him. I’m not going to judge those that changed their shoes or changed their position in Syrian embassy, in Russian Federation. among the political elites that didn’t run but still stay in Syria.
They have families. You know, they’re afraid. We know that Syria had a great terror rolling in and out from the country. The Olavits are killed, Druze, and they cut out the minorities. So we are not the ones to lift a finger in judgment against the people who would change their political orientation.
But concerning Bashar Assad’s future, I don’t know where he is. I don’t know what takes – is he healthy? Is he alive? What happened to his wife? So that’s not my business. He is the part of Syrian history, huge history. His father and history has ended. But not the Syrian story. There’d be another page.
Well, thank you for that. You said Syria was, Assad was under, Syria under Assad was under life support. They were attached to machines. One was a Russian machine, one was an Iranian machine. And they were turned off. Who turned them off and why?
Circumstances. Real politic. That’s what I call it. Circumstances. They don’t depend on us. Who could have said at the beginning of the special military operation? Who would have thought about the 12-day war in the Gaza sector, Iran, the terror acts, killing the Hezbollah leaders, and real preparation of war against Iran?
It’s just – we speak about national security here, about life and death Iran and Russia faced against existence question – to be or
And they said to be. But the price? was Syria, unfortunately. I do hope that the situation can be played out and the Syrian people would go through it and the immune system can go over this infection. But we don’t know. We can guess it. We can gamble on it. It’s not useful. And speaking
But Coma and the machines who were supporting him, I mean that the last years, definitely last years, because Syria was tired to fight. Syria is a poor country. Americans took away oil. They put on sanctions. That’s crazy to punish the whole nation. For what? You know, remember the earthquake in Syria. People didn’t have the painkillers.
They didn’t have the antiseptic. And America didn’t want to take the sanctions of Syria. And only when. International Society pushed Washington. They allowed for a small period of time of transactions to wire money for humanitarian needs. Syria was really tired, overwhelmed, corruption, not solved social problems, plus no support, no help.
I agree it’s a sad result. But here’s a more difficult question. You say political circumstances, geopolitical reality, et cetera. Russia was in Syria in a very deep way. You said it wasn’t just military. They were there socially, economically. They were linked to Syria. Was Russia taken by surprise? Was this an intelligence failure? Why didn’t Russia predict this?
And if Russia is such a good friend with Assad, why didn’t they tell Assad to be prepared for this? How did this come to be such a surprise for Russia? And then there’s the second part of the question, because Iran was part of this life support too. Were Russia and Iran working together or working against each other?
Because if you look at the you know, the rumors in the mill, they say this is about Russian betrayal and that Russia blocked Iran from being able to effectively help Iran. What’s the truth?
No, don’t believe it. It’s not true. Nobody betrayed anybody. Nobody blocked anybody. Everything is so just simple. You don’t have to have any conspirology thoughts and ideas here. Let me tell you how I see it. Everybody understood everything very clearly. It became a terroristic nest. It was obvious a long time ago. Everybody spoke about it.
You, myself, our colleagues, Turkey guaranteed demilitarization of the terrorists and then lied. And instead, they gave more power and multiplied those terrorists. Turkey was preparing this attack, this attack onto Damascus for a long time. That’s a fact. I repeat, the body was in coma. The livelihood was supported artificially last year. I am sure about that. And what?
Who to warn? What to warn? Is it not clear if you turn off the machine? The body is not going to continue. That’s all was ahead of time. Clear. It was all explainable. It’s not a surprise. It is not a surprise at all. Everybody saw that military units were concentrated there,
that they have weapons and increase the weapon amount. Plus, there’s some Ukrainian things there, plus drones out of nowhere. What concerning Russia, we have special military oppression. It so happened to be,
not because we don’t value our Syrian partners, but physically we can’t just – we had Kursk, and that period we had Kursk. We have to take military units from Kursk and send it to Syria. What do we need to do? What do you offer Iran? Iranians had some attempts. a certain way. Mr. Ladijani,
before Damascus fell and Assad’s fall, they met, they discussed, and then officially versioned in Tehran. They said, as follows, we warned Syrians. Syrians didn’t listen to us. Syrians went to close to the Arabian countries league, they start looking towards the west, the Syrian’s power failed,
be taken off. And that was all a game. So Saudi Arabia and Emirates that were smiling to Bashar Assad, they were the number one who rejoiced over his fall. And then they started actively participating in taking from the new Syria, where the person is ahead, where in America they give a reward.
They were the ones that asked to take the sanctions off. And this person was asking for, was meeting with Donald Trump, and he still was on want mode. Like, Osama bin Laden, terrorist number one, is meeting the President of the United States. He pats him on the shoulder and says, hey, nice guy. And they take off sanctions,
and Ben Salman, he’s like, wow, he’s – he’s just crossing his hands, and he’s watching. He says, wow, what a grace. But Iranians warned. Iranians were not listening to. What can they do? They can be more than Syrians? No, they have their own country, Caucasus on one side, Israel on the other side. They have their own country,
Iraq’s proxy, not just being defeated, but the Syrian losses they have. Everything is very explainable.
Last question on this, just because I want to come at it now from a different direction. Everybody knows that the United States had from the very beginning, and the Syrian unrest began during the context of the Arab Spring. And almost immediately, we started to see unrest boiling up in Syria from Western-supported groups. In the aftermath of Libya,
America was transferring billions of dollars of weaponry from Libya to Turkey to come into Syria. Saudi Arabia was always involved in taking advantage, for instance, of the drought that took place and rebuilding villages, putting in mosques with radical imams, radicalizing the population. None of this was a surprise.
Russia was very aware of this in 2015 when they intervened. They understood this. Iran was always aware of this because Iran is very perceptive of the region. So is there any other way to characterize this other than a strategic American victory that America achieved the result that it was trying to achieve since 2012
to bring down the regime of Bashar al-Assad? And therefore, in a world of zero-sum politics, What is an American victory is a strategic defeat for Russia and Iran.
If we look at it in a contest with the United States fighting with Iran, yes, undoubtedly, Americans have reached the goal. They indeed liquidated a great link in the whole axis of defense. Yes, Israel and the United States received what they wanted. They got what they wanted. If it’s a victory, no. What is a victory?
And who won? I don’t have the answer to that question. Who lost? I can tell you exactly. Syrian people lost.
Seriously, there was a serious loss for Iran, too. Not the war, but the battle at this time. It’s not there. Israel now takes of the territories. Iran is not there. Turkey at least never gained anything. It looked like Turkey should have been becoming a beneficiary. Turkey has reached what they wanted. They took away their enemy, the President
But, you know, we call it a case without a handle. You know, there’s a case, but we can’t lift it, can’t carry it, can’t transfer it nowhere. So you cannot call Turkey a winner in this game. The influence of Russia and Syria, yes, it’s cutting down. But we’re still there. So it’s not a defeat.
But it’s definitely a painful hit. In America, time will show. Was America able to do something there or not? We know the Afghanistan example. Americans need 20 years to come to a conclusion they lost the game there. I truly hope we don’t have to wait for 20 years for Syrian people to be free from American occupation.
They stay there. I’m sorry, but they stole Syrian oil. They come to the sovereign state. They pull the stick in and say, hey, that’s ours. That’s our oil. That’s our no-fly zone. Nobody can come here. And Trump, I think, in his first presidential term, our great companies,
Great, great companies will take the oil here and sell it somewhere else. Syrian’s oil, somebody else’s oil, well, what can I say?
Maybe you can help us with that. Maybe this interview will help that situation where one step would be closer to the healthy mind.
Well, I mean, the goal of this interview right now, let’s just pull back from, we were in the depth of Syria, but let’s just pull back. Yeah. Our presidents are getting ready to meet in Alaska, where, yes, the issue of Ukraine will be on the table, but more importantly will be the strategic framework of U.S.-Russian relations.
And a lot of people are talking about, because it’s Alaska, we’ll be talking about the Arctic and cooperation in the Arctic, et cetera. But Russia and the United States both have global reach. Syria is an example of where, if we don’t work together, We have a clash of interests.
And, you know, as you said, this is a battle, not the war. Yes, advantage America today. But we don’t know, you know, there was a time in Afghanistan when we could say advantage America. But how did that end up? There was definitely a time in Iraq we could say advantage of America. How did that work out?
Americans, our misadventures in the Middle East are of note. President Trump has campaigned on a promise to disengage America from entanglements. But the American people are conditioned for us to be entangled in this region for more than, I mean, 25 years since the attack on the World Trade Center.
But I fought in the first Gulf War in 1991. And so America has been playing mischief in this region for, you know, going over 35 years now. And we can even take it back to Ronald Reagan in Lebanon. We can go back to Roosevelt meeting with the South.
You know, we’ve been making mischief in the Middle East for some time now. And I think we’re exhausted by it, where we recognize that nothing good has come from it. All that comes home are dead bodies, higher taxes, money going away. So these conversations are absolutely essential because they’re used to empower. You know, in the United States,
I have many discussions of this nature with fellow American analysts. But the best discussions are the ones I have with people who are on the ground who see the truth. And that’s why what we’re doing here today is so valuable. So yes, what we’re doing, I think, will definitely help shape public opinion in the United States,
hopefully in a way that reinforces Donald Trump’s belief that it’s better to disengage militarily from the Middle East than double down on it. But, gosh, I don’t know. I just looked at the recent chronology events. Last time I checked what the definition of disengagement was, it didn’t include bombing Iran. And yet, the United States has bombed Iran.
So let’s talk about, let’s now shift to Iran for a moment. And again, I’m going to come in with a Russian connection, start with a Russian connection. Right now, if you take a look at the special military operation, The Russian military has achieved a great victory, not just on the ground. Everybody’s focused on the ground.
But to me, one of the greatest victories that has been achieved is the domination of the Ukrainian airspace, which required the suppression of the, not Ukraine, but Ukrainian NATO integrated air defenses. The most sophisticated air defenses in the West were deployed to Ukraine. Today, they’re destroyed. How? Because of the… strategic campaign waged by Russia.
But the campaign is arrows. What did those arrows constitute? And the weapon that has been dominant in taking down the Ukrainian air defense is the Shahid-136 derivative, the geranium-2, I don’t know, they have several variations of it now. This is seen by the United States as a decisive intervention by Iran on behalf of Russia.
Is that the correct way of perceiving what happened? Tell us about how these drones that were made in Iran came to be in Russia playing such a decisive role.
I don’t know how it took place. I don’t know if that truly happened. I’m not going to comment on something I didn’t see with my own eyes. I’m not a journalist. I should have been the witness, but I wasn’t the witness. Definitely, Iran has what it has.
And, of course, they reached it through the process of reverse engineering. They copied, so they got that weapon somewhere. But American weapons is all over the world. You know, yes, and Ukraine has a concentration of huge, most, and the newest NATO’s weapons. But even if there, so what? What’s the difference?
We’re not going to speak about where did Iran get the weapons and guns and how come being 46 years under sanctions, Iran has an opportunity to copy and to modernize newest American and not just American developments, whether it be drones or anti-tank weapons, rockets. Let me remind me, during Iran-Iraqi war in the 80s,
Not so long ago, Iranians didn’t produce even shoes or barbed wire. They didn’t produce anything. The first rocket that came from Libya with Qaddafi’s help was – dropped Iran because Qaddafi was pressured, and Iranians were able to copy it. They had a surplus in the air against Saddam Hussein. So, Iran is a great guy.
And we got to acknowledge that concerning Trump and going back to negotiations that you mentioned, I have no illusions about goodwill of Mr. Trump, but I don’t doubt his healthy-minded himself and his team. The desire to get out from this entanglement is that Trump understands, as a businessman, first of all, it’s not effective.
It does not bring any money. Money is being spent, but we don’t know what for. And America is not becoming greater because of that. Instead, you know, the thing that he says, make America great again, that means America is not great anymore because we have the word again. So it was great.
Now something took place and it stopped being great. So Trump has to make it great again. So what took place is that Americans took during the last 10 years, actions that did not bring to positive results for American economics, politics, social development, whether it be Afghanistan, Syria, Libya.
It’s useful wars that they did not give America anything but bankruptcy, really money, and a shame. I think that your vets were not happy when they took out the military from Afghanistan. You know, they probably asked the question, what have we done there in 20 years? Of course they did.
And today, the result of this fall was the unity of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, So the Kissinger’s bad dream is coming true, his nightmare, because he said, you cannot make sure you don’t let China and Russia get together. There’s North Korea joined them. Ayatollah. And Trump understands, well, wait a minute, we’ve got to save the day.
So he is honest about finishing the Ukrainian conflict. But it’s not because they feel sorry for Ukrainians or love Russians, because he understands. He knows if something continues on, then the hegemony would end. Then the global south would be united. And not united just like rhetorical basics or trading an economy,
but on the basement of fight with the same enemy. And it’s a very serious platform. And that’s what the United States truly scared of. And Trump understands it clear. But Trump is standing against – or some people are standing against Trump. They’re as maniacs. They don’t want to change. The people that were stuck somewhere in the 2000s,
and they think that everything is solved by the power, but the time has changed. You know, your Democrats, they don’t quite understand that time has changed,
Iran already has hypersound weapons. Russia has it and China. But America doesn’t have that. So Iran could be to more nuclear state if everything continues the way it is, if they continue all this chaos and aggression. China, look at China. China today is not China 20, 30 years ago. It’s the first economy of the world.
It’s the most and strongest army. Russia is the same thing. The beginning of 2000, when we just were coming out of the crisis of the 90s, from our local wars and our trading and economical problems, Russia is a great,
Look, you’ve seen Moscow and outside Moscow. You have seen what we have reached. sanctions could not turn the progress around. So Trump understands that. And Trump wants to have an agreement before it gets too late.
I don’t disagree with your analysis. But let’s again come back to Iran. I understand you can’t talk about things you haven’t seen. And I respect that. That’s called journalistic integrity, by the way. But let’s talk about what we did see. What we did see is that the Russian government and the Iranian government have
entered into a strategic framework agreement that’s premised on the concept of a north-south economic corridor, which is of strategic importance to both nations. We have seen that Iran has also initiated a new Silk Road with China. I think last month the first train came out of Western China all the way across Central Asia, arriving in Iran.
Two great economic corridors are being developed. Interestingly enough, when you spoke of Iran, you started naming nations, Russia, China. But you’re describing the global south. You’re describing BRICS. And Iran is a member of BRICS. And so we have all this happening. Donald Trump has spoken in a way that indicates he fears BRICS.
He’s concerned about the economic power of BRICS. So now we come back to Iran. Iran to me is an essential element of BRICS, an essential element of BRICS, because of the role it plays in magnifying the economic potential of Russia and China. And now with these agreements, if you eliminate Iran, you can collapse BRICS.
It’s not a theory without merit. It appears that Donald Trump wants to eliminate Iran, this Israeli 12-day war that took place. It was initiated on the basis of, first of all, a betrayal by the United States to Iran by pretending to want to negotiate in good
faith about the nuclear issue and lulling the Iranians into a false sense of complacency. And then Israel launches a surprise attack that incorporates decapitation of Iranian leadership, part of a concerted effort to collapse Iran, to eliminate the leadership and collapse Iran. It failed. But we come back to what I said, some people feel that Russia betrayed Syria.
There’s many people that believe that because of the strategic security framework that had been, or the strategic framework that had been signed by the Russians and Iranians in January of this year, that Russia sort of stood by and did nothing while Iran was attacked by Israel in the
United States and that Iran is now vulnerable to decisive intervention by the United States. You mentioned earlier that this 12-day war you believe isn’t over, that it’s going to continue. And if it’s going to continue and we now fall into the same policy trap of syria will russia fall asleep will russia be diverted by other
agreement that you have mentioned there is no point there’s no paragraph where iran has to participate in our conflicts, or we must participate in their conflicts. We distance ourselves away from conflicts. But there are other paragraphs that compensate absence of the peace treaty like we have in China. That’s about economy, trades, the special forces partnership,
exchange of the experience, technologies, and et cetera. That’s what we help them with, and they help us with. But we’re already helping them, so that’s noticeable. And the example of a Russian and Ukrainian conflict and the example of a 12-day war, Iran and Israeli conflict. I don’t know, but let’s fantasize.
Let’s say supposedly it’s not just by chance that Iranians have a hypersound weapon. It’s a very serious thing. It’s a very serious matter. But I’m not a military expert, but I have spoken to many, and they told me that the most difficult thing in these rockets is not just to make it to fly with a high, crazy
The most important thing is to create a material, a composite that will not fall apart at this speed. Russia was able to reach that goal. Suddenly, Iran had the same thing. And the Hussais found the same material. So Yemen is a very rich country, and nobody knows what is on the bottom of their rocks.
Or even we could find the same rock as there too. That’s a fantasy. Iran will not fall apart, I do hope. But I cannot be 100% assured, because the enemy is strong, and they do everything for Iran to fall apart. If we speak about the 12-day war and Trump’s attack, I don’t agree with you.
I think that at this time, Trump was avoiding the conflict. At this time, yes, Trump was sucked into this conflict, just like Iran. Neither Trump nor Iran, they didn’t plan this conflict, and I want to make a conclusion that the total situation was foolish. Here they are having an agreement.
Trump makes a promise, and everything is open, and it happens what happens. And I have an understanding that Trump was suppressed. There was an inside fight. And there’s a great factor of Israeli lobby. And Trump could not overcome it 100%. But at a certain point, he could go around them formally. He got into the war formally.
a certain serious damage given, which Netanyahu was truly hoping for. So America waited many days, over a week. They were looking at everything was destroyed, the Israeli cities. Then in Iran, One of the militants, important militants, will say, we took out uranium. He speaks out publicly. And out of that, next day, Americans send their rockets.
And I said, oh, OK, uranium is done. We are one. Something with the same thing with the al-Baghdadi. And my opinion, Trump overplayed here. He really won Israeli lobby. He really saved Israel. And he didn’t get into the war. But we are thinking, since Israeli didn’t get what they wanted, which means Israeli,
Israel will do continue or restart the military. They continue to attack terrorists. They think, just like your opinions, and Democrats in the United States, that Trump is not forever. It’s a little bit off the norm. It’s like a small fever that you have. It’ll pass away, and he’s going to lose next Congress election,
then election at the presidential election. Somebody will come from the Democratic Party, and everything will come back. So Trump is temporary. And Trump, I think that’s my point of view. Maybe you don’t agree with me. He sees a mission. He thinks that he is here to put down the basement for something new, Trumpism as alternative.
And Republicans and Democrats, he will do everything possible that those ones – Kamala Harris, Biden, and others – would not join back. So will he be successful in that? I don’t know. Maybe not. maybe Democrats are right that they will wait and come back and they’ll forget
about Trump and they do everything their own way the time will show but I think Trump will do all types of attempts on every direction on the Middle East and Russian Ukrainian conflict and others that to not to allow internal enemies come
back to power well thank you very much for that insight let’s stay in the region but now move more to an economic geopolitical factor. Again, Iran, we talked about the north-south economic corridor, the New Silk Road, but there’s another economic pathway being pursued as we speak. Armenia and Azerbaijan have been struggling. You’ve reported from the Garno Karabakh.
Recently, there’s been efforts to bring together a peace. Donald Trump has played a central role in this. In fact, he just had the two leaders come to the United States and come into an agreement. And a key element of this agreement was solving the issue of how to link the Natchivan exclave with the main body of Azerbaijan,
not because Azerbaijan wanted it, but because Turkey needs it to create its own economic corridor into Central Asia that would compete with the Chinese Silk Road and disrupt the Russian north-south economic corridor. The Zangazar corridor, they call it, is a 46-kilometer stretch of road that goes along the border between Azerbaijan, Armenia, and connects.
And Donald Trump now has provided American security guarantees. They’re unspecified. We don’t know exactly what it means. But it appears that the United States has gone to a map where Russia is trying to draw an economic line from the north to the south, and China’s trying to draw an economic line east to west,
and Trump’s come in and drawn a line across it to stop it. What’s the… What is Donald Trump up to? I mean, what is the purpose of this? Is it going to succeed? Is it going to disrupt? What is Iran view? You just came from Iran. I would imagine that this represents something… It’s Iraq. Oh, Iraq. Okay.
But you know Iran. You’re familiar with Iran. Of course. Is this a strategic threat to Iran or is this just a lot of show and no substance?
It’s a very complicated story, in my opinion. Trump doesn’t understand what he does. With all the respect and his advisers in the region, they’re definitely smart people. But I think everything is so raw that to speak about something, we can’t. It’s a great PR company. It’s another pint.
There’s a calendar. And there’s a checkmark. Checkmark. Checkmark. Pakistan. Checkmark. Israeli. Checkmark. OK. Azerbaijan. Checkmark. But it’s very superficial view, top view from the surface. We know that conflict is not going to walk away just because two leaders met. They were fighting yesterday, and today they don’t love each other.
I think that Mr. Pashinyan and this corridor that we have, the Trump’s corridor they called, It’s a dangerous project, dangerous for us and Iran. And Trump is greatly interested in it, to pushing out the Russian interests and Iranian interests out of that, and closing himself in that region. Azerbaijan is ready. Azerbaijan think that
They will turn the page over, and they will write the new history, independent Azerbaijan from Russia, though they will never depend on Russia. It’s just friendship, friendly, cooperative partnership, total understanding. He graduated from the MGIMO, but now they have problems. We understand it’s not just out of blue.
just because a couple of bandits were arrested on the territory of our Russia. They were not even the citizens of Azerbaijan. They were citizens of Russia, but the nationality was from Azerbaijan. So for two, three people, two, three bandits, the whole state is not going to get crazy and enter such sanctions.
And you see where it turns into the open, that open agreement of Baku and Kyiv. For our partners, this topic is torn away from the post-Soviet. They always keep neutrality, and thank you for that. But they are pressured, though they are pressured. And here Mr. Alif decided to go all in. We understand that all are connected things.
They are the links of the same chain, working with the United States, Zengizuru Corridor, confrontation with Iran and Azerbaijan. That’s a long story, old story. that Israel feels itself at home in Azerbaijan. Everybody knows that. So this quarter is taken by Iranians as a threat to the national defense.
And after they announced about this project, Iranians spoke on a high level, and they said, we’re not going to let it happen. We will take proactive actions. I don’t know what they will do and what can they do or will they do, but there is a threat coming from Tehran. For Iranians, any re-bordering, it’s a red line.
It’s not – it’s not – it’s something that they will not stand with. Everybody said that, from small to big presidents of countries, announced that accent current, but Trump decided to go for this adventure. And nobody can say what would be the outcome. Hopefully, there wouldn’t be another conflict at the Caucasus,
which we’re really not interested in it. But our enemies are. So another fire on the side. So our attention would be dispersed. And I’m not against trading and cooperation. I’m not against alliance between Armenia and Azerbaijan. So they would be get along, forget about their claims. Someday it will happen between us and Ukrainians.
But we understand that Americans are not thinking about that. They’re trying to get their certain profit out of that situation. The profit is to push out Russia and Iran. So I think we need to do something about it.
Well, I want to thank you. We’ve just done a brief tour de force of the region. And again, all the focus is on Alaska. All the focus is on Putin and Trump and a strategic US-Russian relationship. But nowhere in the dialogue related to this summit meeting is a discussion about the Middle East.
And yet what we’ve discussed is strategic confrontation over Syria. strategic confrontation over Iran, and now a looming potential confrontation over the Southern Caucasus between the United States and Russia. And if we’re going to speak of bettering relations, we have to understand that you can’t just take a snapshot of a single spot of the earth.
You’ve got to look at the whole thing. It’s like being a, I’m not a medical professional, but, you know, some people speak of holistic healing, meaning that, you know, you don’t just treat one thing, you treat the whole body. If the United States and Russia would have a hope, of having a better relationship,
we have to treat the whole body, which means we have to start treating every region of the world with the respect that it deserves. I want to thank you very much for coming on today and helping guide our audience through this extraordinarily important but very difficult topic. Your expertise is greatly valued, and I appreciate it very much.
Wonderful conversation. This has been the Russia House. Thanks for tuning in. And again, I want to thank the National Unity Club for making this happen. I want to thank TAS, but more importantly, I want to thank my guest. Thank you very much.
oooooo